Advertisement

Journal of Urban Health

, Volume 93, Issue 1, pp 117–130 | Cite as

Neighborhood-Level and Spatial Characteristics Associated with Lay Naloxone Reversal Events and Opioid Overdose Deaths

  • Christopher RoweEmail author
  • Glenn-Milo Santos
  • Eric Vittinghoff
  • Eliza Wheeler
  • Peter Davidson
  • Philip O. Coffin
Article

Abstract

There were over 23,000 opioid overdose deaths in the USA in 2013, and opioid-related mortality is increasing. Increased access to naloxone, particularly through community-based lay naloxone distribution, is a widely supported strategy to reduce opioid overdose mortality; however, little is known about the ecological and spatial patterns of the distribution and utilization of lay naloxone. This study aims to investigate the neighborhood-level correlates and spatial relationships of lay naloxone distribution and utilization and opioid overdose deaths. We determined the locations of lay naloxone distribution sites and the number of unintentional opioid overdose deaths and reported reversal events in San Francisco census tracts (n = 195) from 2010 to 2012. We used Wilcoxon rank-sum tests to compare census tract characteristics across tracts adjacent and not adjacent to distribution sites and multivariable negative binomial regression models to assess the association between census tract characteristics, including distance to the nearest site, and counts of opioid overdose deaths and naloxone reversal events. Three hundred forty-two opioid overdose deaths and 316 overdose reversals with valid location data were included in our analysis. Census tracts including or adjacent to a distribution site had higher income inequality, lower percentage black or African American residents, more drug arrests, higher population density, more overdose deaths, and more reversal events (all p < 0.05). In multivariable analysis, greater distance to the nearest distribution site (up to a distance of 4000 m) was associated with a lower count of Naloxone reversals [incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 0.51 per 500 m increase, 95% CI 0.39–0.67, p < 0.001] but was not significantly associated with opioid overdose deaths. These findings affirm that locating lay naloxone distribution sites in areas with high levels of substance use and overdose risk facilitates reversals of opioid overdoses in those immediate areas but suggests that alternative delivery methods may be necessary to reach individuals in other areas with less concentrated risk.

Keywords

Opioids Overdose Naloxone Spatial analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIDA R03 DA038084). Authors would like to acknowledge those who participated in the establishment and early conduct of the DOPE Project, including Pete Morse, Rachel McClean, Emalie Huriaux, Lauren Enteen, and Alex Kral, as well as medical director Josh Bamberger.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Disclaimer

The authors are solely responsible for the content of this article, which does not necessarily represent the official views of the San Francisco Department of Public Health

References

  1. 1.
    United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. World Drug Report 2014Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Degenhardt L, Hall W. Extent of illicit drug use and dependence, and their contribution to the global burden of disease. Lancet. 2012; 379(9810): 55–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dart RC, Surratt HL, Cicero TJ, et al. Trends in opioid analgesic abuse and mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2015; 372(3): 241–248.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Warner M, Hedegaard H, Chen LH. Trends in drug-poisoning deaths involving opioid analgesics and heroin: United States, 1999–2012. In: National Center for Health Statistics CfDCaP, ed; 2014Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Unick GJ, Rosenblum D, Mars S, Ciccarone D. Intertwined epidemics: national demographic trends in hospitalizations for heroin- and opioid-related overdoses, 1993–2009. PLoS One. 2013; 8(2), e54496.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hedegaard HC, L.H., Warner M. Drug-poisoning Deaths Involving Heroin: United States, 2000–2013: National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2015Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rudd RA, Paulozzi LJ, Bauer MJ, et al. Increases in heroin overdose deaths—28 States, 2010 to 2012. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2014; 63(39): 849–854.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wheeler E, Jones TS, Gilbert MK, Davidson PJ. Opioid overdose prevention programs providing naloxone to laypersons—United States, 2014. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2015; 64(23): 631–635.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    World Health Organization. WHO model list of essential medicines (18th Edition); 2013Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    World Health Organization. Consolidated guidelines on HIV prevention, treatment and care for key populations. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2014.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    American Medical Association. Policy D-95.987: prevention of opioid overdose. In: Association AM, ed; 2015Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    American Public Health Association. Policy 20133: reducing opioid overdose through education and naloxone distribution. In: Organization APH, ed; 2013Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Davis CS, Southwell JK, Niehaus VR, Walley AY, Dailey MW. Emergency medical services naloxone access: a national systematic legal review. Acad Emerg Med. 2014; 21(10): 1173–1177.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Davis CS, Walley AY, Bridger CM. Lessons learned from the expansion of naloxone access in Massachusetts and North Carolina. J Law Med Ethics. 2015; 43(Suppl 1): 19–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    LawAtlas—the policy surveillance portal. Naloxone overdose prevention laws map. Available at: http://lawatlas.org/query?dataset=laws-regulating-administration-of-naloxone. Accessed 15 Oct 2015.
  16. 16.
    Bennett T, Holloway K. The impact of take-home naloxone distribution and training on opiate overdose knowledge and response: an evaluation of the THN Project in Wales. Drugs: education, prevention, and policy. 2012; 19(4): 320–328.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Strang J, Manning V, Mayet S, et al. Overdose training and take-home naloxone for opiate users: prospective cohort study of impact on knowledge and attitudes and subsequent management of overdoses. Addiction. 2008; 103(10): 1648–1657.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wagner KD, Valente TW, Casanova M, et al. Evaluation of an overdose prevention and response training programme for injection drug users in the Skid Row area of Los Angeles. CA Int J Drug Policy May. 2010; 21(3): 186–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Walley AY, Xuan Z, Hackman HH, et al. Opioid overdose rates and implementation of overdose education and nasal naloxone distribution in Massachusetts: interrupted time series analysis. BMJ. 2013; 346: f174.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Davidson PJ, Wheeler E, Proudfoot J, Ronghui X, Wagner KD. Abstract #150: Naloxone distribution to drug users in California and opioid-related overdose death rates. Paper presented at: College on Problems of Drug Dependence 77th Annual Meeting, 2015; Phoenix, ArizonaGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hembree C, Galea S, Ahern J, et al. The urban built environment and overdose mortality in New York City neighborhoods. Health Place. 2005; 11(2): 147–156.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Galea S, Ahern J, Vlahov D, et al. Income distribution and risk of fatal drug overdose in New York City neighborhoods. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2003; 70(2): 139–148.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bohnert AS, Nandi A, Tracy M, et al. Policing and risk of overdose mortality in urban neighborhoods. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2011; 113(1): 62–68.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fuller CM, Borrell LN, Latkin CA, et al. Effects of race, neighborhood, and social network on age at initiation of injection drug use. Am J Public Health. 2005; 95(4): 689–695.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cerda M, Ransome Y, Keyes KM, et al. Revisiting the role of the urban environment in substance use: the case of analgesic overdose fatalities. Am J Public Health. 2013; 103(12): 2252–2260.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gotsens M, Mari-Dell'Olmo M, Martinez-Beneito MA, et al. Socio-economic inequalities in mortality due to injuries in small areas of ten cities in Spain (MEDEA Project). Accid Anal Prev. 2011; 43(5): 1802–1810.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Marzuk PM, Tardiff K, Leon AC, et al. Poverty and fatal accidental drug overdoses of cocaine and opiates in New York City: an ecological study. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 1997; 23(2): 221–228.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Boardman JD, Finch BK, Ellison CG, Williams DR, Jackson JS. Neighborhood disadvantage, stress, and drug use among adults. J Health Soc Behav. 2001; 42(2): 151–165.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Galea S, Ahern J, Vlahov D. Contextual determinants of drug use risk behavior: a theoretic framework. J Urban Health. Dec 2003;80(4 Suppl 3):iii50-58Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nandi A, Galea S, Ahern J, Bucciarelli A, Vlahov D, Tardiff K. What explains the association between neighborhood-level income inequality and the risk of fatal overdose in New York City? Soc Sci Med. 2006; 63(3): 662–674.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hannon L, Cuddy MM. Neighborhood ecology and drug dependence mortality: an analysis of New York City census tracts. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2006; 32(3): 453–463.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ross CE, Jang SJ. Neighborhood disorder, fear, and mistrust: the buffering role of social ties with neighbors. Am J Community Psychol. 2000; 28(4): 401–420.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kawachi I, Kennedy BP. Income inequality and health: pathways and mechanisms. Health Serv Res. 1999; 34(1 Pt 2): 215–227.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Baca CT, Grant KJ. What heroin users tell us about overdose. J Addict Dis. 2007; 26(4): 63–68.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Dovey K, Fitzgerald J, Choi Y. Safety becomes danger: dilemmas of drug-use in public space. Health Place. 2001; 7(4): 319–331.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Pollini RA, McCall L, Mehta SH, Vlahov D, Strathdee SA. Non-fatal overdose and subsequent drug treatment among injection drug users. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2006; 83(2): 104–110.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Tobin KE, Davey MA, Latkin CA. Calling emergency medical services during drug overdose: an examination of individual, social and setting correlates. Addiction. 2005; 100(3): 397–404.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Tracy M, Piper TM, Ompad D, et al. Circumstances of witnessed drug overdose in New York City: implications for intervention. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2005; 79(2): 181–190.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Schroeder JR, Latkin CA, Hoover DR, Curry AD, Knowlton AR, Celentano DD. Illicit drug use in one's social network and in one's neighborhood predicts individual heroin and cocaine use. Ann Epidemiol. 2001; 11(6): 389–394.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Galea S, Rudenstine S, Vlahov D. Drug use, misuse, and the urban environment. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2005; 24(2): 127–136.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Latkin CA, Forman V, Knowlton A, Sherman S. Norms, social networks, and HIV-related risk behaviors among urban disadvantaged drug users. Soc Sci Med. 2003; 56(3): 465–476.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Latkin CA, Hua W, Forman VL. The relationship between social network characteristics and exchanging sex for drugs or money among drug users in Baltimore, MD. USA Int J STD AIDS Nov. 2003; 14(11): 770–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Cooper HL, Bossak B, Tempalski B, Des Jarlais DC, Friedman SR. Geographic approaches to quantifying the risk environment: drug-related law enforcement and access to syringe exchange programmes. Int J Drug Policy. 2009; 20(3): 217–226.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    de Montigny L, Moudon AV, Leigh BC, Kim SY. A spatial analysis of the physical and social environmental correlates of discarded needles. Health Place. 2011; 17(3): 757–766.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Stopka TJ, Lutnick A, Wenger LD, Deriemer K, Geraghty EM, Kral AH. Demographic, risk, and spatial factors associated with over-the-counter syringe purchase among injection drug users. Am J Epidemiol. 2012; 176(1): 14–23.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Martinez AN, Mobley LR, Lorvick J, Novak SP, Lopez A, Kral AH. Spatial analysis of HIV positive injection drug users in San Francisco, 1987 to 2005. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014; 11(4): 3937–3955.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Fulcher C, Kaukinen C. Mapping and visualizing the location HIV service providers: an exploratory spatial analysis of Toronto neighborhoods. AIDS Care. 2005; 17(3): 386–396.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Kaukinen C, Fulcher C. Mapping the social demography and location of HIV services across Toronto neighbourhoods. Health Soc Care Community. 2006; 14(1): 37–48.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Heimer R, Barbour R, Shaboltas AV, Hoffman IF, Kozlov AP. Spatial distribution of HIV prevalence and incidence among injection drugs users in St Petersburg: implications for HIV transmission. AIDS. 2008; 22(1): 123–130.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Enteen L, Bauer J, McLean R, et al. Overdose prevention and naloxone prescription for opioid users in San Francisco. J Urban Health. 2010; 87(6): 931–941.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Rowe C, Santos GM, Vittinghoff E, Wheeler E, Davidson P, Coffin PO. Predictors of participant engagement and naloxone utilization in a community-based naloxone distribution program. Addiction. 2015; 110(8): 1301–1310.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Davidson PJ, McLean RL, Kral AH, Gleghorn AA, Edlin BR, Moss AR. Fatal heroin-related overdose in San Francisco, 1997–2000: a case for targeted intervention. J Urban Health. 2003; 80(2): 261–273.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Visconti AJ, Santos GM, Lemos NP, Burke C, Coffin PO. Opioid overdose deaths in the city and county of San Francisco: prevalence, distribution, and disparities. J Urban Health. Jun 16 2015Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    City and County of San Francisco. Census 2010: census tracts for San Francisco (Zipped Shapefile Format); 2013Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    City and County of San Francisco. Streets of San Francisco (Zipped Shapefile Format); 2015Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    United States Census Bureau. B19083: Gini Index of Income Inequality. 20092013 5-Year American Community Survey. 2013Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    United States Census Bureau. S1903: median income in the past 12 months (in 2013 inflation-adjusted dollars). 20092013 5-Year American Community Survey. 2013Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    San Francisco Police Department Crime Incident Reporting System. SFPD Incidents—from 1 January 2003; 2015Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    United States Census Bureau. P3: race. 2010 Census Summary File 1. 2010Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    United States Census Bureau. P1: total population. 2010 Census Summary File 1. 2010Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Penchansky R, Thomas JW. The concept of access: definition and relationship to consumer satisfaction. Med Care. 1981; 19(2): 127–140.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Rockwell R, Des Jarlais DC, Friedman SR, Perlis TE, Paone D. Geographic proximity, policy and utilization of syringe exchange programmes. AIDS Care. 1999; 11(4): 437–442.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Church RL, ReVelle CS. The maximal covering location problem. Papers of the Regional Science Association. 1974; 32: 101–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Zaller ND, Yokell MA, Green TC, Gaggin J, Case P. The feasibility of pharmacy-based naloxone distribution interventions: a qualitative study with injection drug users and pharmacy staff in Rhode Island. Subst Use Misuse. 2013; 48(8): 590–599.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Rose VJ, Lutnick A, Kral AH. Feasibility of providing interventions for injection drug users in pharmacy settings: a case study among San Francisco pharmacists. J Psychoactive Drugs. 2014; 46(3): 226–232.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Green TC, Dauria EF, Bratberg J, Davis CS, Walley AY. Orienting patients to greater opioid safety: models of community pharmacy-based naloxone. Harm Reduct J. 2015; 12: 25.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Binswanger IA, Koester S, Mueller SR, Gardner E, Goddard K, Glanz J. Abstract #53: Overdose education and naloxone for patients prescribed opioids in primary care: a qualitative study. Paper presented at: College on Problems of Drug Dependence 77th Annual Meeting, 2015; Phoenix ArizonaGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Drainoni M, Ellison J, Koppelman E, et al. Abstract #167: Implementing routine emergency department naloxone rescue kits for patients at risk of opioid overdose. Paper presented at: College on Problems of Drug Dependence 77th Annual Meeting, 2015; Phoenix, ArizonaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The New York Academy of Medicine 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher Rowe
    • 1
    Email author
  • Glenn-Milo Santos
    • 1
    • 2
  • Eric Vittinghoff
    • 2
  • Eliza Wheeler
    • 3
  • Peter Davidson
    • 4
  • Philip O. Coffin
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.San Francisco Department of Public HealthSan FranciscoUSA
  2. 2.University of California, San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA
  3. 3.Drug Overdose Prevention and Education Project, Harm Reduction CoalitionOaklandUSA
  4. 4.University of California, San DiegoCaliforniaUSA

Personalised recommendations