Evaluation of Drug Abuse by Hair Analysis and Self-Reported Use Among MSM Under PrEP: Results From a French Substudy of the ANRS-IPERGAY Trial.
Adult
Anti-HIV Agents
HIV Infections
/ drug therapy
Hair Analysis
Homosexuality, Male
/ psychology
Humans
Male
Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis
Prevalence
Self Report
Sexual Behavior
Sexual Partners
Sexual and Gender Minorities
/ psychology
Sexually Transmitted Diseases
/ prevention & control
Substance-Related Disorders
/ epidemiology
Surveys and Questionnaires
Unsafe Sex
Journal
Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999)
ISSN: 1944-7884
Titre abrégé: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100892005
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 04 2021
15 04 2021
Historique:
received:
18
09
2020
accepted:
23
11
2020
pubmed:
5
1
2021
medline:
24
9
2021
entrez:
4
1
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
We used the Agence nationale de Recherches sur le sida et les hépatites virales (ANRS)-IPERGAY trial to qualitatively and quantitatively measure drug use among men who have sex with men under preexposure prophylaxis using 2 different methods, to better understand and collectively respond to risky practices. We included 69 volunteers of the ANRS-IPERGAY trial. We measured drug use by 2 methods: (1) drug detection by hair analysis and (2) reported drug use by self-reported drug consumption. New psychoactive substances (NPS) and conventional drugs were detected in 53 of the 69 (77%) volunteers by hair analysis and in 39 of the 69 (57%) volunteers by questionnaires. On the 219 hair segments analyzed, the most commonly used drugs were cocaine in 47 of the 69 (68%), 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine/ecstasy in 31 of the 69 (45%), and NPS in 27 of the 69 (39%). On the 1061 collected questionnaires, the most commonly used drugs were cocaine in 31 of the 69 (45%), 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine/ecstasy in 29 of the 69 (42%), and NPS in 16 of the 69 (23%). Hair analysis detects more conventional drugs and/or NPS use (P < 0.05). Drug use identified by hair was significantly associated with a higher number of sexual partners in the past 2 months (P ≤ 0.001), more often casual partners (P ≤ 0.001), condomless anal sex (P ≤ 0.005), hardcore sexual practices (P ≤ 0.001), a higher number of sexually transmitted infections, and chemsex (P ≤ 0.05). Self-report drug use by questionnaires remains the reference tool for harm reduction at the individual level because of its feasibility and low cost. However, hair analysis is more sensitive, objectively assessing consumption, and interesting to understand uses and to be able to collectively respond to risky practices with adapted messages.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
We used the Agence nationale de Recherches sur le sida et les hépatites virales (ANRS)-IPERGAY trial to qualitatively and quantitatively measure drug use among men who have sex with men under preexposure prophylaxis using 2 different methods, to better understand and collectively respond to risky practices.
METHOD
We included 69 volunteers of the ANRS-IPERGAY trial. We measured drug use by 2 methods: (1) drug detection by hair analysis and (2) reported drug use by self-reported drug consumption.
RESULTS
New psychoactive substances (NPS) and conventional drugs were detected in 53 of the 69 (77%) volunteers by hair analysis and in 39 of the 69 (57%) volunteers by questionnaires. On the 219 hair segments analyzed, the most commonly used drugs were cocaine in 47 of the 69 (68%), 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine/ecstasy in 31 of the 69 (45%), and NPS in 27 of the 69 (39%). On the 1061 collected questionnaires, the most commonly used drugs were cocaine in 31 of the 69 (45%), 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine/ecstasy in 29 of the 69 (42%), and NPS in 16 of the 69 (23%). Hair analysis detects more conventional drugs and/or NPS use (P < 0.05). Drug use identified by hair was significantly associated with a higher number of sexual partners in the past 2 months (P ≤ 0.001), more often casual partners (P ≤ 0.001), condomless anal sex (P ≤ 0.005), hardcore sexual practices (P ≤ 0.001), a higher number of sexually transmitted infections, and chemsex (P ≤ 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
Self-report drug use by questionnaires remains the reference tool for harm reduction at the individual level because of its feasibility and low cost. However, hair analysis is more sensitive, objectively assessing consumption, and interesting to understand uses and to be able to collectively respond to risky practices with adapted messages.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33394814
doi: 10.1097/QAI.0000000000002610
pii: 00126334-202104150-00006
doi:
Substances chimiques
Anti-HIV Agents
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
552-561Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
J.-M.M. reports receiving financial support as an adviser for Gilead Sciences, Merck, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and ViiV Healthcare, and research grants from Gilead Sciences and Merck. F.R. reports receiving financial support as an adviser for Gilead Sciences, Merck, Janssen, and ViiV Healthcare, and research grants from Gilead Sciences. B.S. reports receiving support as an adviser for Gilead Sciences, Merck, Janssen, and Bristol-Myers Squibb, and research grants from ANRS, Fondation Pierre Bergé, Gilead Sciences, and Merck. L.C. has received research grants from ViiV Healthcare and Merck, personal fees from Mylan, and nonfinancial support from BMS, Gilead Science, Janssen Cilag, MSD, and ViiV Healthcare. G.P. has received consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Tibotec, Nephrotek, Gilead, Roche, MSD, Abbott, and ViiV Healthcare, and research grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Gilead Sciences. E.C. reports receiving financial support as an adviser for Janssen, Merck, ViiV, and Novartis, and nonfinancial support from Gilead Sciences. J.C. reports receiving financial support as an adviser for Gilead Sciences, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and AbbVie. L.M. reports receiving grants from ANRS, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and Gilead. G. Peytavin has received travel grants, consultancy fees, honoraria, or study grants from various pharmaceutical companies, including Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Merck, and ViiV Healthcare. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Références
Debruyne D, Le Boisselier R. Emerging drugs of abuse: current perspectives on synthetic cannabinoids. Subst Abuse Rehabil. 2015;6:113–129.
European Drug Report 2018: Trends and Developments EMCDDA. Lisbon, Portugal: EMCDDA; 2018.
Brunt TM, Poortman A, Niesink RJM, et al. Instability of the ecstasy market and a new kid on the block: mephedrone. J Psychopharmacol Oxf Engl. 2011;25:1543–1547.
Carhart-Harris RL, King LA, Nutt DJ. A web-based survey on mephedrone. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2011;118:19–22.
Zaami S, Giorgetti R, Pichini S, et al. Synthetic cathinones related fatalities: an update. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2018;22:268–274.
Weinstein AM, Rosca P, Fattore L, et al,. Synthetic cathinone and cannabinoid designer drugs pose a major risk for public health. Front Psychiatry. 2017;8:156.
Liakoni E, Yates C, Dines AM, et al. Acute recreational drug toxicity: comparison of self-reports and results of immunoassay and additional analytical methods in a multicenter European case series. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97:e9784.
Karila L, Megarbane B, Cottencin O, et al. Synthetic cathinones: a new public health problem. Curr Neuropharmacol. 2015;13:12–20.
Karila L, Billieux J, Benyamina A, et al. The effects and risks associated to mephedrone and methylone in humans: a review of the preliminary evidences. Brain Res Bull. 2016;126:61–67.
Batisse A, Grégoire M, Marillier M, et al. Cathinones use in Paris [in French]. L'Encephale. 2016;42:354–360.
Bourne A, Reid D, Hickson F, et al. “Chemsex” and harm reduction need among gay men in South London. Int J Drug Policy. 2015;26:1171–1176.
Melendez-Torres GJ, Bourne A. Illicit drug use and its association with sexual risk behaviour among MSM: more questions than answers? Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2016;29:58–63.
Bourne A, Reid D, Hickson F, et al. Illicit drug use in sexual settings (“chemsex”) and HIV/STI transmission risk behaviour among gay men in South London: findings from a qualitative study. Sex Transm Infect. 2015;91:564–568.
Sewell J, Miltz A, Lampe FC, et al. Poly drug use, chemsex drug use, and associations with sexual risk behaviour in HIV-negative men who have sex with men attending sexual health clinics. Int J Drug Policy. 2017;43:33–43.
Bracchi M, Stuart D, Castles R, et al. Increasing use of “party drugs” in people living with HIV on antiretrovirals: a concern for patient safety. AIDS Lond Engl. 2015;29:1585–1592.
McCall H, Adams N, Mason D, et al. What is chemsex and why does it matter? BMJ. 2015;351:h5790.
Roux P, Fressard L, Suzan-Monti M, et al. Is on-demand HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis a suitable tool for men who have sex with men who practice chemsex? Results from a substudy of the ANRS-IPERGAY trial. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2018;79:e69–e75.
Larabi IA, Fabresse N, Etting I, et al. Prevalence of new psychoactive substances in Paris ans its suburbs using hair analysis: a cross sectional study. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2019;204:107508.
Larabi A, Martin M, Fabresse N, et al. Hair testing for 3-fluorofentanyl, methoxyacetylfentanyl, carfentanil, acetylfentanyl and fentanyl by LC/MS/MS after unintentional overdose. Forensic Toxicol. 2020;38:277–286.
Tabb ZJ, Mmbaga BT, Gandhi M, et al. Antiretroviral drug concentrations in hair are associated with virologic outcomes among young people living with HIV in Tanzania. AIDS. 2018;32:1115–1123.
Molina JM, Capitant C, Spire B, et al. On-demand preexposure prophylaxis in men at high risk for HIV-1 infection. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:2237–2246.
Molina JM, Charreau I, Spire B, et al. Efficacy, safety, and effect on sexual behaviour of on-demand pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV in men who have sex with men: an observational cohort study. Lancet HIV. 2017;4:e402–e410.
Pialoux G, Delaugerre C, Cotte L, et al. Pre-exposure prophylaxis: a useful tool to prevent human immunodeficiency virus infection? Clin Microbiol Infect. 2016;22:757–767. Review.
Fabresse N, Larabi IA, Stratton T, et al. Development of a sensitive untargeted LC-HRMS screening devoted to hair analysis through a shared MS 2 spectra database: a step towards early detection of new psychoactive substances. Drug Test Anal. 2019;11:697–708.
Alvarez JC, Etting I, Abe E, et al. Identification and quantification of 4-methylethcathinone (4-MEC) and 3,4-methylenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV) in hair using LC-MS/MS after chronic administration. Forensic Sci Int. 2017;270:39–45.
Alvarez JC, Lasne L, Etting I, et al. Hair analysis do not allow to discriminate between acute and chronic administration of a drug in young children. Int J Leg Med. 2018;132:165–172.
McCormack S, et al. Pre-exposure prophylaxis to prevent the acquisition of HIV-1 infection (PROUD): effectiveness results from the pilot phase of a pragmatic open-label randomised trial. Lancet Lond Engl. 2016;387:53–60.
Dolling DI, Desai M, McOwan A, et al. An analysis of baseline data from the PROUD study: an open-label randomised trial of pre-exposure prophylaxis. Trials. 2016;17:163.
Choopanya K, Martin M, Suntharasamai P, et al. Antiretroviral prophylaxis for HIV infection in injecting drug users in Bangkok, Thailand (the Bangkok Tenofovir Study): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2013;381:2083–2090.
Saxton P, Newcombe D, Ahmed A, et al. Illicit drug use among New Zealand gay and bisexual men: prevalence and association with sexual health behaviours. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2018;37:180–187.
HIV prevalence estimate among men who have sex with men attending gay venues in five French cities—PREVAGAY 2015. Available at: http://invs.santepubliquefrance.fr/beh/2017/18/2017_18_1.html . Accessed July 23, 2018.
Tomkins A, George R, Kliner M. Sexualised drug taking among men who have sex with men: a systematic review. Perspect Public Health. 2019;139:23–33.
Sewell J, Cambiano V, Miltz A, et al. Changes in recreational drug use, drug use associated with chemsex, and HIV-related behaviours, among HIV-negative men who have sex with men in London and Brighton, 2013–2016. Sex Transm Infect. 2018;94:494–501.
Palamar JJ, Salomone A, Vincenti M, et al. Detection of “bath salts” and other novel psychoactive substances in hair samples of ecstasy/MDMA/“Molly” users. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2016;161:200–205.
Alvarez JC, Fabresse N, Larabi IA. Prevalence and surveillance of synthetic cathinones use by hair analysis: an update review. Curr Pharm Des. 2017;23:1–9.
White CM. Mephedrone and 3,4-methylenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV): synthetic cathinones with serious health implications. J Clin Pharmacol. 2016;56:1319–1325.
Santos GM, Coffin P, Santos D, et al. Feasibility, acceptability, and tolerability of targeted naltrexone for nondependent methamphetamine-using and binge-drinking men who have sex with men. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2016;72:21–30.
Ahmed AK, Weatherburn P, Reid D, et al. Social norms related to combining drugs and sex (“chemsex”) among gay men in South London. Int J Drug Policy. 2016;38:29–35.
Hirshfield S, Schrimshaw EW, Stall RD, et al. Drug use, sexual risk, and syndemic production among men who have sex with men who engage in group sexual encounters. Am J Public Health. 2015;105:1849–1858.
McCarty-Caplan D, Jantz I, Swartz J. MSM and drug use: a latent class analysis of drug use and related sexual risk behaviors. AIDS Behav. 2014;18:1339–1351.
Edmundson C, Heinsbroek E, Glass R, et al. Sexualised drug use in the United Kingdom (UK): a review of the literature. Int J Drug Policy. 2018;55:131–148.
Available at: https://www.asam.org/docs/default-source/quality-science/appropriate_use_of_drug_testing_in_clinical-1-(7).pdf?sfvrsn=2 . Accessed November 4, 2020.
Gryczynski J, Schwartz RP, Mitchell SG, et al. Hair drug testing results and self-reported drug use among primary care patients with moderate-risk illicit drug use. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2014;141:44–50.