Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31924209›Full record

ReviewHarm reduction journal2020

Stimulant safe supply: a potential opportunity to respond to the overdose epidemic.

Taylor Fleming, Allison Barker, Andrew Ivsins, Sheila Vakharia, Ryan McNeil

Open access · goldAbstract readLetterReview
In one paragraph

Review in Harm reduction journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed
10.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

53 citing papers in PubMed, 86 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Using illicit drugs alone in Vancouver, Canada: a gender-based analysis.Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Taylor FlemingBritish Columbia Centre on Substance Use, 400-1045 Howe Street, Vancouver, BC, V6Z 2A9, Canada.
Allison BarkerBritish Columbia Centre on Substance Use, 400-1045 Howe Street, Vancouver, BC, V6Z 2A9, Canada.
Andrew IvsinsBritish Columbia Centre on Substance Use, 400-1045 Howe Street, Vancouver, BC, V6Z 2A9, Canada.
Sheila VakhariaDrug Policy Alliance, 131 West 33rd Street, 15th Floor, New York, NY, 10001, USA.
Ryan McNeilBritish Columbia Centre on Substance Use, 400-1045 Howe Street, Vancouver, BC, V6Z 2A9, Canada. ryan.mcneil@yale.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-4452-0764
University of British Columbia · CABritish Columbia Centre on Substance Use · CADrug Policy Alliance · USSt. Paul's Hospital · CA

Funding

An ethno-epidemiological study of the implementation and effectiveness of an innovative and comprehensive response to the opioid epidemicR01DA044181 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA · PI Thomas Kerr, Ryan McNeil · 2017 to 2026
$4.0M
CIHRNIDA NIH HHS R01 DA044181
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOccurring against the backdrop of an overdose crisis, stimulant use and stimulant-involved deaths in North America are increasing at an alarming rate. Many of these deaths are being attributed to fentanyl and related analogs, which have been increasingly found within street-level stimulant supplies. Within this, people experiencing socio-economic marginalization are at the greatest risk of overdose and other harms from adulterated stimulants. Current treatments for stimulant use disorder have limited effectiveness, and even less applicability to the lived realities of marginalized stimulant users. Emerging technologies, such as drug checking, are being implemented to support safer stimulant use, but the accessibility and utility of these technologies to stimulant users are framed by experiences of vulnerability that render them largely ineffective. STIMULANT SAFE SUPPLY: Solutions that provide a legal and safe supply of non-adulterated stimulants of known quality, and within a health care framework, are needed to directly address the risk of an increasingly adulterated stimulant supply. Similar innovative opioid-focused interventions are being piloted with medications that have a similar pharmacological effect as their illicit counterparts. While there are currently no approved pharmacotherapies for stimulant use, research has demonstrated a number of stimulant medications that are promising substitutes for cocaine and methamphetamine use. Much like with opioid-focused pharmacotherapies, having a consistent and safe supply of stimulants can lead to improved health outcomes and will drastically reduce overdose risk. However, for a stimulant safe supply intervention to be a success, it must provide the high and performance-enhancing effects that people seek from the illicit market, which requires doses and user agency that trials to date have not provided.

conclusionEfforts are needed to investigate the feasibility of pharmacological stimulant-based interventions that address safe supply needs. The promise of similar opioid-focused approaches in addressing both overdose-related risks and experiences related to vulnerability underscores the need to advance safe supply approaches targeted towards people who use stimulants. Given the current overdose crisis and rising stimulant use across North America, the implementation and evaluation of such novel stimulant-focused interventions should be a public health priority.

Indexed as

Harm ReductionAmphetamine-Related DisordersAnalgesics, OpioidDrug ContaminationDrug OverdoseFentanylHumansAnalgesics, OpioidFentanylDrug treatmentOverdosePeople who use drugsStimulant use

Identifiers

PMID31924209
PMCPMC6954588
OpenAlexW3000252084

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.