Heating Injection Drug Preparation Equipment Used for Opioid Injection May Reduce HIV Transmission Associated With Sharing Equipment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: London, Canada, experienced an HIV outbreak among persons who inject drugs despite widespread distribution of harm reduction equipment. Hydromorphone controlled-release (HMC) is the local opioid of choice. Injection drug preparation equipment (IDPE; ie, cookers and filters) is often shared and reused because of the perception that there is residual HMC in the IDPE after use. The purpose of this study was to investigate the mechanisms of HIV transmission in this context. METHODS: Residual hydromorphone, (controlled-release or immediate-release), remaining in the IDPE, was measured with liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry, in conditions replicating persons who inject drug use. HIV was added to IDPE in the presence HMC, hydromorphone immediate-release, or microcrystalline cellulose (an HMC drug excipient). HIV viral persistence was measured by reverse transcriptase activity and infectivity of indicator Tzm-bl cells. RESULTS: Forty-five percent of HMC remained in the IDPE after the first aspiration of solution, with no change after heating. HIV persistence and infectivity were preserved in the presence of HMC, and less so with microcrystalline cellulose. Heating the IDPE rapidly inactivated HIV. CONCLUSIONS: Sharing of IDPE is a potential means of HIV transmission. HMC encourages IDPE sharing because of the residual drug in the IDPE, and the HMC excipients preserve HIV viability. Heating IDPE before aspiration of the opioid may be a harm reduction strategy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".