No proof of benefits of safe drug supply, report says

In January, an Alberta legislative committee began looking at safe drug supply programs, which are among the solutions proposed by community stakeholders to reduce the number of drug poisoning deaths in the province.

The committee asked the Center for Applied Research in Mental Health and Addiction (CARMHA), Simon Fraser University, to conduct a rapid research review on the topic.

Of the 19 research the authors reviewed, 15 of which were from British Columbia, there was no evidence that the public supply of addictive drugs is beneficial, they concluded.

The authors of the report (New window) also believe that many publications that advocate secure sourcing do so without defining the term and without leaning on basic details like eligibility, estimated costs and liability for negative consequences.

The research group’s report also uses the expression public supply of addictive drugsarguing that the expression secure supply would have presumed from the outcome of their examination.

Criticized methodology

[La façon dont l’examen a été mené] absolutely does not meet established scientific standardssays Thomas Kerr, researcher at the BC Center on Substance Use of British Columbia (BCCSU).

He adds that researchers from BCCSUBritish Columbia Center on Substance Use assessed the rapid review using a quality measurement tool and found it to be very low quality. He also points out that the report has not been peer-reviewed.

In a letter signed by more than 50 addiction researchers and clinicians, the signatories raise a number of concerns about the report.

• His conclusion is not based on the existing evidence.

• It does not accurately describe safer supply interventions.

• It does not accurately describe the preferences of people who use drugs.

• It misrepresents the research expertise of those currently evaluating safe supply.

• Recommendations that go beyond safe supply are not based on scientific evidence.

The letter (New window) was sent to the legislative committee on Monday.

Thomas Kerr says that the BCCSUBritish Columbia Center on Substance Use was asked to testify before the legislative committee, but declined because the committee did not speak to people who use drugs or their families and because he felt there was too much reliance on people who are used to criticizing safe supply.

Asked about the letter on Monday, Alberta Associate Minister of Dependencies Mike Ellis accused the media of not covering expert testimony the committee called and said he had no intend to comment until more coverage is done.

He also expressed concern about why the BCCSUBritish Columbia Center on Substance Use refused to testify before the committee.

A highly politicized issue

In an email, Julian Somers, director of the Center for Applied Research in Mental Health and Addiction (CARMHA), said he and his co-authors were satisfied that [leur] study has elicited such a passionate response from Canada’s ‘harm reduction’ establishment.

We advocate a profound change in the current practices of the environment, continued Julien Somers. Rather than “dependent on medication”, the CARMHACenter for Applied Research in Mental Health and Addiction would like the interventions to be based on science and address the root causes of addiction.

The committee was made up of MPs from the New Democratic Party (NDP) and the United Conservative Party. In April, NDP members all withdrew, accusing the government of including in the list of speakers only experts opposed to secure supply.

The committee was due to prepare a report with recommendations by April 30, but the deadline was extended to June 30.

With information from Michelle Bellefontaine