Monthly Reports

February 2024 Monthly Report

Derek Robinson

• 11 min read
The February window art at Substance
The February window art at Substance

In this blog post, we discuss our February 2024 report and provide more information on how to interpret the results. The PDF report can be found at the end.

Key findings:

  • The median fentanyl concentration found across all drug categories was 20%
  • The median fluorofentanyl concentration found across all drug categories was 6%
  • Carfentanil was found in 2 expected opioid - down samples with concentrations of 0.1% and 1%
  • Benzodiazepines were found in 44.0% (153/348) of expected opioid-down samples
  • Bromazolam, the most common benzo found within opioid-down, was found in 117 opioid-down samples with a median concentration of 6% and maximum concentration of greater than 25.0%
  • Xylazine was found in 18 expected opioid - down samples with a median concentration of 1% and a maximum concentration of 33%

Insight for the February 2024 Monthly Report

This blog, and the associated pdf report, breakdown our sample counts into six categories:

  • Samples received through direct service provision in Victoria, where service users are bringing samples into the Substance storefront. These samples are labelled as “Substance” samples in the figures/tables of this blog post
  • Samples received through direct service provision in Campbell River, where service users bring samples either to the Vancouver Island Mental Health Society (VIHMS) or Campbell River AVI Health & Community Services. Samples received through indirect service provision in Campbell River via the sample submission kiosk at the Campbell River hospital. These samples are labelled as “Campbell River”
  • Samples received through direct service provision in the Comox Valley, where service users are bringing samples to AVI Health & Community Services in Courtenay, BC. These samples are labelled as “Comox Valley”
  • Samples received through direct service provision in the Cowichan Valley, where service users bring samples to the Duncan Lookout Society OPS in Duncan, BC. These samples are labelled as “Duncan”
  • Samples received through direct service provision in Port Alberni, where service users bring samples into Port Alberni Shelter Society’s OPS. These samples are labelled as “Port Alberni”
  • Samples received through direct service provision in Port Hardy, where service users bring samples into Island Health Mental Health and Substance Use. These samples are labelled as “Port Hardy”
  • Samples received through indirect service provision, where samples are collected through no-contact drop-off envelopes, are collected by harm reduction workers and other community members at supported housing sites, overdose prevention sites, supervised consumption locations, and the Victoria General Hospital sample submission kiosk. These samples are labelled as “Outreach” samples in the figures/tables herein.

Drug types

Fig. 1 shows the prevalence of each expected drug category checked, split by sample collection location/method.

Figure 1. Prevalence of drug classes checked during February split by sample collection/method. Bars are stacked by the percentage of samples in each drug class, with the individual percentages overlaid. Drug classes which represent less than 1% of a given location’s total do not have their percent overlaid onto the bar.
Figure 1. Prevalence of drug classes checked during February split by sample collection/method.Bars are stacked by the percentage of samples in each drug class, with the individual percentages overlaid. Drug classes which represent less than 1% of a given location’s total do not have their percent overlaid onto the bar.
Table 1: Sample counts per location
Table 1: Sample counts per location

The Sample Breakdown

For the majority of samples checked, we confirm the presence of the expected drug with no additional active compounds detected above the limitations of the drug check. The bar charts below highlight a few classes of drugs, differentiating samples where only the expected active component was detected - from situations when other unexpected active components were detected.

Figure 2. Compositional breakdown by drug class and sample collection location/method. Bars are stacked by the percentage of samples in each category, with the relative proportions overlaid. Proportions less than 1% are not overlaid for clarity. “Dark Blue” groups samples that were *as expected* with no other notable compounds detected, “Purple” groups samples that contained the expected drug and contained other unexpected active(s), “Magenta” groups samples that did not contain the expected active but did contain unexpected active(s), Salmon groups samples where we were unable to determine the composition (e.g. scenarios where we do not have appropriate reference spectra), and Lime displays samples where no active compounds were detected.
Figure 2. Compositional breakdown by drug class and sample collection location/method. Bars are stacked by the percentage of samples in each category, with the relative proportions overlaid. Proportions less than 1% are not overlaid for clarity. “Dark Blue” groups samples that were *as expected* with no other notable compounds detected, “Purple” groups samples that contained the expected drug and contained other unexpected active(s), “Magenta” groups samples that did not contain the expected active but did contain unexpected active(s), Salmon groups samples where we were unable to determine the composition (e.g. scenarios where we do not have appropriate reference spectra), and Lime displays samples where no active compounds were detected.

Ketamine

93.5% (43/46) of expected dissociative samples (45 ketamine samples, 1 O-PCE sample) checked in February were confirmed to be ketamine with no other active compounds detected.

2 expected ketamine samples (all from Victoria) contained Ketamine base in addition to ketamine

1 expected ketamine sample did not contain any actives and was found to only contain water

Cocaine

86.7% (98/112) of expected cocaine samples (7 cocaine HCl/soft, 6 cocaine base/hard/crack) were confirmed to be cocaine with no additional active compounds detected.

11 samples contained an active component in addition to cocaine (Victoria (5), Campbell River (1)):

  • 6 samples contained cocaine HCl in addition to levamisole
  • 4 samples contained cocaine base in addition to phenacetin
  • 1 sample contained cocaine base in addition to benzocaine

2 samples did not contain any active components:

  • 1 expected cocaine base sample contained an unknown carbohydrate, an unknown oil, and sucrose
  • 1 expected cocaine base sample contained an unknown oil

1 sample expected to be cocaine HCl contained ketamine instead

Methamphetamine

77.8% (21/27) of expected methamphetamine samples checked were found to be meth with no other active compounds detected.

4 samples did not contain methamphetamine and instead contained an unexpected active component:

  • 2 sample contained cocaine HCl
  • 1 sample contained ketamine
  • 1 sample contained fentanyl or an analogue and aluminium potassium sulphate

2 samples did not contain any active components:

  • 1 sample did no have any compounds detected
  • 1 sample was table salt

MDMA/MDA

89.5% (68/76) of expected MDA/MDMA samples checked were confirmed to be MDA (1 sample) or MDMA (49 samples) as expected.

3 expected MDMA samples (all from Victoria) contained MDA in addition to MDMA

1 expected MDMA samples (from Victoria) contained MDEA in addition to MDMA

3 samples contained one or more unexpected active components:

  • 1 sample contained MDA instead of MDMA
  • 1 sample contained MDMA instead of MDA
  • 1 sample contained 3,4-MDMA methylene homolog (a designer drug created by inserting a methylene group in the methylamphetamine portion of MDMA) and MDEA

1 sample did not have any active components detected

Benzodiazepines (n=15)

80% (12/15) of the expected benzodiazepine samples checked in February came to our service sites in the form of pressed pills with the following expected and detected compositions:

Table 2. The composition of benzodiazepine pressed pills checked in February. “Expected Composition” describes the benzo expected/reported by the service user, while “Detected Composition” describes the contents we found through the drug check. “Benzodiazepine (unknown type)” refers to samples where the benzo strip test was positive but no benzos were identified with our other instruments. These unknown benzo samples either contain a benzo at very low concentrations and/or novel benzos that are not in our targeted method for the mass spectrometer.
Table 2. The composition of benzodiazepine pressed pills checked in February. “Expected Composition” describes the benzo expected/reported by the service user, while “Detected Composition” describes the contents we found through the drug check. “Benzodiazepine (unknown type)” refers to samples where the benzo strip test was positive but no benzos were identified with our other instruments. These unknown benzo samples either contain a benzo at very low concentrations and/or novel benzos that are not in our targeted method for the mass spectrometer.

Within the remaining four samples:

  • One sample, from Victoria, was expected to be alprazolam and was confirmed to contain the expected benzo. This sample was a white powder.
  • One sample, from Victoria, was expected to be alprazolam and contained flualprazolam instead. This sample did not have a description in our database.
  • Two samples, from Victoria, were expected to be unspecified benzos, they both contained bromazolam. These samples were both peach powders.

Opioid-positivity in non-opioid-down samples

In February, we checked 338 samples that were not expected to contain fentanyl or other “unexpected” opioids[1]. Since the opioid-down supply is no longer “just heroin” or “just fentanyl” and is instead a complex, potent, and ever-changing polysubstance market containing other synthetic opioids like fluorofentanyl or nitazenes, here we will examine the prevalence of any unexpected opioid, not just fentanyl, detected in non-opioid-down samples.

  1. Specifically, we are excluding samples that were expected to be “opioid-down” or samples that had an “unknown/missing” expected composition. In the case of “opioid-other” samples, e.g. hydromorphone tablets and oxycodone pills, “unexpected opioids” are defined as any opioid that is not the expected opioid. ↩︎

Table 3. Overview of unexpected opioid detections in non-opioid-down samples in February.
Table 3. Overview of unexpected opioid detections in non-opioid-down samples in February.

Examining Table 3, we find that 5 samples tested positive for unexpected opioids in February, representing 1.5% of all non-opioid-down samples checked. These samples were as follows:

  • 1 sample, expected to be methamphetamine, contained fentanyl or an analogue (via strip test only) and aluminium potassium sulphate
  • 1 sample, expected to be caffeine, contained fentanyl and caffeine.
  • 1 sample, expected to be an unspecified benzo, contained bromazolam and fentanyl
  • 1 sample, expected to be oxycodone, contained isotonitazene instead
  • 1 sample, expected to be Percocet, contained isotonitazene instead

In February, no unexpected opioids were detected in samples expected to be Cocaine, MDMA, dissociatives, Psychedelics, or steroids.

In people’s personal quests for bodily autonomy and informed consumption, there is often evaluation of risk and consequence, but when the consequences can be severe and the risks are unknown or are intentionally exaggerated, these become difficult, if not impossible, conversations to weigh. We believe that drug checking can help provide people with the information needed to evaluate the risks, and provides harm reduction advice to minimize undesired consequences of substance use. These data are not meant to downplay concerns or invalidate past experiences. We recognize the tragic consequences of when fentanyl is found in non-opioid samples and honour the heartbreak that such experiences produce. Instead, we present these data with the intent to combat misinformation and provide an evidence-based context for people to consider when making decisions about substance use. While these numbers reflect what we have seen over the course of the project, these (roughly) 1-in-100 events still occur, so we always encourage folks to get their stuff checked.

Opioid-Down (n=348)

In this section we present results specific to the opioid-down supply, therefore they may differ from the highlighted findings above that are inclusive of all expected drug categories.

  • 84.8% of expected opioid-down samples contained fentanyl or fentanyl base (295/348)
  • 50.6% of expected opioid-down sample contained fluorofentanyl or fluorofentanyl base (176/348)
  • 12 samples contained heroin, of these samples, 4 contained the related alkaloid acetylcodeine and 2 contained acetylmorphine (MAM). In total, this represents 3.5% of all opioid - down samples.
    • 10 samples included the one or more of the following additional actives: fentanyl, fluorofentanyl, bromazolam, benzodiazepine (unknown type), and fentanyl analogue (unknown type)
  • 2 samples contained carfentanil
  • 3 samples contained ortho-methyl fentanyl
  • 44.0% (153/348) of expected opioid-down samples contained a benzodiazepine
  • The most common benzodiazepine in opioid-down samples was bromazolam (117), followed by benzodiazepine (unknown type) (36), and flubromazepam (3).
  • Xylazine was detected in 5.2% (18/348) of opioid-down samples, most commonly being found in samples from Substance (10).

In February, 55.8% (194/348) of all opioid-down samples checked contained an additional active to the expected fentanyl/heroin. These data are shown in Fig. 3 highlighting the prevalence of benzos, fluorofentanyl, and xylazine in the down supply.

Figure 3. The percentage of expected opioid-down samples checked between February 2023 and February 2024 that only contained fentanyl/heroin actives (solid dark purple), opioid-down samples with an additional active detected (dot-dashed light purple), opioid-down samples that contained a benzodiazepine-related drug (dotted magenta), opioid-down samples that contained fluorofentanyl (dashed salmon), and opioid-down samples that contained xylazine (dashed yellow).
Figure 3. The percentage of expected opioid-down samples checked between February 2023 and February 2024 that only contained fentanyl/heroin actives (solid dark purple), opioid-down samples with an additional active detected (dot-dashed light purple), opioid-down samples that contained a benzodiazepine-related drug (dotted magenta), opioid-down samples that contained fluorofentanyl (dashed salmon), and opioid-down samples that contained xylazine (dashed yellow).

Fluorofentanyl was the most common additional active found within the opioid-down supply, with 45.6% (159/348) of opioid-down samples containing fluorofentanyl in addition to fentanyl. Additionally, fluorofentanyl was the only opioid detected in 7.8% (27/348) of opioid-down samples (i.e. no fentanyl or heroin was detected in these samples).

Benzo-related drugs contribute to a majority of the other additional actives found in expected opioid-down samples, with 44.0% (153/348) of expected opioid-down samples checked containing a benzo-related drug. Bromazolam continues to be the most common benzo seen in the down supply, with bromazolam being detected in 76.5% (117/153) of the benzo-positive opioid-down samples. Scattered detections of other drugs are still found and can be reviewed in the pdf report at the end of this blog.

Quantification for Expected Opioid-Down[1]

In February, we quantified fentanyl for 348 of the expected opioid-down samples containing fentanyl and found the median concentration to be 20%[2]. Though the median is a useful indicator, it doesn’t capture the volatility of fentanyl concentrations present in the opioid supply, as half of fentanyl-positive down samples contained between 13% and 28% fentanyl, and any one sample might be the lowest strength (less than 0.1%) or the strongest (greater than 80%[3]). Fluorofentanyl was seen at concentrations ranging from 0.2% to greater than 40%[3:1] as well, with a median concentration of 6%. Similarly, the concentration of bromazolam was across the board in expected opioid down samples, with samples ranging from less than 0.1% to greater than 25.0%[3:2] bromazolam, with a median of 6%. For context, a sample containing 4% bromazolam would be roughly equivalent to two full 2mg Xanax bars worth of benzo per point (100mg).

  1. Not all opioid down samples brought to our service can be quantified. This is primarily due to too limited sample collected for our instruments to report a reliable mass percentage. Nevertheless, qualitative detection is still possible. ↩︎

  2. This number is specific to fentanyl quantified in opioid-down samples. The median concentration listed in the Key Findings at the beginning of this blog (20%) is inclusive of all samples checked, across all drug classes and unknown samples, that contained fentanyl. ↩︎

  3. For samples that contain greater than 80% fentanyl or heroin, greater than 40% fluorofentanyl, or greater than 25% bromazolam by weight, our mass spectrometer is presently unable to reproducibly assign a concentration due to the upper limits of the calibration methods currently adopted. ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

Table 4. Quantification of low-concentration active components in expected opioid-down samples in February 2024.
Table 4. Quantification of low-concentration active components in expected opioid-down samples in February 2024.

The fentanyl, fluorofentanyl, and bromazolam concentrations that we quantified in February, across all expected drug categories and service models, are presented in Fig. 4. Small black dots are individual opioid-down samples, the large white dot shows the median concentration, dashed white lines bound half of the quantified samples, and the width of the shaded regions mirrors the number of samples at a given concentration.

Figure 4. Violin plots of fentanyl (top) and bromazolam (bottom) positive samples quantified during February across all collection locations/methods.
Figure 4. Violin plots of fentanyl (top) and bromazolam (bottom) positive samples quantified during February across all collection locations/methods.

We can also examine the regional variability in the unregulated market. The table below expands on the quantitative data presented above. It focuses only on fentanyl, fluorofentanyl, carfentanil, bromazolam, and xylazine quantified within expected opioid-down samples, separated by collection location/model. Weight percentage is reported; “IQR” is the interquartile range: the range that contains half of the quantified samples.

Table 5. Quantification of low-concentration active components in expected opioid-down samples, split by service models/location, in February 2024. See Table 3 for the overview from all locations. Weight percentage is reported; “IQR” is the interquartile range: the range that contains half of the quantified samples.
Table 5. Quantification of low-concentration active components in expected opioid-down samples, split by service models/location, in February 2024. See Table 3 for the overview from all locations. Weight percentage is reported; “IQR” is the interquartile range: the range that contains half of the quantified samples.
Substance Drug Checking Feb 2024 Monthly Report
Substance Drug Checking Feb 2024 Monthly Report.pdf
2 MB
download-circle

Want to be notified when we release these reports? Join our mailing list to receive updates about when our reports are out. You can subscribe and unsubscribe yourself from this list at any time.

Check back next month for the March report!

As always, send us feedback at substance@uvic.ca on how we can continue to offer our drug checking results in a useful way.

Join the mailing list

* indicates required
Report Frequency