Monthly Reports

January 2025 Monthly Report

Derek Robinson

• 12 min read
January 2025 Monthly Report

In this blog post, we discuss our January 2025 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 9.1%
  • The median fluorofentanyl concentration found across all drug categories was 3.7%
  • The median ortho-methyl fentanyl concentration found across all drug categories was 2.5%
  • Benzodiazepines were found in 47.8% (133/278) of expected Opioid - Down samples
  • Bromazolam was found in 82 Opioid - Down samples with a median concentration of 2.6% and maximum concentration of 31.5%
  • Xylazine was found in 29 expected Opioid - Down samples with a median concentration of 0.3% and a maximum concentration of 25.6%

Insight for the January 2025 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. 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 Hospital sample submission kiosks located in Victoria, Nanaimo, and Campbell River. These samples are labelled as “Outreach” samples in the figures/tables herein.

Drug types

Day to day at Substance, we receive and check a wide variety of different samples. Figure 1 shows the prevalence of each expected drug category checked, split by sample collection location/method. Table 1 shows the number of samples received at each sample collection location per expected drug category.

Figure 1. Prevalence of drug classes checked during January 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 January 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

Dissociatives

87.2% (41/47) of expected Dissociatives samples (44 ketamine samples, 2 MXE samples, 1 2-fluoro-2-oxo-PCE sample) were as expected

3 samples contained an unexpected active component instead of the expected active:

  • 1 expected 2-fluoro-2-oxo-PCE sample (from Outreach) contained 5-MeO-DMT, Fluorodeschloroketamine, and O-PCE instead
  • 1 expected ketamine sample (fromm the Comox Valley) contained cocaine instead
  • 1 expected MXE sample (from Outreach) contained 2-fluoro-2-oxo-PCE and MMMP instead

2 samples contained an active component in addition to the expected active:

  • 1 expected ketamine sample (from Substance) also contained phenacetin
  • 1 expected MXE sample (from Outreach) also contained an unknown

1 expected ketamine sample (from Duncan) did not have any active components detected

Cocaine

91.8% (90/98) of expected Cocaine samples (75 cocaine samples and 22 crack samples) were as expected

2 samples contained an unexpected active component instead of the expected cocaine or crack:

  • 1 expected crack sample (from Campbell River) contained methamphetamine instead
  • 1 expected cocaine sample (from the Comox Valley) contained clindamycin (an antibiotic) instead

5 samples contained an active component in addition to the expected cocaine or crack:

  • 2 expected crack samples (1 from Outreach, 1 from Substance) also contained phenacetin
  • 2 expected cocaine samples (from Substance) also contained levamisole
  • 1 expected crack sample (from Outreach) also contained lidocaine

1 cocaine sample (from Outreach) did not have any components detected

Methamphetamine

87.5% (21/24) of expected Methamphetamine samples were as expected

2 samples contained an active component in addition to the expected cocaine or crack:

  • 1 sample (from Duncan) also contained ketamine and fentanyl or a fentanyl analogue
  • 1 sample (from Substance) also contained fentanyl or a fentanyl analogue

1 sample (from the Comox Valley) did not have any active components detected

MDMA/MDA

83.3% (50/60) of expected MDMA samples (53 MDMA samples, 3 MDA samples) were as expected

6 samples contained an unexpected active component instead of the expected MDMA or MDA:

  • 3 unspecified MDMA or MDA samples (from Outreach) contained MDMA and methamphetamine
  • 1 expected MDMA sample (from Outreach) contained cocaine instead
  • 1 expected MDMA sample (from Outreach) contained MDA instead
  • 1 unspecified MDMA or MDA sample (from Outreach) contained MDMA

3 samples contained an active component in addition to the expected MDMA or MDA:

  • 2 expected MDMA samples (1 from Outeach, 1 from Substance) also contained MDA
  • 1 expected MDMA sample (from Outreach) also contained methamphetamine

1 expected MDMA sample (from Outreach) did not have any active components detected

Benzodiazepines (n=41)

61% (25/41) of the expected benzodiazepine samples checked in January came to our service sites in the form of pressed pills with the following expected and detected compositions:

able 2. The composition of benzodiazepine pressed pills checked in January. “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
able 2. The composition of benzodiazepine pressed pills checked in January. “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 16 samples (6 from Outreach, 5 from Substance,1 from Duncan, 1 from Port Alberni):

  • 1 expected alprazolam (Xanax) sample was Alprazolam (Xanax)
  • 1 expected alprazolam (Xanax) sample was bromazolam
  • 2 expected Avizafone samples were Avizafone
  • 1 expected bromazolam sample also contained fentanyl
  • 1 expected bromazolam sample contained an unknown benzo and fentanyl or a fentanyl analogue
  • 1 expected bromazolam sample contained an unknown benzo
  • 1 expected bromazolam sample was bromazolam
  • 1 expected bromazolam sample also contained desalkylgidazepam
  • 1 expected etizolam sample also contained desalkylgidazepam
  • 1 expected lorazepam (Ativan) sample was lorazepam (Ativan)
  • 1 unspecified benzo sample contained fentanyl, fluorofentanyl, bromazolam, and xylazine
  • 1 unspecified benzo sample contained alprazolam (Xanax)
  • 1 unspecified benzo sample contained bromazolam and fentanyl or a fentanyl analogue

The remaining 2 benzodiazepine samples did not have any actives detected.

Opioid-positivity in non-opioid-down samples

In January, we checked 357 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 January.
Table 3. Overview of unexpected opioid detections in non-opioid-down samples in January.

Examining Table 3, we find that 18 samples tested positive for unexpected opioids in January, representing 5% of all non-opioid-down samples checked. These samples were as follows:

Expected Other samples:

  • 1 expected ketamine and crack sample contained an unknown benzo and fentanyl or a fentanyl analogue instead
  • 1 expected ketamine and crack sample contained desalkylgidazepam, fentanyl, and ortho-methyl fentanyl in addition to the expected ketamine and crack

Expected Opioid - Other samples:

  • 1 expected Percocet sample contained fentanyl instead
  • 1 expected hydromophone (Dilaudid) sample contained fentanyl and an unknown benzo instead
  • 1 expected hydromophone (Dilaudid) sample contained metonitazene instead
  • 1 expected oxycodone (Oxycontin) sample contained fentanyl instead
  • 1 expected codeine + promethazine (Lean) sample contained isotonitazene instead

Expected Psychedelic samples:

  • 1 unspecified psychedelic sample contained bromazolam and fentanyl

Expected Stimulant - Other samples:

  • 1 unspecified stimulant - other sample contained fentanyl, bromazolam, and desalkylgidazepam

For expected methamphetamine samples, please see the "The Sample Breakdown" section above.

For expected benzodiazepine samples, please see the "Benzodiazepines" section above.

In January, no unexpected opioids were detected in samples expected to be cocaine, MDMA, dissociatives, 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=278)

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.

  • 62.9% (175/278) of expected opioid-down samples contained fentanyl as the only active opioid
  • 5.4% (15/278) of expected opioid-down sample contained fluorofentanyl as the only active opioid
  • 17 samples contained heroin, of these samples, 12 contained the related alkaloid acetylcodeine and/or acetylmorphine (MAM). In total, this represents 6.1% of all opioid - down samples.
    • 9/17 samples which contained heroin also contained fentanyl or a fentanyl analogue
  • 0 samples contained carfentanil
  • 19.1% (53/278) of expected opioid - down samples contained ortho-methyl fentanyl
  • 47.8% (133/278) of expected opioid-down samples contained a benzodiazepine
    • The most common benzodiazepine in opioid-down samples was bromazolam (82), followed by benzodiazepine (unknown type) (35), desalkylgidazepam (21), and etizolam (3).
  • Xylazine was detected in 10.4% (29/278) of opioid-down samples, most commonly being found in samples from Substance (14).

In January, 53.6% (149/278) 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, ortho-methyl fentanyl, and xylazine in the down supply

Figure 3. The percentage of expected opioid-down samples checked between January 2024 and January 2025 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), opioid-down samples that contained ortho-methyl fentanyl (dashed orange), and opioid-down samples that contained xylazine (dashed yellow).
Figure 3. The percentage of expected opioid-down samples checked between January 2024 and January 2025 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), opioid-down samples that contained ortho-methyl fentanyl (dashed orange), and opioid-down samples that contained xylazine (dashed yellow).

Ortho-Methyl fentanyl was found in 19.1% (53/278) of opioid-down samples.

Fluorofentanyl (specifically the HCl salt) was found in 19.4% (54/278) of opioid-down samples.

Benzo-related drugs make up a majority of the other additional actives found in expected opioid-down samples, with 47.8% (133/278) of expected opioid-down samples checked containing a benzo-related drug. Bromazolam continues to be the most common benzo seen in the down supply, being detected in 61.6% (82/133) 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 January, we quantified fentanyl for 207 of the expected opioid-down samples containing fentanyl and found the median concentration to be 9.9%[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 2.3% and 24.3% fentanyl, and any one sample might be the lowest strength (0.2%) or the strongest (greater than 50%[^3]). Fluorofentanyl was seen at concentrations ranging from 0.2% to 26.7% as well, with a median concentration of 3.7%. In January, we quantified ortho-Methyl fentanyl in 53 opioid - down samples at a median concentration of 2.5%, with half of ortho- Methyl fentanyl positive down samples containing between 1.0% and 9.5% ortho-Methyl fentanyl. Bromazolam, the most common benzodiazepine adulterant in down samples, had concentrations ranging from 0.3% to 31.5% bromazolam, with a median of 2.6%.

[3]: For samples that contain greater than 50% fentanyl, heroin, fluorofentanyl, or 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.

  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 (9.1%) is inclusive of all samples checked, across all drug classes and unknown samples, that contained fentanyl. ↩︎

Table 4. Quantification of low-concentration active components in expected opioid-down samples in January 2025.
Table 4. Quantification of low-concentration active components in expected opioid-down samples in January 2025.

The fentanyl and bromazolam concentrations that we quantified in January, 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 panel) and bromazolam (bottom) positive samples quantified during January 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 January 2025. See Table 4 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 January 2025. See Table 4 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 - January 2025 Monthly Report
Substance Drug Checking - January 2025 Monthly Report.pdf
3 MB
download-circle

Check back next month for the February 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.

Want to be notified when we release these reports? Join our mailing list by clicking the button below. You'll receive updates about when our reports are available directly in your inbox. You can subscribe and unsubscribe from this list at any time.

Join our mailing list