Changes in methadone program practices and fatal methadone overdose rates in Connecticut during COVID-19

Methadone Exposures Reported to Poison Control Centers in the United States Following the COVID-19-Related Loosening of Federal Methadone Regulations

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

For Better or Worse: Self-reported Changes in Kratom and Other Substance Use as a Result of the COVID-19 Pandemic

Background:

Kratom is taken to self-treat pain and symptoms of psychiatric disorders, including substance-use disorders (SUDs) and opioid withdrawal. Before COVID-19, kratom use was increasing in the US, however, there are few published data on whether that trend continued during the COVID-19 pandemic, which could have affected kratom use in multiple ways.

Aim:

To examine COVID-19-related changes in kratom use and how these changes were experienced, relative to changes in other commonly used substances.

Methods:

Using Amazon Mechanical Turk, 2615 evaluable surveys were completed between September 2020 and March 2021. Responses from past-month and past-year kratom-using adults (N = 174) indicating changes for the better or worse were examined using generalized linear mixed effects models, and relevant open-text responses (n = 85) were thematically coded.

Results:

For kratom 33% (n = 58) reported a Covid-related increase and 24% (n = 42) reported a Covid-related decrease. Controlling for changes in amount used, alcohol (OR = 5.02), tobacco (OR = 4.72), and nonmedical opioid use (OR = 3.42) were all more likely to have changed for the worse, compared with kratom use. Relative to decreases in kratom use, decreases in alcohol (OR = 3.21) and tobacco (OR = 6.18) use were more likely to be changes for the better. Cannabis use was the only substance to display a probability lower than 50% of being a decrease for the better, and of the increases, cannabis use displayed the highest probability of being for the better.

Conclusions:

Increases in kratom and cannabis use were less likely than alcohol and tobacco to be reported as changes for the worse, and decreases in kratom and cannabis use were more likely than alcohol and tobacco to be reported as changes for the better. These findings indicate that people differently conceptualize their relationships with kratom and cannabis, compared to their relationships with alcohol and tobacco.

Opioid Use Disorder

Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a treatable chronic disorder with episodes of remission and recurrence characterized by loss of control of opioid use, compulsive use, and continued use despite harms. If untreated, OUD is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Buprenorphine and methadone reduce fatal and nonfatal opioid overdose and infectious complications of OUD and are the first-line treatment options. Physicians have an important role to play in diagnosing OUD and its comorbidities, offering evidence-based treatment, and delivering overdose prevention and other harm reduction services to people who continue to use opioids. Interdisciplinary office-based addiction treatment programs support high-quality OUD care.

Rural opioid treatment program patient perspectives on take-home methadone policy changes during COVID-19: a qualitative thematic analysis

BACKGROUND

In the United States, methadone for opioid use disorder (OUD) is highly regulated. Federal agencies announced guidelines in March 2020 allowing for relaxation of take-home methadone dispensing at opioid treatment programs (OTPs) to improve treatment access and reduce COVID-19 transmission risk during the public health emergency. We explored patient perspectives at three OTPs serving rural communities on how take-home policy changes were received and implemented and how these changes impacted their addiction treatment and recovery.

METHODS

We completed semi-structured individual qualitative interviews in 2 phases: (1) August-October 2020 and (2) November 2020-January 2021 (total n = 46), anticipating possible policy changes as the pandemic progressed. We interviewed patients with OUD enrolled at 3 rural OTPs in Oregon. Participants received varying take-home methadone allowances following the COVID-19-related policy changes. All interviews were conducted via phone, audio-recorded, and transcribed. We conducted a thematic analysis, iteratively coding transcripts, and deductively and inductively generating codes.

RESULTS

The 46 participants included 50% women and 89% had Medicaid insurance. Three main themes emerged in the analysis, with no differences between study phases: (1) Adapting to changing OTP policies throughout the pandemic; (2) Recognizing the benefits, and occasional struggles, with increased take-home methadone dosing; and (3) Continuing policies and procedures post-pandemic. Participants described fears and anxieties around ongoing methadone access and safety concerns prior to OTP policy changes, but quickly adapted as protocols soon seemed "natural." The majority of participants acknowledged significant benefits to increased take-homes independent of reducing COVID-19 infection risk including feeling "more like a normal person," improved recovery support, reduced time traveling, and having more time with family and for work. Looking to a post-pandemic future, participants thought some COVID-19-related safety protocols should continue that would reduce risk of other infections, make OTP settings less stressful, and result in more individualized care.

CONCLUSIONS

As the pandemic progressed, study participants adapted to rapidly changing OTP policies. Participants noted many unanticipated benefits to increased take-home methadone and other COVID-19 protocols including strengthened self-efficacy and recovery and reduced interpersonal conflict, with limited evidence of diversion. Patient perspectives should inform future policies to better address the ongoing overdose epidemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic and the health of people who use illicit opioids in New York City, the first 12 months

Background

Concurrent opioid-related overdose and COVID-19 crises in the U.S. have imposed unprecedented challenges on people who use illicit opioids.

Methods

Using the experiences of 324 people who use illicit opioids between April 2020 and March 2021, we examined four domains of health and well-being potentially impacted by COVID-19: drug risks and responses, healthcare and related services, material hardship, and mental health. Data were drawn from participants’ completed monthly survey assessments which were grouped into four periods of interest for the unfolding pandemic: April-June 2020, July-October 2020, November-January 2021, and February-March 2021.

Results

A majority of measures in our four domains showed early COVID-19 related impacts, which quickly diminished as people and agencies responded to the pandemic. Difficulty obtaining food was the most frequently reported material hardship and appeared worst in April-June 2020. Over half of the population reported depression in April-June 2020, but this declined over the study period. Some participants reported changes to the heroin supply, including higher prices, lower quality, difficulty finding the drug, and fentanyl contamination. There was no discernable temporal shift in the frequency of use of each substance or the frequency of withdrawal symptoms. Over the study period, the mean number of overdoses per month decreased while the percent of opioid use events at which both a witness and naloxone were present (i.e., protected events) increased. Most participants receiving MOUD experienced an increase in take-home doses.

Conclusions

Findings speak to the resilience of people who use drugs as a population with disproportionate experience of trauma and crisis and also to the rapid response of NYC health agencies and service providers working with this population. Despite evident signs of adaptability and resilience, the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted some of the unique vulnerabilities of people who use illicit opioids and the need for greater rates of “protected” opioid use and greater availability of wrap-around services to efficiently address the safety, food security, mental health, and treatment needs of the population.

Treatment provider perceptions of take-home methadone regulation before and during COVID-19

BACKGROUND

The loosening of U.S. methadone regulations during the COVID-19 pandemic expanded calls for methadone reform. This study examines professional perceptions of methadone take-home dose regulation before and during the COVID-19 pandemic to understand responses to varied methadone distribution policies.

METHODS

Fifty-nine substance use disorder treatment professionals were interviewed between 2017 and 2020 in-person or over video call. An inductive iterative coding process was used to analyze the data. Constructivist grounded theory guided the collection and analysis of in-depth interviews.

RESULTS

Treatment professionals expressed mixed views toward methadone take-home regulations. Participants justified regulation using several arguments: 1) patient care benefitting from supervision, 2) attributing improved patient safety to take-home regulation, 3) fearing liability for methadone-related harms, and 4) relying on buprenorphine as an "escape hatch" for patients who cannot manage MMT policies. Other professionals suggested partial deregulation, while others strongly opposed pre-pandemic take-home regulation, explaining such regulations impede medication access and hinder patient-centered care. Some professionals supported the COVID-19 policy changes and saw these as a test run for broader deregulation, while others framed the changes as temporary and cautiously applied deregulation to their services, at times revoking looser rules for patients they perceived as nonadherent.

CONCLUSION

Treatment professionals working in a range of modalities, including opioid treatment programs, expressed hesitation toward expanded take-home methadone access. While some participants also supported forms of deregulation, post-pandemic efforts to extend looser methadone distribution policies will have to address apprehensive professionals if such policy changes are to be meaningfully adopted in community services.

COVID-19-related policy changes for methadone take-home dosing: A multistate survey of opioid treatment program leadership

Background: In the United States, methadone for treatment of opioid use disorder is dispensed via highly-regulated accredited opioid treatment programs (OTP). During the COVID-19 pandemic, federal regulations were loosened, allowing for greater use of take-home methadone doses. We sought to understand how OTP leaders responded to these policy changes. Methods: We distributed a multistate electronic survey from September to November 2020 of OTP leadership to members of the American Association for the Treatment of Opioid Dependence (AATOD) who self-identified as leaders of OTPs. We asked study participants about how their OTP(s) implemented COVID-19-related policy changes into their clinical practice focusing on provision of take-home methadone doses, factors used to determine patient stability, and potential concerns about increased take-home doses. We used Chi-square test to compare survey responses between characterizations of the OTPs. Results: Of 170 survey respondents (17% response rate), the majority represented leadership of for-profit OTPs (69%) and were in a Southern state (54%). Routine allowances and practices related to take-home methadone doses varied across OTPs during the COVID-19 pandemic: 80 (47%) reported 14 days for newly enrolled patients (within past 90 days), 89 (52%) reported 14 days for "less stable" patients, and 112 (66%) reported 28 days for "stable" patients. Conclusions: We found that not all eligible OTP leaders adopted the practice of routinely allowing newly enrolled, "less stable," and "stable" patients on methadone to have increased take-home doses up to the limit allowed by federal regulations during COVID-19. The pandemic provides an opportunity to critically re-evaluate long-established methadone and OTP regulations in preparation for future emergencies.

"It's like 'liquid handcuffs": The effects of take-home dosing policies on Methadone Maintenance Treatment (MMT) patients' lives

BACKGROUND

Methadone Maintenance Treatment (MMT) is widely recognized as one of the most effective ways of reducing risk of overdose, arrest, and transmission of blood-borne viruses like HIV and HCV among people that use opioids. Yet, MMT's use of restrictive take-home dose policies that force most patients to attend their clinic on a daily, or near-daily, basis may be unpopular with many patients and lead to low rates of treatment uptake and retention. In response, this article examines how clinics' take-home dosing policies have affected patients' experiences of treatment and lives in general.

METHODS

This article is based on semi-structured, qualitative interviews with a variety of stakeholders in MMT. Interviews explored: reasons for engaging with, or not engaging with MMT; how MMT is conceptualized by patients and treatment providers (e.g., as harm reduction or route to abstinence and/or recovery); experiences with MMT; perception of barriers to MMT (e.g., organizational/regulatory, social) and how MMT might be improved to support peoples' substance use treatment needs and goals.

RESULTS

Nearly all of the patients with past or present MMT use were highly critical of the limited access to take-home doses and consequent need for daily or near daily clinic attendance. Participants described how the use of restrictive take-home dose policies negatively impacted their ability to meet day-to-day responsibilities and also cited the need for daily attendance as a reason for quitting or avoiding OAT. Responses also demonstrate how such policies contribute to an environment of cruelty and stigma within many clinics that exposes this already-stigmatized population to additional trauma.

CONCLUSIONS

Take-home dose policies in MMT are not working for a substantial number of patients and are reasonably seen by participants as degrading and dehumanizing. Revision of MMT regulations and policies regarding take home doses are essential to improve patient satisfaction and the quality and effectiveness of MMT as a key evidence-based treatment and harm reduction strategy.