Interim methadone and patient navigation in jail: Rationale and design of a randomized clinical trial

Assessing the impact of jail-initiated medication for opioid use disorder: A multisite analysis of the SOMATICS collaborative

The objective of this study was to estimate the associations of jail-initiated medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) and patient navigation (PN) with opioid use disorder (OUD) at 6 months post-release. Three randomized trials (combined N = 330) were combined to assess whether MOUD (extended-release naltrexone or interim methadone) initiated prior to release from jail with or without PN would reduce the likelihood of a DSM-5 diagnosis of OUD 6 months post-release relative to enhanced treatment-as-usual (ETAU). Across the three studies, assignment to MOUD compared to ETAU was not associated with an OUD diagnosis at 6 months post-release (69% vs. 75%, respectively, OR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.42 to 1.20). Similarly, PN compared to MOUD without PN was not associated with an OUD diagnosis (63% vs 77%, respectively, OR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.27 to 1.53). Results underscore the need to further optimize the effectiveness of MOUD for patients initiating treatment in jail, beginning with an emphasis on post-release treatment adherence.

"They make it too hard and too many hoops to jump": system and organizational barriers to drug treatment during epidemic rates of opioid overdose

INTRODUCTION

The United States is currently facing an opioid overdose crisis. Research suggests that multiple interventions are needed to reduce overdose deaths including increasing access and retention to medications to treat opioid use disorders (MOUD, i.e., methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone) and increasing the distribution and use of naloxone, a medication that can reverse the respiratory depression that occurs during opioid overdoses. However, barriers to MOUD initiation and retention persist and discontinuations of MOUD carry a heightened risk of overdose. Many times, MOUD is not sought as a first line of treatment by people with opioid use disorder (OUD), many of whom seek treatment from medically managed withdrawal (detox) programs. Among those who do initiate MOUD, retention is generally low. The present study examines the treatment experiences of people who use opioids in three states, Connecticut, Kentucky, and Wisconsin.

METHODS

We conducted in-depth interviews with people who use opioids in a rural, urban, and suburban area of three states: Connecticut, Kentucky and Wisconsin. Data analysis was collaborative and key themes were identified through multiple readings, coding of transcripts and discussion with all research team members.

RESULTS

Results reveal a number of systemic issues that reduce the likelihood that people initiate and are retained on MOUD including the ubiquity of detox as a first step in drug treatment, abstinence requirements and requiring patients to attend group treatment. MOUD-related stigma was a significant factor in the kinds of treatment participants chose and their experiences in treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Interventions to reduce MOUD stigma are needed to encourage MOUD as a first course of treatment. Eliminating abstinence-based rules for MOUD treatment may improve treatment retention and decrease overdose risk.

Reimbursing incarcerated individuals for participation in research: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Little is known about global practices regarding the provision of reimbursement for the participation of people who are incarcerated in research. To determine current practices related to the reimbursement of incarcerated populations for research, we aimed to describe international variations in practice across countries and carceral environments to help inform the development of more consistent and equitable practices.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review by searching PubMed, Cochrane library, Medline, and Embase, and conducted a grey literature search for English- and French-language articles published until September 30, 2022. All studies evaluating any carceral-based research were included if recruitment of incarcerated participants occurred inside any non-juvenile carceral setting; we excluded studies if recruitment occurred exclusively following release. Where studies failed to indicate the presence or absence of reimbursement, we assumed none was provided.

RESULTS

A total of 4,328 unique articles were identified, 2,765 were eligible for full text review, and 426 were included. Of these, 295 (69%) did not offer reimbursement to incarcerated individuals. A minority (n = 13; 4%) included reasons explaining the absence of reimbursement, primarily government-level policies (n = 7). Among the 131 (31%) studies that provided reimbursement, the most common form was monetary compensation (n = 122; 93%); five studies (4%) offered possible reduced sentencing. Reimbursement ranged between $3-610 USD in total and 14 studies (11%) explained the reason behind the reimbursements, primarily researchers' discretion (n = 9).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of research conducted to date in carceral settings globally has not reimbursed incarcerated participants. Increased transparency regarding reimbursement (or lack thereof) is needed as part of all carceral research and advocacy efforts are required to change policies prohibiting reimbursement of incarcerated individuals. Future work is needed to co-create international standards for the equitable reimbursement of incarcerated populations in research, incorporating the voices of people with lived and living experience of incarceration.

Opioid-specific medication-assisted therapy and its impact on criminal justice and overdose outcomes

Background

The overlap between justice system involvement and drug use is well-documented. Justice-involved people who misuse opioids are at high risk for relapse and criminal recidivism. Criminal justice policymakers consider opioid-specific medication-assisted therapies (MATs) one approach for improving outcomes for this population. More research is needed that explores the impacts of opioid-specific MATs for justice-involved people.

Objectives

This study sought to assess the effects of opioid-specific MAT for reducing the frequency and likelihood of criminal justice and overdose outcomes for current or formerly justice-involved individuals.

Search Methods

Records were searched between May 7, 2021 and June 23, 2021. We searched a total of sixteen proprietary and open access databases that included access to gray literature and conference proceedings. The bibliographies of included studies and relevant reviews were also searched.

Selection Criteria

Studies were eligible for inclusion in the review if they: (a) assessed the effects of opioid-specific MATs on individual-level criminal justice or overdose outcomes; included (b) a current or formerly justice-involved sample; and (c) a randomized or strong quasi-experimental design; and c) were published in English between January 1, 1960 and October 31, 2020.

Data Collection and Analysis

We used the standard methodological procedures as expected by The Campbell Collaboration.

Main Results

Twenty studies were included, representing 30,119 participants. The overall risk of bias for the experimental studies ranged from "some" to "high" and for quasi-experimental studies ranged from "moderate" to "serious." As such, findings must be interpreted against the backdrop of less-than-ideal methodological contexts. Of the 20 included studies, 16 included outcomes that were meta-analyzed using mean log odds ratios (which were reported as mean odds ratios). Mean effects were nonsignificant for reincarceration (odds ratio [OR] = 0.93 [0.68, 1.26], SE = .16), rearrest (OR = 1.47 [0.70, 3.07], SE = 0.38), and fatal overdose (OR = 0.82 [0.56, 1.21], SE = 0.20). For nonfatal overdose, the average effect was significant (OR = 0.41 [0.18, 0.91], SE = 0.41, p < 0.05), suggesting that those receiving MAT had nearly 60% reduced odds of a nonfatal overdose.

Implications for Policy Practice and Research

The current review supports some utility for adopting MAT for the treatment of justice-involved people with opioid addiction, however, more studies that employ rigorous methodologies are needed. Researchers should work with agencies to improve adherence to medication regimens, study design, and collect more detailed information on participants, their criminal and substance use histories, onset, and severity. This would help clarify whether treatment and control groups are indeed comparable and provide better insight into the potential reasons for participant dropout, treatment failure, and the occurrence of recidivism or overdose. Outcomes should be assessed in multiple ways, if possible (e.g., self-report and official record), as reliance on official data alone may undercount participants' degree of criminal involvement.

Views of barriers and facilitators to continuing methadone treatment upon release from jail among people receiving patient navigation services

BACKGROUND

Patient navigation has potential for assisting patients who initiate methadone during pretrial detention to enter and remain in treatment following release, but we know little about participants' experiences with this service.

METHODS

This study drew a purposive sample of male and female participants (N = 17) from participants enrolled in a randomized trial of initiating methadone with vs. without patient navigation while in the Baltimore City Detention Center. The study interviewed participants in the community at 1 and 3 months following release and asked them about their experiences of reentry, methadone treatment continuation, drug use, and interactions with the patient navigator. The study recorded, transcribed, coded using Atlas.ti, and analyzed thematically the interviews.

RESULTS

Participants reported encountering four key challenges in the community: getting to treatment following release, assembling basic supports, managing criminal justice system demands, and staying in treatment. Participants' experiences of the patient navigator's support to address these challenges fell into six thematic groups: showing nonjudgmental caring and persistence, advocating within programs, brokering resources, managing interactions with the criminal justice system, balancing encouragement and self-determination, and offering genuine and familial-type support.

CONCLUSION

Nearly all participants appreciated the navigator's support and deemed it helpful. The previously reported randomized trial found that participants assigned to initiate methadone treatment with navigation had higher rates of receiving their first "guest" methadone dose in the community but did not have significantly different rates of treatment enrollment or of illicit opioid use compared to those assigned to begin methadone treatment without navigation. Treatment programs should work to improve retention and postrelease outcomes among this population.

Cost and cost-effectiveness of interim methadone treatment and patient navigation initiated in jail

BACKGROUND

Individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) who are released from pre-trial detention in jail have a high risk of opioid relapse. While several interventions for OUD initiated during incarceration have been studied, few have had an economic evaluation. As part of a three-group randomized trial, we estimated the cost and cost-effectiveness of a negative urine opioid test. Detainees were assigned to interim methadone (IM) in jail with continued methadone treatment post-release with and without 3 months of post-release patient navigation (PN) compared to an enhanced treatment-as-usual group.

METHODS

We implemented a micro-costing approach from the provider's perspective to estimate the cost per participant in jail and over the 12 months post-release from jail. Economic data included jail-based and community-based service utilization, self-reported healthcare utilization and justice system involvement, and administrative arrest records. Our outcome measure is the number of participants with a negative opioid urine test at their 12-month follow-up. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for intervention costs only and costs from a societal perspective.

RESULTS

The average cost of providing patient navigation services per individual beginning in jail and continuing in the community was $283. We find that IM is dominated by ETAU and IM + PN. Per additional participant with a negative opioid urine test, the ICER for IM + PN including intervention costs only is $91 and $305 including societal costs.

CONCLUSIONS

IM + PN is almost certainly the cost-effective choice from both an intervention provider and societal perspective.

A Latent Class Analysis of HIV Risk Factors Among Men and Women with Opioid Use Disorder in Pre-trial Detention

Adults entering pre-trial detention who inject drugs are at high risk for acquiring HIV/AIDS. In the current study, we examined pre-incarceration HIV risk behaviors among 114 people with opioid use disorder who inject drugs. Participants were recruited from the Baltimore City Detention Center as part of a randomized controlled trial of pre-release methadone treatment. Using latent class analysis, we found three separate latent classes, which we identified as the sex exchange class (14.2%), drug equipment sharing class (36.8%) and lower risk class (49.0%). Women in the sex exchange class (n = 16) reported having multiple male partners and selling sex for money or drugs; however, this group also reported more consistent condom use and less frequent injection drug and equipment sharing than participants in the drug equipment sharing class. Our findings highlight distinct profiles of jail detainees with OUD based on their risks for HIV, and could inform more targeted interventions for each group.Clinical Trials Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02334215.

Impact of methadone treatment initiated in jail on subsequent arrest

BACKGROUND

There are limited data from randomized trials about the impact of starting methadone treatment in jail on subsequent arrest after release for adults with opioid use disorder (OUD).

METHODS

Official arrest records were obtained for 212 participants with OUD who were enrolled in a three-group randomized controlled trial of initiating methadone treatment in jail either with or without patient navigation vs. enhanced treatment-as-usual in Baltimore, Maryland. Participants treated for opioid withdrawal in jail were assigned to: 1) interim methadone (IM) with patient navigation (PN; IM + PN); 2) IM without PN (IM); or 3) enhanced treatment-as-usual (ETAU). Participants in both IM groups were able to continue treatment at a community-based methadone treatment program with counseling upon release, while ETAU participants received overdose information and a city-wide treatment assessment/referral number. Likelihood of arrest, time to first subsequent arrest, and severity of arrest charges in the 12 months following release were examined for: 1) combined IM + PN and IM groups compared to ETAU; and 2) IM + PN compared to IM.

RESULTS

Within 12 months of release from the index incarceration, 50.5% of the sample had been arrested. The majority of arrest charges (71%) were for low-level, nonviolent crimes. On an intention-to-treat basis, there were no significant differences between the combined IM + PN and IM groups vs. ETAU or IM + PN vs. IM in the likelihood of arrest, time to first subsequent arrest, or severity of arrest charges.

CONCLUSION

Initiating IM with or without PN during pretrial detention did not have a significant effect on subsequent arrest during a 12-month post-release follow-up compared to not starting methadone maintenance during detention, despite the high rate of methadone treatment entry in the community following release. This finding may be attributable to the considerable attrition from treatment in the community or other systematic factors. Additional interventions may be needed to reduce the likelihood of subsequent arrest.

Navigation Services to Avoid Rehospitalization among Medical/Surgical Patients with Comorbid Substance Use Disorder: Rationale and Design of a Randomized Controlled Trial

Substance use disorders (SUDs) are associated with significant morbidity and mortality and contribute to inefficient use of healthcare services. Hospitalized medical/surgical patients with comorbid SUD are at elevated risk of hospital readmission and poor outcomes. Thus, effective interventions are needed to help such patients during hospitalization and post-discharge. This article reports the rationale, methodological design, and progress to date on a randomized trial comparing the effectiveness of Navigation Services to Avoid Rehospitalization (NavSTAR) vs Treatmentas-Usual (TAU) for hospital medical/surgical patients with comorbid SUD (N = 400). Applying Andersen’s theoretical model of health service utilization, NavSTAR employed Patient Navigation and motivational interventions to promote entry into SUD treatment, facilitate adherence to recommendations for medical follow-up and self-care, address basic needs, and prevent the recurrent use of hospital services. As part of the NavSTAR service model, Patient Navigators embedded within the SUD consultation service at a large urban hospital delivered patient-centered, proactive navigation and motivational services initiated during the hospital stay and continued for up to 3 months post-discharge. Participants randomized to TAU received usual care from the hospital and the SUD consultation service, which included referral to SUD treatment but no continued contact post-hospital discharge. Hospital service utilization will be determined via review of electronic health records and the regional Health Information Exchange. Participants were assessed at baseline and again at 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up on various measures of healthcare utilization, substance use, and functioning. The primary outcome of interest is time-to-rehospitalization through 12 months. In addition, a range of secondary outcomes spanning the medical and SUD service areas will be assessed. The study will include a health economic evaluation of NavSTAR. If NavSTAR proves to be effective and cost-effective in this high-risk patient group, it would have important implications for addressing the needs of hospital patients with comorbid SUD, designing hospital discharge planning services, informing cost containment initiatives, and improving public health.

Interventions for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems

BACKGROUND

This review represents one from a family of three reviews focusing on interventions for drug-using offenders. Many people under the care of the criminal justice system have co-occurring mental health problems and drug misuse problems; it is important to identify the most effective treatments for this vulnerable population.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems in reducing criminal activity or drug use, or both.This review addresses the following questions.• Does any treatment for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems reduce drug use?• Does any treatment for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems reduce criminal activity?• Does the treatment setting (court, community, prison/secure establishment) affect intervention outcome(s)?• Does the type of treatment affect treatment outcome(s)?

SEARCH METHODS

We searched 12 databases up to February 2019 and checked the reference lists of included studies. We contacted experts in the field for further information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials designed to prevent relapse of drug use and/or criminal activity among drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane .

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 studies with a total of 2606 participants. Interventions were delivered in prison (eight studies; 61%), in court (two studies; 15%), in the community (two studies; 15%), or at a medium secure hospital (one study; 8%). Main sources of bias were unclear risk of selection bias and high risk of detection bias.Four studies compared a therapeutic community intervention versus (1) treatment as usual (two studies; 266 participants), providing moderate-certainty evidence that participants who received the intervention were less likely to be involved in subsequent criminal activity (risk ratio (RR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.84) or returned to prison (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.67); (2) a cognitive-behavioural therapy (one study; 314 participants), reporting no significant reduction in self-reported drug use (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.32), re-arrest for any type of crime (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.09), criminal activity (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.05), or drug-related crime (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.36), yielding low-certainty evidence; and (3) a waiting list control (one study; 478 participants), showing a significant reduction in return to prison for those people engaging in the therapeutic community (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.79), providing moderate-certainty evidence.One study (235 participants) compared a mental health treatment court with an assertive case management model versus treatment as usual, showing no significant reduction at 12 months' follow-up on an Addictive Severity Index (ASI) self-report of drug use (mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.03), conviction for a new crime (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.22), or re-incarceration to jail (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.01), providing low-certainty evidence.Four studies compared motivational interviewing/mindfulness and cognitive skills with relaxation therapy (one study), a waiting list control (one study), or treatment as usual (two studies). In comparison to relaxation training, one study reported narrative information on marijuana use at three-month follow-up assessment. Researchers reported a main effect < .007 with participants in the motivational interviewing group, showing fewer problems than participants in the relaxation training group, with moderate-certainty evidence. In comparison to a waiting list control, one study reported no significant reduction in self-reported drug use based on the ASI (MD -0.04, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.29) and on abstinence from drug use (RR 2.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 11.43), presenting low-certainty evidence at six months (31 participants). In comparison to treatment as usual, two studies (with 40 participants) found no significant reduction in frequency of marijuana use at three months post release (MD -1.05, 95% CI -2.39 to 0.29) nor time to first arrest (MD 0.87, 95% CI -0.12 to 1.86), along with a small reduction in frequency of re-arrest (MD -0.66, 95% CI -1.31 to -0.01) up to 36 months, yielding low-certainty evidence; the other study with 80 participants found no significant reduction in positive drug screens at 12 months (MD -0.7, 95% CI -3.5 to 2.1), providing very low-certainty evidence.Two studies reported on the use of multi-systemic therapy involving juveniles and families versus treatment as usual and adolescent substance abuse therapy. In comparing treatment as usual, researchers found no significant reduction up to seven months in drug dependence on the Drug Use Disorders Identification Test (DUDIT) score (MD -0.22, 95% CI -2.51 to 2.07) nor in arrests (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.36), providing low-certainty evidence (156 participants). In comparison to an adolescent substance abuse therapy, one study (112 participants) found significant reduction in re-arrests up to 24 months (MD 0.24, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.28), based on low-certainty evidence.One study (38 participants) reported on the use of interpersonal psychotherapy in comparison to a psychoeducational intervention. Investigators found no significant reduction in self-reported drug use at three months (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.50), providing very low-certainty evidence. The final study (29 participants) compared legal defence service and wrap-around social work services versus legal defence service only and found no significant reductions in the number of new offences committed at 12 months (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.07 to 6.01), yielding very low-certainty evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Therapeutic community interventions and mental health treatment courts may help people to reduce subsequent drug use and/or criminal activity. For other interventions such as interpersonal psychotherapy, multi-systemic therapy, legal defence wrap-around services, and motivational interviewing, the evidence is more uncertain. Studies showed a high degree of variation, warranting a degree of caution in interpreting the magnitude of effect and the direction of benefit for treatment outcomes.

Initiating methadone in jail and in the community: Patient differences and implications of methadone treatment for reducing arrests

The extent to which patient characteristics differ between individuals entering methadone treatment through community programs and jail-based programs is not known. Such differences could impact the likelihood of relapse and recidivism in these two populations and inform efforts at targeting interventions. We compared treatment-entry characteristics of participants enrolling in methadone treatment in two studies conducted in Baltimore, one conducted in community programs (N = 295) and the other in a jail-based program (N = 225). Controlling for age, race, and gender, individuals starting methadone treatment in jail compared to the community, had more severe drug use and criminal justice profiles. These different characteristics suggest that patients initiating methadone in a jail-based program could have greater likelihood of future arrest compared to patients entering community-based treatment. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT 02334215 and NCT 01442493.

The SOMATICS collaborative: Introduction to a National Institute on Drug Abuse cooperative study of pharmacotherapy for opioid treatment in criminal justice settings

BACKGROUND

Among the nearly 750,000 inmates in U.S. jails, 12% report using opioids regularly, 8% report use in the month prior to their offense, and 4% report use at the time of their offense. Although ample evidence exists that medications effectively treat Opiate Use Disorder (OUD) in the community, strong evidence is lacking in jail settings. The general lack of medications for OUD in jail settings may place persons suffering from OUD at high risk for relapse to drug use and overdose following release from jail.

METHODS

The three study sites in this collaborative are pooling data for secondary analyses from three open-label randomized effectiveness trials comparing: (1) the initiation of extended-release naltrexone [XR-NTX] in Sites 1 and 2 and interim methadone in Site 3 with enhanced treatment-as usual (ETAU); (2) the additional benefit of patient navigation plus medications at Sites 2 and 3 vs. medication alone vs. ETAU. Participants are adults with OUD incarcerated in jail and transitioning to the community.

RESULTS

We describe the rationale, specific aims, and designs of three separate studies harmonized to enhance their scientific yield to investigate how to best prevent jail inmates from relapsing to opioid use and associated problems as they transition back to the community.

CONCLUSIONS

Conducting drug abuse research during incarceration is challenging and study designs with data harmonization across different sites can increase the potential value of research to develop effective treatments for individuals in jail with OUD.