A randomized controlled trial of buprenorphine for probationers and parolees: Bridging the gap into treatment

Access to medications for opioid use disorder for formerly incarcerated individuals during community reentry: a mini narrative review

Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) are especially important for formerly incarcerated individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) and can reduce the risk of re-arrest and overdose during community reentry. Unfortunately, few formerly incarcerated individuals are able to access MOUD within the community, missing a critical tool for rehabilitation. A mini narrative review was conducted to highlight the published work that has been done to improve access to MOUD for formerly incarcerated individuals during reentry. The results yielded 15 records describing intervention evaluations, program descriptions, and research in progress. Most work is ongoing, showing promise that researchers have identified the importance of this problem. However additional research should be done to include other stakeholders and address the limitations of existing interventions and programs. Continued efforts can help ensure that formerly incarcerated individuals can safely and successfully reintegrate into society.

Barriers and facilitators to opioid agonist treatment (OAT) engagement among individuals released from federal incarceration into the community in Ontario, Canada

INTRODUCTION

Correctional populations with opioid use disorder experience increased health risks during community transition periods. Opioid Agonist Treatment (OAT) can reduce these risks, but retention is a key challenge. This study addresses a knowledge gap by describing facilitators and barriers to OAT engagement among federal correctional populations released into the community in Ontario, Canada.

METHODS

This article describes results from a longitudinal mixed-methods study examining OAT transition experiences among thirty-five individuals released from federal incarceration in Ontario, Canada. Assessments were completed within one year of participants' release. Data were thematically analyzed.

RESULTS

The majority (77%) of participants remained engaged in OAT, however, 69% had their release suspended and 49% returned to custody. Key facilitators for OAT engagement included flexibility, positive staff rapport, and structure. Fragmented OAT transitions, financial OAT coverage, balancing reintegration requirements, logistical challenges, and inaccessibility of 'take-home' OAT medications were common barriers.

CONCLUSIONS

Post-incarceration transition periods are critical for OAT retention, yet individuals in Ontario experience barriers to OAT engagement that contribute to treatment disruptions and related risks such as relapse and/or re-incarceration. Additional measures to support community OAT transitions are required, including improved discharge planning, amendments to OAT and financial coverage policies, and an expansion of OAT options.

Opioid agonist treatment for people who are dependent on pharmaceutical opioids

BACKGROUND

There are ongoing concerns regarding pharmaceutical opioid-related harms, including overdose and dependence, with an associated increase in treatment demand. People dependent on pharmaceutical opioids appear to differ in important ways from people who use heroin, yet most opioid agonist treatment research has been conducted in people who use heroin.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of maintenance opioid agonist pharmacotherapy for the treatment of pharmaceutical opioid dependence.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated our searches of the following databases to January 2022: the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, four other databases, and two trial registers. We checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs with adults and adolescents examining maintenance opioid agonist treatments that made the following two comparisons. 1. Full opioid agonists (methadone, morphine, oxycodone, levo-alpha-acetylmethadol (LAAM), or codeine) versus different full opioid agonists or partial opioid agonists (buprenorphine) for maintenance treatment. 2. Full or partial opioid agonist maintenance versus non-opioid agonist treatments (detoxification, opioid antagonist, or psychological treatment without opioid agonist treatment).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified eight RCTs that met inclusion criteria (709 participants). We found four studies that compared methadone and buprenorphine maintenance treatment, and four studies that compared buprenorphine maintenance to either buprenorphine taper (in addition to psychological treatment) or a non-opioid maintenance treatment comparison. We found low-certainty evidence from three studies of a difference between methadone and buprenorphine in favour of methadone on self-reported opioid use at end of treatment (risk ratio (RR) 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28 to 0.86; 165 participants), and low-certainty evidence from four studies finding a difference in favour of methadone for retention in treatment (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.43; 379 participants). We found low-certainty evidence from three studies showing no difference between methadone and buprenorphine on substance use measured with urine drug screens at end of treatment (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.17; 206 participants), and moderate-certainty evidence from one study of no difference in days of self-reported opioid use (mean difference 1.41 days, 95% CI 3.37 lower to 0.55 days higher; 129 participants). There was low-certainty evidence from three studies of no difference between methadone and buprenorphine on adverse events (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.93; 206 participants). We found low-certainty evidence from four studies favouring maintenance buprenorphine treatment over non-opioid treatments in terms of fewer opioid positive urine drug tests at end of treatment (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.84; 270 participants), and very low-certainty evidence from four studies finding no difference on self-reported opioid use in the past 30 days at end of treatment (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.01; 276 participants). There was low-certainty evidence from three studies of no difference in the number of days of unsanctioned opioid use (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.19, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.09; 205 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence from four studies favouring buprenorphine maintenance over non-opioid treatments on retention in treatment (RR 3.02, 95% CI 1.73 to 5.27; 333 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence from three studies of no difference in adverse effects between buprenorphine maintenance and non-opioid treatments (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.48; 252 participants). The main weaknesses in the quality of the data was the use of open-label study designs, and difference in follow-up rates between treatment arms.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is  very low- to moderate-certainty evidence supporting the use of maintenance agonist pharmacotherapy for pharmaceutical opioid dependence. Methadone or buprenorphine did not differ on some outcomes, although on the outcomes of retention and self-reported substance use some results favoured methadone. Maintenance treatment with buprenorphine appears more effective than non-opioid treatments. Due to the overall very low- to moderate-certainty evidence and small sample sizes, there is the possibility that the further research may change these findings.

Efficacy of a password-protected, pill-dispensing device with mail return capacity to enhance disposal of unused opioids after cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

Opioid misuse is a public health crisis, and unused postoperative opioids are an important source. Although 70% of pills prescribed go unused, only 9% are discarded. This study evaluated whether an inexpensive pill-dispensing device with mail return capacity could enhance disposal of unused opioids after cancer surgery.

METHODS

A prospective pilot study was conducted among adult patients who underwent major cancer-related surgery. Patients received opioid prescriptions in a mechanical device (Addinex) linked to a smartphone application (app). The app provided passwords on a prescriber-defined schedule. Patients could enter a password into the device and receive a pill if the prescribed time had elapsed. Patients were instructed to return the device and any unused pills in a disposal mailer. The primary end point was feasibility of device return, defined as ≥50% of patients returning the device within 6 weeks of surgery. Also explored was total pill use and return as well as patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

Among 30 patients enrolled, the majority (n = 24, 80%) returned the device, and 17 (57%) returned it within 6 weeks of surgery. In total, 567 opioid pills were prescribed and 170 (30%) were used. Of 397 excess pills, 332 (84% of unused pills, 59% of all pills prescribed) were disposed of by mail. Among 19 patients who obtained opioids from the device, most (n = 14, 74%) felt the benefits of the device justified the added steps involved.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of an inexpensive pill-dispensing device with mail return capacity is a feasible strategy to enhance disposal of unused postoperative opioids.

Opioid agonist treatment (OAT) experiences and release plans among federally incarcerated individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) in Ontario, Canada: a mixed-methods study

Background

Incarcerated populations experience an elevated prevalence of opioid use disorder (OUD). Federal correctional institutions in Canada have increasingly treated OUD among correctional populations via opioid agonist treatment (OAT) – an evidence based pharmacotherapy that works to reduce drug use and related health harms. However, there is limited evidence regarding incarcerated individuals’ experiences with institutional-based OAT, as well potential OAT-related community release prospects. This information is important for optimal treatment retention and improved health. To address this knowledge gap, we conducted a longitudinal follow-up study examining OAT-related experiences among federally incarcerated individuals before and after community release. This article focuses on the baseline (pre-release) data.

Methods

This mixed-methods study examined OAT-related experiences and release prospects among n = 46 individuals scheduled for community release, recruited from seven federal prisons located in Ontario, Canada. Participants underwent a comprehensive interviewer-administered on-site assessment, including quantitative and qualitative items. Assessment data was furthermore linked to administrative correctional data. Data were analyzed using thematic qualitative and descriptive quantitative approaches.

Results

Participants had complex histories with opioid use including related negative health outcomes. Experiences with institutional OAT were divergent and provision was not standardized; those with OAT engagement pre-admission did not experience many challenges, whereas those initiating OAT during incarceration experienced barriers such as treatment waitlists and adverse process experiences. Most participants expressed a preference for buprenorphine-naloxone over methadone, but described difficulties accessing it. Participants were keen to transition into community-based treatment, yet envisaged prospective barriers and facilitators concerning successful reintegration and treatment continuity.

Conclusions

Major barriers towards the current administration of OAT in federal correctional systems in Canada exist, including extensive waitlists, non-standardized practices, and challenges accessing preferred OAT formulations; this contributes to sub-optimal treatment. Eliminating waitlists, standardizing OAT provision, providing additional OAT options, and more comprehensive release planning may be essential for treatment retention and positive outcomes.

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.

Expanding the Evidence on Integrated Opioid Use Disorder and Infectious Disease Care

Low-barrier to access programs has emerged as a way to overcome the significant hurdles associated with buprenorphine initiation. However, there has been limited research evaluating services set in low-barrier programs outside of buprenorphine. In this issue of the Journal of Addiction Medicine, Harvey and colleagues evaluate a sexually transmitted and blood-borne infection screening protocol implemented in a low-barrier access program in Boston, Massachusetts. The data supports that infection protocols can be efficiently implemented in the low-barrier setting, yielding high rates of diagnosis, and the potential for decentralized models of treatment.