Unintentional drug overdose: Is more frequent use of non-prescribed buprenorphine associated with lower risk of overdose?

Dose-specific clinical outcomes in patients with opioid use disorder treated with 24-32 mg/day of buprenorphine

BACKGROUND/AIMS

In people with opioid use disorder (OUD), buprenorphine is a vital treatment to decrease opioid use and overdose. The US Food and Drug Administration's prescribing information for buprenorphine advises dosing up to 24 mg/day; however, doses of buprenorphine up to 32 mg have been shown to be safe and effective. We compared outcomes associated increased dosing from 24 to 32 mg/day.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort investigation.

SETTING

Low-barrier buprenorphine clinic in Washington, District of Columbia, USA.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants in the ANCHOR study (people with hepatitis C virus (HCV), OUD, and active opioid misuse who were treated for HCV and offered buprenorphine) who received buprenorphine at doses of 24 and/or 32 mg/day. 72 participants were included in the analysis: 24 (33%) patients stabilized on 24 mg, and 48 (67%) patients stabilized on 32 mg. Patients were predominantly male (78%), Black (96%), unstably housed (57%), and used opioids by injection (93%).

MEASUREMENTS

Patient-reported drug use, use frequency, triggers for use, and urine drug screens were collected at each visit. For analysis, the cohort was divided into individuals stabilized on 24 mg (24 mg cohort) or 32 mg (32 mg cohort). Drug use outcomes were assessed between cohorts at 24 mg dosing and at respective maximum dosing. Within the 32 mg cohort, outcomes were compared at 24 mg versus 32 mg dosing.

FINDINGS

Within the 32 mg cohort, increased dosing from 24 to 32 mg was associated with a decline in opioid use (68.5% [5.2%] at 24 mg vs 59.5% [5.6%] at 32 mg; P = 0.02), frequency of use per week (1.58 [0.19] at 24 mg vs. 1.15 [0.16] at 32 mg; P = 0.0002) and physiologic triggers for use (38.2% [6.0%] at 24 mg vs 7.0% [1.9%] at 32 mg; P < 0.0001). At the end of the study period, there were significantly more patients retained in the 32 mg cohort (78.7%) compared with the 24 mg cohort (50.0%, P = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Higher buprenorphine dosing (32 mg/day) appears to improve outcomes in people with opioid use disorder, even in the absence of abstinence.

Buprenorphine/naloxone - one formulation that doesn't fit all: a case report

BACKGROUND

Sublingual buprenorphine, approved for treatment of opioid use disorder since 2002, is most commonly available in co-formulation with naloxone. Naloxone is an opioid antagonist minimally absorbed when sublingual (SL) buprenorphine/naloxone is taken as prescribed; it is thought to reduce potential for misuse via intravenous administration. However, growing data and clinical experience demonstrate that previously accepted assumptions about the pharmacokinetics of these medications may not apply to all patients.

CASE PRESENTATION

We present a patient whose adverse post-administration side effects on SL buprenorphine/naloxone resolved with transition to SL buprenorphine monoproduct.

DISCUSSION

Naloxone can be detected in nearly all patients taking SL buprenorphine/naloxone, though with apparent variability in clinical effect. In a minority of patients, naloxone can contribute to adverse and potentially treatment-limiting side effects. Furthermore, the naloxone component is commonly misunderstood by patients and providers and can foster mistrust in the therapeutic relationship if providers are perceived to be withholding a more tolerable formulation. Prescribers should have a low threshold to offer buprenorphine alone when clinically appropriate.

Use of harm reduction strategies by individuals with a history of incarceration: A short report using baseline data collected from the STAMINA clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Due to the considerably heightened risk of overdose immediately following jail or prison release, expansion of harm reduction interventions for citizens returning to the community after an incarceration episode should be of utmost concern. However, there are no studies examining the adoption and use of harm reduction among this population. This short report examines the use of individual-level harm reduction strategies (HRS) among people who use drugs, comparing those who have lifetime histories of incarceration with those who do not.

METHODS

This study included baseline data (N = 274) from a larger clinical trial, which recruited participants at two syringe service programs. Fisher's exact tests examine correlations between HRS and lifetime incarceration.

RESULTS

Significant variation in HRS use were observed by demographic characteristics. Those with lifetime incarceration histories were less likely to report ensuring naloxone was available when using, using when others were present, using fentanyl test strips, using a trusted drug supplier, and using some other HRS compared to those without lifetime incarceration histories. Similarly, those with lifetime incarceration histories were also less likely to report using non-prescribed buprenorphine and methadone, which could potentially reduce overdose risk even if not explicitly used as an HRS.

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that one of the populations at highest risk of overdose is least likely to use strategies that may reduce overdose risk. Targeted efforts to increase exposure to HRS learning opportunities and access to these resources could help reduce overdose disparities for people returning to the community after incarceration.

Fentanyl Exposure and Detection Strategies Utilized by Clinical Trial Participants Seeking Linkage to Opioid Use Disorder Treatment at a Syringe Service Program

INTRODUCTION

The USA continues to face a fentanyl-driven overdose epidemic. Prior research has demonstrated users of illicit opioids are concerned about fentanyl exposure and overdose, but the strategies they report using to detect fentanyl's presence lack empirical support. This study compares self-report and biologically detected fentanyl use and investigates overdose risk and risk reduction behaviors among a sample of high-risk people who use opioids.

METHODS

Structured enrollment interviews conducted as part of a larger clinical trial assessed self-reported fentanyl exposure as well as strategies used to determine believed fentanyl exposure and prevent overdose among 240 participants enrolled at a Chicago, IL syringe service program. Urinalysis measured actual fentanyl exposure.

RESULTS

Most participants identified as African American (66.7%) and had considerable overdose experience (76.7% lifetime and 48% in the past year). Most also tested positive for fentanyl (93.75%) despite reporting no past year use of fentanyl or fentanyl-adulterated drugs (64.17%). The most utilized approaches reported for identifying fentanyl exposure were stronger effects of the drug (60.7%), sight or taste (46.9%), and being told by someone using the same drugs (34.2%). Few participants (14%) reported using fentanyl test strips. No significant associations were identified between self-report and urinalysis measures or urinalysis results and risk reduction strategies.

CONCLUSION

This study adds to prior fentanyl exposure risk research. The disconnect between participants' fentanyl detection methods and reported overdose experiences supports the need for more research to identify and understand factors driving access and use of overdose prevention resources and strategies.

Buprenorphine use and setting type among reproductive-aged women self-reporting nonmedical prescription opioid use

INTRODUCTION

Screening for opioid misuse and treatment for opioid use disorder are critical for reducing morbidity and mortality. We sought to understand the extent of self-reported past 30-day buprenorphine use in various settings among women of reproductive age with self-reported nonmedical prescription opioid use being assessed for substance use problems.

METHODS

The study collected data from individuals being assessed for substance use problems using the Addiction Severity Index-Multimedia Version in 2018-2020. We stratified the sample of 10,196 women ages 12-55 self-reporting past 30-day nonmedical prescription opioid use by buprenorphine use and setting type. We categorized setting types as: buprenorphine in specialty addiction treatment, buprenorphine in office-based opioid treatment, and diverted buprenorphine. We included each woman's first intake assessment during the study period. The study assessed number of buprenorphine products, reasons for using buprenorphine, and sources of buprenorphine procurement. The study calculated frequency of reasons for using buprenorphine to treat opioid use disorder outside of a doctor-managed treatment, overall and by race/ethnicity.

RESULTS

Overall, 25.5 % of the sample used buprenorphine in specialty addiction treatment, 6.1 % used buprenorphine prescribed in office-based treatment, 21.7 % used diverted buprenorphine, and 46.7 % reported no buprenorphine use during the past 30 days. Among women who reported using buprenorphine to treat opioid use disorder, but not as part of a doctor-managed treatment, 72.3 % could not find a provider or get into a treatment program, 21.8 % did not want to be part of a program or see a provider, and 6.0 % reported both; a higher proportion of American Indian/Alaska Native women (92.1 %) reported that they could not find a provider or get into a treatment program versus non-Hispanic White (78.0 %), non-Hispanic Black (76.0 %), and Hispanic (75.0 %) women.

CONCLUSIONS

Appropriate screening for nonmedical prescription opioid use to assess need for treatment with medication for opioid use disorder is important for all women of reproductive age. Our data highlight opportunities to improve treatment program accessibility and availability and support the need to increase equitable access for all women.

Rise in Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome Rate Is Associated with Increase in Buprenorphine Prescription Numbers

OBJECTIVES

Southern Appalachia is a region of the United States that is disproportionately affected by the opioid epidemic and by increasing rates of neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS). NAS rates increased approximately 400% between 1999 and 2012. Buprenorphine prescriptions written to treat opioid use disorder also increased dramatically. The present study was undertaken to ascertain any relationship between the number of buprenorphine prescriptions compared with NAS rates in southern Appalachia.

METHODS

A total of 250 southern Appalachian counties across seven states, including all of West Virginia and portions of Virginia, Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina, Ohio, and Tennessee were identified. A retrospective cohort analysis of these counties was conducted for the years 2005-2018. All of the data were obtained from publicly accessible sources or direct communication with government offices. Measures from each county in southern Appalachia included annual NAS rates, buprenorphine prescription rates, drug-induced death rates, and opioid prescribing rates. Associations among these variables were examined using a generalized linear regression.

RESULTS

Significant linear associations exist between the rising rate of NAS diagnoses and the rising rate of buprenorphine prescriptions (r = 0.977, R2 = 95.53%, P < 0.001) and between the rising rate of buprenorphine prescriptions and the increase in drug-induced deaths (r = 0.712, R2 = 50.82%, P = 0.031).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first report that documents an association between rising NAS rates and increasing buprenorphine prescribing. Between the years 2010 and 2018, the NAS rate in southern Appalachia rose by 335%, and the number of buprenorphine prescriptions rose by 413%. Discussions regarding the current policies for buprenorphine management during pregnancy are warranted. We suggest a reevaluation of buprenorphine prescribing recommendations during pregnancy and further research on establishing the lowest effective buprenorphine dose for each pregnant patient.

Supervised on-site dosing in injectable opioid agonist treatment-considering the patient perspective. Findings from a cross-sectional interview study in two German cities

BACKGROUND

Injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) is an effective option to support people living with opioid use disorder (OUD) who have not sufficiently benefitted from oral OAT. However, iOAT has been criticised based on theoretical and practical grounds for its dosing policies: Current regulations demand supervised, on-site application and require patients to frequently visit their treatment facility. The current study aims to investigate how patients experience on-site application and derive strategies to enhance the acceptability and effectiveness of iOAT-delivery.

METHODS

This article is based on semi-structured interviews with 27 individuals currently or previously in iOAT in two German outpatient iOAT-clinics. We undertook an inductive qualitative content analysis, which included blinded, independent coding and the analysis of individual cases.

RESULTS

Comments regarding on-site application and daily visits to the clinic were grouped into positive and negative aspects, iOAT as the best alternative option, facilitators of daily visits, and suggestions for improvement. Positive aspects took the factors stability and social support in regard. Negative aspects ranged from general inconveniences to major impediments to individuals' daily lives and towards achieving psychosocial goals. Participants reported rigorous adherence to iOAT's treatment regime, often due to a perceived lack of alternative options. Meeting iOAT's demands was eased by the patients' coping-strategies and through facilitating measures implemented by iOAT-clinics. Despite acknowledgement of the potential detriments from easing regulations, take-home arrangements were frequently suggested by participants to improve iOAT.

CONCLUSIONS

Being required to attend the clinic for supervised iOAT-application is not experienced uniformly. While clinics can support their patients to cope with strict regulations, alternative approaches to iOAT-application should be considered to accommodate patients' individual needs. Examples from other treatment modalities (e.g., remote supervision and delivery services) might aid to reconcile individualisation while providing adequate safety measures and improve iOAT in the long term.

Examining buprenorphine diversion through a harm reduction lens: an agent-based modeling study

BACKGROUND

Recent policies have lessened restrictions around prescribing buprenorphine-naloxone (buprenorphine) for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD). The primary concern expressed by critics of these policies is the potential for buprenorphine diversion. However, the population-level effects of increased buprenorphine diversion are unclear. If replacing the use of heroin or fentanyl, use of diverted buprenorphine could be protective.

METHODS

Our study aim was to estimate the impact of buprenorphine diversion on opioid overdose using an agent-based model calibrated to North Carolina. We simulated the progression of opioid misuse and opioid-related outcomes over a 5-year period. Our status quo scenario assumed that 50% of those prescribed buprenorphine diverted at least one dose per week to other individuals with OUD and 10% of individuals with OUD used diverted buprenorphine at least once per week. A controlled prescription only scenario assumed that no buprenorphine would be diverted, while an increased diversion scenario assumed that 95% of those prescribed buprenorphine diverted and 50% of individuals with OUD used diverted buprenorphine. We assumed that use of diverted buprenorphine replaced the use of other opioids for that day. Sensitivity analyses increased the risk of overdose when using diverted buprenorphine, increased the frequency of diverted buprenorphine use, and simulated use of diverted buprenorphine by opioid-naïve individuals. Scenarios were compared on opioid overdose-related outcomes over the 5-year period.

RESULTS

Our status quo scenario predicted 10,658 (credible interval [CI]: 9699-11,679) fatal opioid overdoses. A scenario simulating controlled prescription only of buprenorphine (i.e., no diversion) resulted in 10,741 (9895-11,650) fatal opioid overdoses versus 10,301 (9439-11,244) within a scenario simulating increased diversion. Compared to the status quo, the controlled prescription only scenario resulted in a similar number of fatal overdoses, while the scenario with increased diversion of buprenorphine resulted in 357 (3.35%) fewer fatal overdoses. Even when increasing overdose risk while using diverted buprenorphine and incorporating use by opioid naïve individuals, increased diversion did not increase overdoses compared to a scenario with no buprenorphine diversion.

CONCLUSIONS

A similar number of opioid overdoses occurred under modeling conditions with increased rates of buprenorphine diversion among persons with OUD, with non-statistical trends toward lower opioid overdoses. These results support existing calls for low- to no-barrier access to buprenorphine for persons with OUD.

Research Priorities for Expansion of Opioid Use Disorder Treatment in the Community Pharmacy

In the last decade, the U.S. opioid overdose crisis has magnified, particularly since the introduction of synthetic opioids, including fentanyl. Despite the benefits of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), only about a fifth of people with opioid use disorder (OUD) in the U.S. receive MOUD. The ubiquity of pharmacists, along with their extensive education and training, represents great potential for expansion of MOUD services, particularly in community pharmacies. The National Institute on Drug Abuse's National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (NIDA CTN) convened a working group to develop a research agenda to expand OUD treatment in the community pharmacy sector to support improved access to MOUD and patient outcomes. Identified settings for research include independent and chain pharmacies and co-located pharmacies within primary care settings. Specific topics for research included adaptation of pharmacy infrastructure for clinical service provision, strategies for interprofessional collaboration including health service models, drug policy and regulation, pharmacist education about OUD and OUD treatment, including didactic, experiential, and interprofessional curricula, and educational interventions to reduce stigma towards this patient population. Together, expanding these research areas can bring effective MOUD to where it is most needed.

Buprenorphine deregulation as an opioid crisis policy response - A comparative analysis between France and the United States

BACKGROUND

In passing the Maintstreaming Addiction Treatment Act, the United States has abolished its federal X waiver, considered a major barrier to the wider buprenorphine prescribing needed to respond to opioid-related harms. Advocates for this policy have drawn on the French response of deregulating buprenorphine prescribing to address increasing overdose mortality around the turn of the millennium. So far, such policy advocacy has incompletely accounted for contextual and health system differences between the two countries.

METHODS

Using the health system dynamics framework, this analysis compares France from 1995 to 2003 (the relevant period of buprenorphine reform) to the US from 2018 until today (the comparison period to explore potential impacts of reform). We used it to guide examination of a) contextual issues relating to opioid use epidemiology and b) health system factors including prescriber supply, sector organization, and insurance coverage for primary care to draw relevant policy learning for the contemporary US.

RESULTS

We identified that the US had a 22.5-fold higher mortality rate and a 2.3-fold higher opioid use disorder (OUD) rate compared to France, despite having rates of prescribed buprenorphine per-capita higher than, and per-person with OUD comparable to, than that of France. These wide gulfs between the scales and nature of the problems between France and the US suggest that relaxing restrictions on buprenorphine prescribing through abolishing the X waiver will be insufficient for achieving hoped-for reductions in overdose mortality.

CONCLUSION

Health system strengthening with a focus on improvements in primary care prescriber supply, coverage, and coordination are likely higher yield policy complements to relaxing buprenorphine regulation. Such an approach would better prepare the US to adapt to ongoing dynamics and uncertainties in the opioid crisis and to optimize the already relatively high levels of buprenorphine prescribing.

The impact of relaxing restrictions on take-home doses during the COVID-19 pandemic on program effectiveness and client experiences in opioid agonist treatment: a mixed methods systematic review

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic led to an unprecedented relaxation of restrictions on take-home doses in opioid agonist treatment (OAT). We conducted a mixed methods systematic review to explore the impact of these changes on program effectiveness and client experiences in OAT.

METHODS

The protocol for this review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022352310). From Aug.-Nov. 2022, we searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Web of Science, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and the grey literature. We included studies reporting quantitative measures of retention in treatment, illicit substance use, overdose, client health, quality of life, or treatment satisfaction or using qualitative methods to examine client experiences with take-home doses during the pandemic. We critically appraised studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. We synthesized quantitative data using vote-counting by direction of effect and presented the results in harvest plots. Qualitative data were analyzed using thematic synthesis. We used a convergent segregated approach to integrate quantitative and qualitative findings.

RESULTS

Forty studies were included. Most were from North America (23/40) or the United Kingdom (9/40). The quantitative synthesis was limited by potential for confounding, but suggested an association between take-home doses and increased retention in treatment. There was no evidence of an association between take-home doses and illicit substance use or overdose. Qualitative findings indicated that take-home doses reduced clients' exposure to unregulated substances and stigma and minimized work/treatment conflicts. Though some clients reported challenges with managing their medication, the dominant narrative was one of appreciation, reduced anxiety, and a renewed sense of agency and identity. The integrated analysis suggested reduced treatment burden as an explanation for improved retention and revealed variation in individual relationships between take-home doses and illicit substance use. We identified a critical gap in quantitative measures of patient-important outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The relaxation of restrictions on take-home doses was associated with improved client experience and retention in OAT. We found no evidence of an association with illicit substance use or overdose, despite the expansion of take-home doses to previously ineligible groups. Including patient-important outcome measures in policy, program development, and treatment planning is essential to ensuring that decisions around take-home doses accurately reflect their value to clients.

Evidence on Buprenorphine Dose Limits: A Review

OBJECTIVES

As overdose deaths from fentanyl continue to increase, optimizing use of medications for opioid use disorder has become increasingly important. Buprenorphine is a highly effective medication for reducing the risk of overdose death, but only if a patient remains in treatment. Shared decision making between prescribers and patients is important to establish a dose that meets each patient's treatment needs. However, patients frequently face a dose limit of 16 or 24 mg/d based on dosing guidelines on the Food and Drug Administration's package label.

METHODS

This review discusses patient-centered goals and clinical criteria for determining dose adequacy, reviews the history of buprenorphine dose regulation in the United States, examines pharmacological and clinical research results with buprenorphine doses up to 32 mg/d, and evaluates whether diversion concerns justify maintaining a low buprenorphine dose limit.

RESULTS

Pharmacological and clinical research results consistently demonstrate buprenorphine's dose-dependent benefits up to at least 32 mg/d, including reductions in withdrawal symptoms, craving, opioid reward, and illicit use while improving retention in care. Diverted buprenorphine is most often used to treat withdrawal symptoms and reduce illicit opioid use when legal access to it is limited.

CONCLUSIONS

In light of established research and profound harms from fentanyl, the Food and Drug Administration's current recommendations on target dose and dose limit are outdated and causing harm. An update to the buprenorphine package label with recommended dosing up to 32 mg/d and elimination of the 16 mg/d target dose would improve treatment effectiveness and save lives.

Attitudes and beliefs about Vermont's 2021 buprenorphine decriminalization law among residents who use illicit opioids

BACKGROUND

In July 2021, Vermont removed all criminal penalties for possessing 224mg or less of buprenorphine.

METHODS

Vermont residents (N=474) who used illicit opioid drugs or received treatment for opioid use disorder in the past 90 days were recruited for a mixed-methods survey on the health and criminal legal effects of decriminalization. Topics assessed included: motivations for using non-prescribed buprenorphine, awareness of and support for decriminalization, and criminal legal system experiences involving buprenorphine. We examined the frequencies of quantitative measures and qualitatively summarized themes from free-response questions.

RESULTS

Three-quarters of respondents (76%) reported lifetime use of non-prescribed buprenorphine. 80% supported decriminalization, but only 28% were aware buprenorphine was decriminalized in Vermont. Respondents described using non-prescribed buprenorphine to alleviate withdrawal symptoms and avoid use of other illicit drugs. 18% had been arrested while in buprenorphine, with non-White respondents significantly more likely to report such arrests (15% v 33%, p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Decriminalization of buprenorphine may reduce unnecessary criminal legal system involvement, but its health impact was limited by low awareness at the time of our study.

Buprenorphine and opioid analgesics: Dispensation and discontinuity among accidental overdose fatalities in the Indianapolis metropolitan area, 2016-2021

BACKGROUND

This study describes overall trends and sociodemographic disparities in buprenorphine and opioid analgesic uptake and prescribing patterns prior to fatal overdose events.

METHODS

We examined toxicology data from all accidental overdose deaths from 2016 to 2021 (N = 2682) in a large metropolitan area. These data were linked at the individual-level with a prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP).

RESULTS

Fewer than half of all deaths had any kind of PDMP record (39.9 %, n = 1070). Among those with a buprenorphine prescription, 10.6 % (n = 35) of decedents had a buprenorphine dispensation within 7 days of their death, while the majority (64.7 %, n = 214) were dispensed buprenorphine more than 30 days prior to death. Evidence existed of racial disparities among those with any buprenorphine uptake, whereby Black individuals (7.3 %, n = 24) had significantly fewer any dispensations compared to White individuals (92.7 %, n = 307). Among those with an opioid analgesic prescription, about 12.2 % (n = 90) were dispensed within 7 days of death, with the majority (68.5 %, n = 506) occurring more than 30 days prior to death. Like buprenorphine dispensations, Black individuals were prescribed a significantly smaller proportion of opioid analgesics (21.9 %, n = 162) versus White individuals (77.7 %, n = 574). Buprenorphine was detected in 78.5 % of deaths where fentanyl was present in the toxicology record, significantly greater when compared to opioid analgesics (57.5 %).

CONCLUSION

Consistent with prior research, our findings suggest prescription opioid analgesics may protect against fatal overdoses. Access to buprenorphine treatment did not keep pace with the rising lethality of the overdose crisis, and in recent years, a smaller percentage of the people at risk of fatal overdose availed themselves of MOUD preceding their death.

Addressing buprenorphine bottlenecks in the context of MAT Act implementation: A shared responsibility

Medications for opioid use disorder (OUD) such as buprenorphine reduce overdose mortality and other opioid related acute health events but have historically been highly regulated. The recent Mainstreaming Addiction Treatment (MAT) Act ended the requirement clinicians complete a specified training and apply for a DATA 2000 ("X") waiver on their Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) number, to prescribe buprenorphine. With the MAT Act, any practitioner with Schedule III prescribing authority (a regular DEA number) can now prescribe buprenorphine for OUD. While this has potential to improve OUD treatment access, the impact will depend on implementation. Though the MAT Act may facilitate increased buprenorphine prescribing, ensuring adequate buprenorphine dispensing is also critical to improving Medications for opioid use disorder. Recognized buprenorphine bottlenecks arise from a complex convergence of factors in community pharmacies, threatening to undercut the benefits of the MAT Act. If prescribing increases but is not matched by increased dispensing, bottlenecks may worsen. Any worsening of buprenorphine bottlenecks could have a disproportionate impact in rural areas where residents may rely on fewer pharmacies to fill prescriptions for people in larger geographic area and where larger prescribing-dispensing gaps already exist such as in Southern states. Rigorous research will be needed to document the overall impact of the MAT Act on community pharmacists and their patients. At the federal level, pharmacists and their professional organizations should lobby the DEA to de-schedule or re-schedule buprenorphine. The DEA should announce a moratorium on enforcement actions against wholesalers and pharmacies related to buprenorphine distribution and dispensing. More supports should be offered to community pharmacies by state pharmacy boards and associations including continuing pharmacy education and technical assistance for advocating with wholesalers to increase buprenorphine order sizes, and to more effectively communicate with prescribers. Pharmacies should not have to face these challenges alone. Regulators, wholesalers, and researchers must join together with community pharmacies to further reduce regulatory barriers to dispensing, provide evidence-based interventions where needed to support pharmacy dispensing efforts, conduct rigorous implementation research, and be constantly vigilant in identifying and addressing multi-level buprenorphine bottlenecks in the wake of the MAT Act.

Buprenorphine After Nonfatal Opioid Overdose: Reduced Mortality Risk in Medicare Disability Beneficiaries

INTRODUCTION

Opioid-involved overdose mortality is a persistent public health challenge, yet limited evidence exists on the relationship between opioid use disorder treatment after a nonfatal overdose and subsequent overdose death.

METHODS

National Medicare data were used to identify adult (aged 18-64 years) disability beneficiaries who received inpatient or emergency treatment for nonfatal opioid-involved overdose in 2008-2016. Opioid use disorder treatment was defined as (1) buprenorphine, measured using medication days' supply, and (2) psychosocial services, measured as 30-day exposures from and including each service date. Opioid-involved overdose fatalities were identified in the year after nonfatal overdose using linked National Death Index data. Cox proportional hazards models estimated the associations between time-varying treatment exposures and overdose death. Analyses were conducted in 2022.

RESULTS

The sample (N=81,616) was mostly female (57.3%), aged ≥50 years (58.8%), and White (80.9%), with a significantly elevated overdose mortality rate, compared with the general U.S. population (standardized mortality ratio=132.4, 95% CI=129.9, 135.0). Only 6.5% of the sample (n=5,329) had opioid use disorder treatment after the index overdose. Buprenorphine (n=3,774, 4.6%) was associated with a significantly lower risk of opioid-involved overdose death (adjusted hazard ratio=0.38, 95% CI=0.23, 0.64), but opioid use disorder-related psychosocial treatment (n=2,405, 2.9%) was not associated with risk of death (adjusted hazard ratio=1.18, 95% CI=0.71, 1.95).

CONCLUSIONS

Buprenorphine treatment after nonfatal opioid-involved overdose was associated with a 62% reduction in the risk of opioid-involved overdose death. However, fewer than 1 in 20 individuals received buprenorphine in the subsequent year, highlighting a need to strengthen care connections after critical opioid-related events, particularly for vulnerable groups.

Thematic Analysis of State Medicaid Buprenorphine Prior Authorization Requirements

Importance

Prior authorization (PA) requirements for buprenorphine are associated with lower provision of the medication for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD). While Medicare plans have eliminated PA requirements for buprenorphine, many Medicaid plans continue to require them.

Objective

To describe and classify buprenorphine coverage requirements based on thematic analysis of state Medicaid PA forms.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This qualitative study used a thematic analysis of 50 states' Medicaid PA forms for buprenorphine between November 2020 and March 2021. Forms were obtained from the jurisdiction's Medicaid websites and assessed for features suggesting barriers to buprenorphine access. A coding tool was developed based on a review of a sample of forms, including fields for behavioral health treatment recommendations or mandates, drug screening requirements, and dosage limitations.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Outcomes included PA requirements for different buprenorphine formulations. Additionally, PA forms were evaluated for various criteria such as behavioral health, drug screenings, dose-related recommendations or mandates or patient education.

Results

Among the total of 50 US states in the analysis, most states' Medicaid plans required PA for at least 1 formulation of buprenorphine. However, the majority did not require a PA for buprenorphine-naloxone. Four key themes of coverage requirements were identified: restrictive surveillance (eg, requirements for urine drug screenings, random drug screenings, pill counts), behavioral health treatment recommendations or mandates (eg, mandatory counseling or 12-step meeting attendance), interfering with or restricting medical decision-making (eg, maximum daily dosages of 16 mg, requiring additional steps for dosages higher than 16 mg), and patient education (eg, information about adverse effects and interactions with other medications). Eleven states (22%) required urine drug screenings, 6 states (12%) required random urine drug screenings, and 4 states (8%) required pill counts. Fourteen states' forms (28%) recommended therapy, and 7 (14%) required therapy, counseling, or participation in group sessions. Eighteen states (36%) specified dosage maximums; among them, 11 (22%) required additional steps for a daily dosage higher than 16 mg.

Conclusion

In this qualitative study of state Medicaid PA requirements for buprenorphine, themes were identified that included patient surveillance with drug screenings and pill counts, behavioral health treatment recommendations or mandates, patient education, and dosing guidance. These results suggest that state Medicaid plans' buprenorphine PA requirements for OUD are in conflict with existing evidence and may negatively affect states' efforts to address the opioid overdose crisis.

Association of Patients' Direct Addition of Buprenorphine to Urine Drug Test Specimens With Clinical Factors in Opioid Use Disorder

Importance

The direct addition of buprenorphine to urine drug test specimens to mimic results suggestive of adherence is a clinically significant result, yet little is known about the phenomenon.

Objective

To characterize factors associated with the direct addition of buprenorphine to urine specimens among patients prescribed buprenorphine for opioid use disorder.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study of urine drug test specimens was conducted from January 1, 2017, to April 30, 2022, using a national database of urine drug test specimens ordered by clinicians from primary care, behavioral health, and substance use disorder treatment clinics. Urine specimens with quantitative norbuprenorphine and buprenorphine concentrations from patients with opioid use disorder currently prescribed buprenorphine were analyzed.

Exposures

Nonprescribed opioid or stimulant co-positive, clinical setting, collection year, census division, patient age, patient sex, and payor.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Norbuprenorphine to buprenorphine ratio less than 0.02 identified direct addition of buprenorphine. Unadjusted trends in co-positivity for stimulants and opioids were compared between specimens consistent with the direct addition of buprenorphine. Factors associated with the direct addition of buprenorphine were examined with generalized estimating equations.

Results

This study included 507 735 urine specimens from 58 476 patients. Of all specimens, 261 210 (51.4%) were obtained from male individuals, and 137 254 (37.7%) were from patients aged 25 to 34 years. Overall, 9546 (1.9%) specimens from 4550 (7.6%) patients were suggestive of the direct addition of buprenorphine. The annual prevalence decreased from 2.4% in 2017 to 1.2% in 2020. Opioid-positive with (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.01; 95% CI, 1.85-2.18) and without (aOR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.81-2.26) stimulant-positive specimens were associated with the direct addition of buprenorphine to specimens, while opioid-negative/stimulant-positive specimens were negatively associated (aOR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.71-0.85). Specimens from patients aged 35 to 44 years (aOR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.34-1.90) and primary care (aOR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.44-1.79) were associated with the direct addition of buprenorphine. Differences by treatment setting decreased over time. Specimens from the South Atlantic census region had the highest association (aOR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.25-1.56) and New England had the lowest association (aOR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.46-0.65) with the direct addition of buprenorphine.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cross-sectional study, the direct addition of buprenorphine to urine specimens was associated with other opioid positivity and being collected in primary care settings. The direct addition of buprenorphine to urine specimens is a clinically significant finding, and best practices specific for this phenomenon are needed.

Trajectories of non-prescribed buprenorphine and other opioid use: A multi-trajectory latent class growth analysis

INTRODUCTION

With the increasing use of non-prescribed buprenorphine (NPB), we need more data to identify the longitudinal patterns of NPB use. The goal of this natural history study is to characterize heterogeneity in trajectories of NPB, other opioid use, and participation in medication for opioid disorder (MOUD) treatment among a community-recruited sample of individuals with current opioid use disorder (OUD).

METHODS

The study recruited a community-based sample of 357 individuals with OUD who used NPB in the past 6 months in Ohio, United States, for baseline and follow-up assessments (every 6 months for 2 years) of drug use, treatment participation, and other health and psychosocial characteristics. The study used multiple imputation to handle missing data. We used a multi-trajectory latent class growth analysis (MT-LCGA) to find salient groupings of participants based on the trajectories of NPB, other opioid use, and treatment participation.

RESULTS

Over time, NPB use frequency declined from a mean of 14.6 % of days at baseline to 3.6 % of days at 24-month follow-up along with declines in heroin/fentanyl (56.4 % to 23.6 % of days) and non-prescribed pharmaceutical opioid (NPPO) use (11.6 % to 1.5 % of days). Participation in MOUD treatment increased from a mean of 17.0 % of days at baseline to 52.4 % of days at 24 months. MT-LCGA identified a 6-class model. All six classes showed declines in NPB use. Class 1 (28 %) was characterized by high and increasing MOUD treatment utilization. Class 2 (21 %) showed sustained high levels of heroin/fentanyl use and had the lowest levels of NPB use (2.2 % of days) at baseline. Class 3 (3 %) was characterized as the primary NPPO use group. Class 4 (5 %) transitioned from high levels of NPB use to increased MOUD treatment utilization. It had the highest levels of NPB use at baseline (average of 80.7 % of days) that decreased to an average of 12.9 % of days at 24 months. Class 5 (16 %) showed transition from high levels of heroin/fentanyl use to increased MOUD treatment utilization. Class 6 (27 %) showed decreased heroin/fentanyl use over time and low MOUD treatment utilization. Classes showed varying levels of improvement in psychosocial functioning, polydrug use, and overdose risks.

CONCLUSION

Overall, our findings suggest that NPB use was generally self-limiting with individuals reducing their use over time as some engage in greater utilization of MOUD treatment. A need exists for continuing improvements in MOUD treatment access and retention.

Association Between Buprenorphine Dose and the Urine "Norbuprenorphine" to "Creatinine" Ratio: Revised

Background

Utilizing a 1-year chart review as the data, Furo et al. conducted a research study on an association between buprenorphine dose and the urine "norbuprenorphine" to "creatinine" ratio and found significant differences in the ratio among 8-, 12-, and 16-mg/day groups with an analysis of variance (ANOVA) test. This study expands the data for a 2-year chart review and is intended to delineate an association between buprenorphine dose and the urine "norbuprenorphine" to "creatinine" ratio with a higher statistical power.

Methods

This study performed a 2-year chart review of data for the patients living in a halfway house setting, where their drug administration was closely monitored. The patients were on buprenorphine prescribed at an outpatient clinic for opioid use disorder (OUD), and their buprenorphine prescription and dispensing information were confirmed by the New York Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP). Urine test results in the electronic health record (EHR) were reviewed, focusing on the "buprenorphine," "norbuprenorphine," and "creatinine" levels. The Kruskal-Wallis H and Mann-Whitney U tests were performed to examine an association between buprenorphine dose and the "norbuprenorphine" to "creatinine" ratio.

Results

This study included 371 urine samples from 61 consecutive patients and analyzed the data in a manner similar to that described in the study by Furo et al. This study had similar findings with the following exceptions: (1) a mean buprenorphine dose of 11.0 ± 3.8 mg/day with a range of 2 to 20 mg/day; (2) exclusion of 6 urine samples with "creatinine" level <20 mg/dL; (3) minimum "norbuprenorphine" to "creatinine" ratios in the 8-, 12-, and 16-mg/day groups of 0.44 × 10-4 (n = 68), 0.1 × 10-4 (n = 133), and 1.37 × 10-4 (n = 82), respectively; however, after removing the 2 lowest outliers, the minimum "norbuprenorphine" to "creatinine" ratio in the 12-mg/day group was 1.6 × 10-4, similar to the findings in the previous study; and (4) a significant association between buprenorphine dose and the urine "norbuprenorphine" to "creatinine" ratios from the Kruskal-Wallis test (P < .01). In addition, the median "norbuprenorphine" to "creatinine" ratio had a strong association with buprenorphine dose, and this association could be formulated as: [y = 2.266 ln(x) + 0.8211]. In other words, the median ratios in 8-, 12-, and 16-mg/day groups were 5.53 × 10-4, 6.45 × 10-4, and 7.10 × 10-4, respectively. Therefore, any of the following features should alert providers to further investigate patient treatment compliance: (1) inappropriate substance(s) in urine sample; (2) "creatinine" level <20 mg/dL; (3) "buprenorphine" to "norbuprenorphine" ratio >50:1; (4) buprenorphine dose >24 mg/day; or (5) "norbuprenorphine" to "creatinine" ratios <0.5 × 10-4 in patients who are on 8 mg/day or <1.5 × 10-4 in patients who are on 12 mg/day or more.

Conclusion

The results of the present study confirmed those of the previous study regarding an association between buprenorphine dose and the "norbuprenorphine" to "creatinine" ratio, using an expanded data set. Additionally, this study delineated a clearer relationship, focusing on the median "norbuprenorphine" to "creatinine" ratios in different buprenorphine dose groups. These results could help providers interpret urine test results more accurately and apply them to outpatient opioid treatment programs for optimal treatment outcomes.

Buprenorphine involvement in opioid overdose deaths: A retrospective analysis of postmortem toxicology in Marion County, Indiana, 2015-2021

Background

Amidst an unprecedented overdose epidemic, the opioid partial agonist buprenorphine is a medication for opioid use disorder associated with reductions in overdose. Despite its efficacy, buprenorphine prescribing remains closely regulated, owing to concerns about misuse, and its possible role in overdoses.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of the Marion County, Indiana coroner's postmortem toxicology data for unintentional opioid-involved overdose deaths from 2015 through 2021. The county was chosen as a novel setting whose corner provided comprehensive overdose data. It contains Indianapolis, a large city in the US Midwest The 2,369 opioid-involved overdoses were analyzed for the presence of buprenorphine and its metabolite, as wel as potent substances associated with illicit drug use and overdose.

Results

Of the 2,369 postmortem toxicology records analyzed, 55 (2.3%) indicated presence of buprenorphine. Of buprenorphine-involved cases, 51 (92.7%) involved other potent substances such as fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, methadone, and amphetamines; 4 (7.3%) were attributed to buprenorphine and liver failure, diabetic ketoacidosis, or relatively less potent substances. Fentanyl was present in 28 cases (50.9%), benzodiazepines were present in 24 (43.6%). Black opioid decedents were considerably less likely to have buprenorphine in their toxicology than White decedents.

Conclusions

Buprenorphine was rarely detected in the postmortem toxicology of unintentional opioid overdoses in a major US city in the Midwest. In nearly all cases it was accompanied by other potent substances that more frequently cause fatal overdoses on their own. This study confirms findings from other geographic settings that the overdose mortality risks associated with buprenorphine are low.

Scope of, Motivations for, and Outcomes Associated with Buprenorphine Diversion in the United States: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Expanding access to medications to treat opioid use disorder (OUD), such as buprenorphine, is an evidence-based response to the mounting drug overdose crisis. However, concerns about buprenorphine diversion persist and contribute to limited access.

METHODS

To inform decisions about expanding access, a scoping review was conducted on publications describing the scope of, motivations for, and outcomes associated with diverted buprenorphine in the U.S.

RESULTS

In the 57 included studies, definitions for diversion were inconsistent. Most studied use of illicitly-obtained buprenorphine. Across studies, the scope of buprenorphine diversion ranged from 0% to 100%, varying by sample type and recall period. Among samples of people receiving buprenorphine for OUD treatment, diversion peaked at 4.8%. Motivations for using diverted buprenorphine were self-treatment, management of drug use, to get high, and when drug of choice was unavailable. Associated outcomes examined trended toward positive or neutral, including improved attitudes toward and retention in MOUD.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite inconsistent definitions of diversion, studies reported a low scope of diversion among people receiving MOUD, with inability to access treatment as a motivating factor for using diverted buprenorphine, and increased retention in MOUD as an outcome associated with use of diverted buprenorphine. Future research should explore reasons for diverted buprenorphine use in the context of expanded treatment availability to address persistent barriers to evidence-based treatment for OUD.

Characterization of Unintentional Deaths Among Buprenorphine Users

OBJECTIVE

Medications used to treat opioid use disorder (OUD) reduce drug overdose risk. Buprenorphine is often the preferred treatment for OUD because of its high safety profile. Given expanding buprenorphine use, this study sought to examine buprenorphine-involved deaths (BIDs) and compare them with other drug-related deaths.

METHOD

West Virginia drug-related deaths from 2005 to early 2020 were identified. Study data included decedent demographics, toxicology, autopsy findings, and medical and prescription histories. Characteristics of BIDs compared with other drug-related deaths were statistically analyzed.

RESULTS

Among 11,764 drug-related deaths, only 564 (4.8%) involved buprenorphine. Buprenorphine alone was present in 32 deaths, of which 20 were considered the direct cause of death (0.2% of all drug-related deaths). Significantly more BIDs involved five or more drugs (23%) compared with other opioid deaths (14.9%). Co-intoxicants found most frequently in BIDs were benzodiazepines (47.3%), methamphetamine (27.1%), and fentanyl (22.9%). Cardiovascular and pulmonary comorbidities were identified in 43% and 21% of BIDs, respectively. Of the 564 BIDs, a current buprenorphine prescription was present in 132 deaths (23.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite increasing buprenorphine use, BIDs comprised less than 5% of overall West Virginia drug-related deaths. Seldom was it the only drug found, and most decedents did not have current prescriptions for buprenorphine. Although buprenorphine is effective, with a wide safety margin, clinicians and patients should be aware that buprenorphine can be involved in overdose deaths, especially when buprenorphine is taken in combination with drugs such as benzodiazepines, methamphetamine, or fentanyl, and in persons with underlying cardiovascular or pulmonary comorbidities.

Perceptions, policies, and practices related to dispensing buprenorphine for opioid use disorder: A national survey of community-based pharmacists

BACKGROUND

Increasing buprenorphine prescribing for opioid use disorder (OUD) has been a major focus of U.S. opioid response efforts. However, concerns related to dispensing buprenorphine have been identified among pharmacists.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to describe perceptions, policies, and practices reported by community-based pharmacists in relation to dispensing buprenorphine for OUD and to compare these responses by practice setting.

METHODS

A cross-sectional online survey was administered to a random sample of 6376 pharmacists. Responses were collected anonymously from October 16, 2021, to November 7, 2021.

RESULTS

A response rate of 5.1% was achieved with 325 responders, and 281 were eligible to complete the survey. Most reported practicing in a chain (50.9%) or independent pharmacy (34.7%) as a staff pharmacist (39.7%) or pharmacist-in-charge (37.0%). Most (68.1%) indicated they could usually or always fill a buprenorphine prescription promptly. The most common pharmacy policies related to buprenorphine dispensing were checking the prescription drug monitoring program (71.3%), validating the prescriber's X-waiver (44.9%), accepting only local prescribers (37.4%), and prohibiting refills more than one day early (35.8%). Policies limiting buprenorphine access to local prescribers, local patients, and established patients varied by practice setting and were most common in independent pharmacies. The strongest barriers to buprenorphine dispensing were insurance prior authorization, difficulty reaching prescribers with questions, and concerns about buprenorphine diversion. The strongest facilitators of buprenorphine dispensing were increased communication with prescribers, increased trust with prescribers, increased trust with patients, and increased education for pharmacists.

CONCLUSION

Most respondents indicated they were willing and able to dispense buprenorphine products for OUD promptly. However, they also reported discomfort dispensing when factors representing potential risk of diversion are present. Mitigating this hypersensitivity to diversion risk among pharmacists should be a focus of regulatory agencies and professional organizations. Efforts to address the unique concerns of independent pharmacists will also be essential to improve access.

Top Ten Tips Palliative Care Clinicians Should Know About Buprenorphine

Pain management in palliative care (PC) is becoming more complex as patients survive longer with life-limiting illnesses and population-wide trends involving opioid misuse become more common in serious illness. Buprenorphine, a generally safe partial mu-opioid receptor agonist, has been shown to be effective for both pain management and opioid use disorder. It is critical that PC clinicians become comfortable with indications for its use, strategies for initiation while understanding risks and benefits. This article, written by a team of PC and addiction-trained specialists, including physicians, nurse practitioners, social workers, and a pharmacist, offers 10 tips to demystify buprenorphine use in serious illness.

Nutzen und zukünftige Relevanz der Corona-bedingt befristeten Änderungen in der Substitution in Deutschland

Ziel der Studie Die COVID-19-Pandmie hat die Substitutionsbehandlung vor große Herausforderungen gestellt. An der oft als restriktiv angesehenen Rechtsgrundlage (BtM-VV) wurden befristete Änderungen vorgenommen, um Behandler:innen mehr Spielraum bei der Gestaltung der Therapien zu gewährleisten. Weitreichende Flexibilisierungen wurden in den Bereichen Take-Home-Verschreibungen, konsiliarische Behandlung und Delegation vorgenommen. Zusätzlich wurden neue Vergütungsmöglichkeiten im Einheitlichen Bewertungsmaßstab (EBM) geschaffen. Durch leitfadengestützte Interviews mit substituierenden Ärzt:innen wurde eine Evaluation der befristeten BtM-VV- und EBM- Änderungen vorgenommen.

Methodik Im Jahr 2021 wurden 16 qualitative Interviews mit substituierenden Ärzt:innen aus zehn verschiedenen Bundesländern in Deutschland geführt. Die Interviewten wurden zu ihren Erfahrungen mit den Corona-bedingt befristeten BtM-VV- und EBM-Änderungen befragt. Im Fokus stand dabei, ob die temporären Flexibilitäten dauerhaft in die post-pandemische Praxis übernommen werden sollten. Der Interviewleitfaden enthielt zusätzlich Fragen zu strukturellen Barrieren, Nachwuchsmangel und Stigmatisierung.

Ergebnisse Zur Kontaktreduzierung verlängerte die Mehrheit der Ärzt:innen Take-Home-Rezepte. In Folge machte nur eine befragte Person ausschließlich negative Erfahrungen. Insgesamt berichteten die Ärzt:innen über keine und/oder positive Veränderungen im Therapieverlauf. Behandler:innen nutzten die meisten der befristeten Rechts- und Vergütungsänderungen in der Behandlungsgestaltung. Sie sprachen sich überwiegend für eine Übernahme der befristeten Regelungen in den post-pandemisch Regelbetrieb aus. Kontrovers wurden die Änderungen bezüglich der Aufhebung der Kapazitätsgrenze bei der Konsiliarregelung und der erweiterten Delegation diskutiert.

Schlussfolgerung Die Ergebnisse sprechen für die Übernahme der befristeten BtM-VV- und EBM-Änderungen in den post-pandemischen Regelbetrieb. Die Flexibilisierungen erleichtern die Anpassung der Therapie an individuelle Umstände der Behandler:innen und Patient:innen. Dies könnte dazu beitragen, die derzeitigen Versorgungsengpässe zu entschärfen und mehr Menschen mit Opioid-Abhängigkeit eine qualitativ hochwertige Substitutionstherapie anbieten zu können. Eine Untersuchung und Beseitigung struktureller Barrieren darf bei der Ein- bzw. Fortführung erweiterter Handlungsspielräume nicht vergessen werden. Da gesetzliche Flexibilisierungen zwangsläufig mehr Verantwortung auf die einzelnen Ärzt:innen übertragen, sollte eine verstärkte Unterstützung durch Schulungen und Vernetzung angeboten werden.

Methadone and buprenorphine-related deaths among people prescribed and not prescribed Opioid Agonist Therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic in England

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus pandemic resulted in many changes which had the potential to impact mortality related to opioid agonist therapy (OAT; methadone, buprenorphine), including changes in the prescribing and dispensing of OAT and patterns of drug availability and use. We aimed to assess the impact of the first lockdown (initiated March 23rd 2020) on methadone- and buprenorphine-related deaths in England in people both prescribed and not prescribed OAT using data from the National Programme on Substance Abuse Deaths.

METHODS

This was a retrospective post-mortem toxicology study of OAT-related deaths which occurred in the 3-month period March 23rd to June 22nd in the years 2016-2020. Provisional data regarding numbers accessing treatment for opioid use disorder was provided by the National Drug Treatment Monitoring System.

RESULTS

We found a 64% increase in methadone-related deaths in March to June 2020 compared to March to June 2019 (2019 n = 96; 2020 projected n = 157). There were increases in the mortality rate of both in-treatment decedents (22% increase; 2019 n = 45; an exponential smoothing model of the 2016-19 trend [α=0.5] predicted 44 deaths in 2020, 55 were reported) and decedents not prescribed methadone (74% increase; 2019 n = 46; 2016-19 trend predicted 43 deaths in 2020, 80 were reported). There was no increase in buprenorphine-related deaths (2019 n = 9/529; 2020 n = 11/566). There were no changes in the numbers of deaths where other opioids or multiple substances were detected, or in methadone levels detected. Numbers of people accessing treatment for opioid use disorder in 2020 did not decrease relative to previous years (p >0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Methadone-related deaths in non-prescribed individuals, but not prescribed individuals, increased considerably above the annual trend forecast for 2020 during the first COVID-19 lockdown in England. Further studies are thus needed to understand this difference.

Opioid relapse and MOUD outcomes following civil commitment for opioid use

INTRODUCTION

Opioid use disorder (OUD) continues to present a major public health problem in the United States. Civil commitment for substance use is one mandatory form of treatment for severe opioid use that has become increasingly available in recent years, but empirical data on this approach are lacking. This study examines clinical outcomes of civil commitment in a sample of adults with severe opioid use.

METHODS

Participants were 121 persons with opioid use who were interviewed at the point of entry into civil commitment, then followed for 12 weeks after their release.

RESULTS

Prior to civil commitment, this sample exhibited serious substance use characteristics (including high rates of illicit opioid use, other substance use, and injection drug use), as well as mental health problems (diagnoses of depression and anxiety disorders). During follow-up, approximately 41 % of the sample reported at least one illicit opioid use day. More than 64 % of the sample reported at least one day of medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) receipt, and participants were significantly less likely to use illicit opioids on days that they received MOUDs. No participants died during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

In this sample of persons with severe opioid use, clinical outcomes of civil commitment included illicit opioid relapse as well as varying levels of MOUD uptake. Civil commitment may be a viable method for short-term prevention of overdose for a subset of this vulnerable patient population.

Patterns of use and adverse events reported among persons who regularly inject buprenorphine: a systematic review

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Given the ongoing opioid crisis, novel interventions to treat severe opioid use disorder (OUD) are urgently needed. Injectable opioid agonist therapy (iOAT) with diacetylmorphine or hydromorphone is effective for the treatment of severe, treatment-refractory OUD, however barriers to implementation persist. Intravenous buprenorphine for the treatment of OUD (BUP iOAT) has several possible advantages over traditional iOAT, including a safety profile that might enable take-home dosing. We aimed to characterize injecting practices among real-world populations of persons who regularly inject buprenorphine, as well as associated adverse events reported in order to inform a possible future BUP iOAT intervention.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO from inception through July 2020 and used backwards citation screening to search for publications reporting on dose, frequency among persons who regularly inject the drug, or adverse events associated with intravenous use of buprenorphine. The review was limited to English language publications and there was no limitation on study type. Study quality and risk of bias was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Narrative synthesis was used in reporting the results.

RESULTS

Eighty-eight studies were included in our review. Regular injection of buprenorphine was identified across diverse settings world-wide. Daily dose of oral buprenorphine injected was < 1-12 mg. Frequency of injection was 0-10 times daily. Adverse events could be characterized as known side effects of opioids/buprenorphine or injection-related complications. Most studies were deemed to be of low quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Extramedical, intravenous use of buprenorphine, continues to be documented. BUP iOAT may be feasible and results may inform the development of a study to test the efficacy and safety of such an intervention. Future work should also examine acceptability among people with severe OUD in North America. Our review was limited by the quality of included studies.

Fentanyl preference among people who use opioids in New York City

BACKGROUND

Several studies have pointed to a sub-sample of people who use drugs (PWUD) who prefer the use of non-pharmaceutical fentanyl (NPF) and, as such, pose a unique challenge for public health initiatives amidst the continued rise in overdose mortality. However, matters of drug preference and autonomy of choice remain under-studied and often misunderstood. This paper examined the experiences of PWUD reporting a preference for NPF or an NPF-heroin mixture, specifically how they navigate the perceived benefits of NPF and its established risks.

METHODS

22 in-depth interviews were conducted in New York City between March 2018 and August 2019 with PWUD who self-reported a preference for NPF or an NPF-heroin mix. Interviews were audio-recorded, and the resulting transcripts analyzed using a thematic approach.

RESULTS

Participants highlighted various factors that contributed to expressed preference for NPF or an NPF-heroin mix, including a desire to feel good, financial resources, drug availability, decreased consumer autonomy, and physiological demand. Participants reported practicing several risk reduction strategies; however, they highlighted that many, particularly carrying naloxone and always using with someone else, were difficult to implement in the context of illicit drug use.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results demonstrate participants' decreased consumer agency and greater exposure to systemic factors in the illicit markets, highlighting the need for expansion of various services, including drug checking resources and systems of outreach for PWUD who do not use intravenously. To promote tailored interventions, continued efforts in overdose prevention ought to more thoughtfully consider the context, perceptions, preferences, and behaviors of PWUD.

Non-prescribed buprenorphine preceding treatment intake and clinical outcomes for opioid use disorder

OBJECTIVE

Successful retention on buprenorphine improves outcomes for opioid use disorder (OUD); however, we know little about associations between use of non-prescribed buprenorphine (NPB) preceding treatment intake and clinical outcomes.

METHODS

The study conducted observational retrospective analysis of abstracted electronic health record (EHR) data from a multi-state nationwide office-based opioid treatment program. The study observed a random sample of 1000 newly admitted patients with OUD for buprenorphine maintenance (2015-2018) for up to 12 months following intake. We measured use of NPB by mandatory intake drug testing and manual EHR coding. Outcomes included hazards of treatment discontinuation and rates of opioid use.

RESULTS

Compared to patients testing negative for buprenorphine at intake, those testing positive (59.6%) had lower hazards of treatment discontinuation (HR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.44, 0.60, p < 0.01). Results were little changed following adjustment for baseline opioid use and other patient characteristics (aHR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.51, 0.70, p < 0.01). Risk of discontinuation did not significantly differ between patients by buprenorphine source: prescribed v. NPB (reference) at admission (HR = 1.15, 95% CI: 0.90, 1.46). Opioid use was lower in the buprenorphine positive group at admission (25.0% vs. 53.1%, p < 0.0001) and throughout early months of treatment but converged after 7 months for those remaining in care (17.1% vs. 16.5%, p = 0.89).

CONCLUSION

NPB preceding treatment intake was associated with decreased hazards of treatment discontinuation and lower opioid use. These findings suggest use of NPB may be a marker of treatment readiness and that buprenorphine testing at intake may have predictive value for clinical assessments regarding risk of early treatment discontinuation.

"Just give them a choice": Patients' perspectives on starting medications for opioid use disorder in the ED

OBJECTIVES

Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) prescribed in the emergency department (ED) have the potential to save lives and help people start and maintain recovery. We sought to explore patient perspectives regarding the initiation of buprenorphine and methadone in the ED with the goal of improving interactions and fostering shared decision making (SDM) around these important treatment options.

METHODS

We conducted semistructured interviews with a purposeful sample of people with opioid use disorder (OUD) regarding ED visits and their experiences with MOUD. The interview guide was based on the Ottawa Decision Support Framework, a framework for examining decisional needs and tailoring decisional support, and the research team's experience with MOUD and SDM. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed in an iterative process using both the Ottawa Framework and a social-ecological framework. Themes were identified and organized and implications for clinical care were noted and discussed.

RESULTS

Twenty-six participants were interviewed, seven in person in the ED and 19 via video conferencing software. The majority had tried both buprenorphine and methadone, and almost all had been in an ED for an issue related to opioid use. Participants reported social, pharmacological, and emotional factors that played into their decision making. Regarding buprenorphine, they noted advantages such as its efficacy and logistical ease and disadvantages such as the need to wait to start it (risk of precipitated withdrawal) and that one could not use other opioids while taking it. Additionally, participants felt that: (1) both buprenorphine and methadone should be offered; (2) because "one person's pro is another person's con," clinicians will need to understand the facets of the options; (3) clinicians will need to have these conversations without appearing judgmental; and (4) many patients may not be "ready" for MOUD, but it should still be offered.

CONCLUSIONS

Although participants were supportive of offering buprenorphine in the ED, many felt that methadone should also be offered. They felt that treatment should be tailored to an individual's needs and circumstances and clarified what factors might be important considerations for people with OUD.

CommunityStat: A Public Health Intervention to Reduce Opioid Overdose Deaths in Burlington, Vermont, 2017-2020

From 2017 to early 2020, the US city of Burlington, Vermont led a county-wide effort to reduce opioid overdose deaths by concentrating on the widespread, low-barrier distribution of medications for opioid use disorder. As a small city without a public health staff, the initiative was led out of the police department-with an understanding that it would not be enforcement-oriented-and centered on a local adaptation of CompStat, a management and accountability program developed by the New York City Police Department that has been cited as both yielding improvements in public safety and overemphasizing counterproductive police performance metrics if not carefully directed. The initiative was instrumental to the implementation of several novel interventions: low-threshold buprenorphine prescribing at the city's syringe service program, induction into buprenorphine-based treatment at the local hospital emergency department, elimination of the regional waiting list for medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), and the de-facto decriminalization of diverted buprenorphine by the chief of police and county prosecutor. An effort by local legislators resulted in a state law requiring all inmates with opioid use disorder be provided with MOUD as well. By the end of 2018, these interventions were collectively associated with a 50% (17 vs. 34) reduction in the county's fatal overdose deaths, while deaths increased 20% in the remainder of Vermont. The reduction was sustained through the end of 2019. This article describes the effort undertaken by officials in Burlington to implement these interventions. It provides an example that other municipalities can use to take an evidence-based approach to reducing opioid deaths, provided stakeholders assent to sustained collaboration in the furtherance of a commitment to save lives. In doing so, it highlights that police-led public health interventions are the exception, and addressing the overdose crisis will require reform that shifts away from criminalization as a community's default framework for substance use.

Availability and use of non-prescribed buprenorphine-naloxone in a Canadian setting, 2014-2020

BACKGROUND

Buprenorphine-naloxone (BUP-NX) is a first-line treatment for opioid use disorder and has a superior safety profile compared to other forms of opioid agonist therapy. In Canada, restrictions on BUP-NX prescribing were relaxed in 2016, which may have had an effect on rates of diversion and non-prescribed use. We sought to longitudinally examine the reported availability and use of non-prescribed BUP-NX among people who use drugs (PWUD) in an urban Canadian setting.

METHODS

We collected data from two linked prospective cohorts of PWUD in Vancouver, Canada, and examined self-reported availability and use of non-prescribed BUP-NX over time. We used a multivariable generalized estimating equations model to identify trends and factors associated with the immediate availability (i.e., within 10 min) of non-prescribed BUP-NX.

RESULTS

Among 1617 participants between 2014 and 2020, the immediate availability of non-prescribed BUP-NX increased from 16% to 63% (p<0.001). In the multivariable analysis, factors independently associated with immediate BUP-NX availability included calendar year (adjusted odds ratio = 1.19, 95% confidence interval: 1.15-1.23), along with a number of other variables suggestive of more severe substance use disorders. Only 17 participants ever reported use of non-prescribed BUP-NX.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed that BUP-NX has become increasingly available in the unregulated drug supply in recent years but its use has remained infrequent in this setting. These results suggest that relaxed restrictions on BUP-NX prescribing have not been a major driver of increased non-prescribed use in this population.

Medications for Opioid Use Disorder in the Criminal/Legal System: Knowledge, Beliefs, and Attitudes Among Rural Community-Based Stakeholders

The aim of this study was to describe rural community stakeholders’ attitudes and perceptions of providing medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) to individuals in the criminal/legal system. Data were utilized from a technical assistance initiative aimed at strengthening community-based OUD treatment within criminal/legal systems. A mixed-methods approach was applied. Survey responses were used to compare stakeholders’ who had and had not attended an MOUD training, and semistructured interviews were conducted with a convenience sample of rural criminal/legal and treatment stakeholders. MOUD training was associated with endorsing the effectiveness of methadone, oral naltrexone, and injectable naltrexone. Three primary themes emerged from the stakeholder interviews: 1) acceptance of MOUD uptake; 2) stigma of MOUD and diversion concerns; and 3) gaps in MOUD treatment. Most interviewees noted that there is a scarcity of treatment options in their community, and among the existing services, there are considerable barriers to care.

Methamphetamine use in the United States: epidemiological update and implications for prevention, treatment, and harm reduction

Recent attention has focused on the growing role of psychostimulants, such as methamphetamine in overdose deaths. Methamphetamine is an addictive and potent stimulant, and its use is associated with a range of physical and mental health harms, overdose, and mortality. Adding to the complexity of this resurgent methamphetamine threat is the reality that the increases in methamphetamine availability and harms are occurring in the midst of and intertwined with the ongoing opioid overdose crisis. Opioid involvement in psychostimulant-involved overdose deaths increased from 34.5% of overdose deaths in 2010 to 53.5% in 2019-an increase of more than 50%. This latest evolution of the nation's overdose epidemic poses novel challenges for prevention, treatment, and harm reduction. This narrative review synthesizes what is known about changing patterns of methamphetamine use with and without opioids in the United States, other characteristics associated with methamphetamine use, the contributions of the changing illicit drug supply to use patterns and overdose risk, motivations for couse of methamphetamine and opioids, and awareness of exposure to opioids via the illicit methamphetamine supply. Finally, the review summarizes illustrative community and health system strategies and research opportunities to advance prevention, treatment, and harm reduction policies, programs, and practices.

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.

The use of diverted pharmaceutical opioids is associated with reduced risk of fentanyl exposure among people using unregulated drugs in Vancouver, Canada

BACKGROUND

Although non-medical use of pharmaceutical opioids (POs) is associated with a number of risks, in the context of the opioid-overdose crisis, it may have the secondary benefit of decreasing the risk of exposure to more potent opioids from unregulated sources. The aim of this study was to assess the effects of using diverted POs on fentanyl exposure.

METHODS

Using data from two prospective community-recruited cohorts of people who use drugs (PWUD) in Vancouver, Canada, we estimated the independent relationship between using diverted POs and fentanyl exposure (assessed through urine drug test [UDT]) between 2016 and 2018. We also explored if participant characteristics modified this relationship.

RESULTS

Over the study period, among 1150 participants, 241 (21.0%) reported using diverted POs in 292 (12.8%) occasions. In adjusted analyses, PWUD using diverted POs had decreased odds of fentanyl exposure (Adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.52-0.94). The reduced odds of fentanyl exposure persisted among participants with morphine positive UDT (AOR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.40-0.82), but not among those with negative morphine UDT (AOR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.54-1.55).

CONCLUSION

PWUD using diverted POs in our sample were 30% less likely to be exposed to fentanyl. This reduced likelihood was primarily observed among PWUD with morphine positive UDT, which could partially be explained by longer duration of action and lower street cost of slow-release oral morphine relative to other POs and fentanyl. Findings suggest that access to a regulated supply of pharmaceutical-grade opioids may serve to reduce fentanyl-related harms.

Beyond harm-producing versus harm-reducing: A qualitative meta-synthesis of people who use drugs' perspectives of and experiences with the extramedical use and diversion of buprenorphine

INTRODUCTION

This review synthesizes the literature on the perspectives and experiences of people who use drugs to better understand motivations and behaviors related to the extramedical use and diversion of buprenorphine. Given the particular social construction of buprenorphine against methadone, and the centrality of concerns around extramedical use in delivering opioid agonist therapies, a focus on extramedical buprenorphine use can provide an important lens through which to analyze treatment for opioid use disorder. This review is framed within persistent tensions between potential harm-producing versus harm-reducing effects of extramedical use that have long been described for opioid agonist therapies.

METHODS

The research team conducted a qualitative meta-synthesis based on a systematic search of eight databases as well as hand searching. The review includes all primary qualitative and mixed-methods studies related to the perspectives and experiences of people who use drugs on extramedical buprenorphine use. The study team carried out three rounds of qualitative coding using NVivo 12, and constructivist grounded theory and the constant comparative method informed the synthesis.

RESULTS

The review includes twenty-one studies. Findings are organized into the following three themes: 1) the experiences of people who use drugs (PWUD) with extramedical use of buprenorphine and their motivations to engage in it (including the desire to self-medicate and achieve "stability", to manage ongoing use of other opioids, and to "get high"); 2) the relationship between extramedical use and formal medical opioid agonist therapy programs; and 3) the established drug economy of extramedical buprenorphine.

CONCLUSIONS

The review identified varied and often divergent perspectives and experiences with extramedical buprenorphine use. An examination of the reported "normalizing" effects of extramedical buprenorphine suggests this practice as extending medicalized discipline beyond the clinical environment. Taken together, these findings identify a need to move beyond the tension of harm-reducing versus harm-producing effects toward forms of health care and promotion that focus on the needs, perspectives, and priorities of people who use drugs.

Association between Participation in Counseling and Retention in a Buprenorphine-Assisted Treatment Program for People Experiencing Homelessness with Opioid Use Disorder

The opioid epidemic is a public health crisis that disproportionately affects our unsheltered neighbors. Because medication-assisted treatment (MAT) is effective for preventing deaths from drug overdose and retention is associated with better health outcomes, there is a clear need for more research on factors impacting retention in care. This retrospective cohort analysis examines the relationship between attendance in counseling and retention on buprenorphine for three or more months for individuals experiencing homelessness being treated at a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) and Public Health Service Act §330(h) Health Care for the Homeless Program grantee in San Diego County, California. The cohort included 306 adults experiencing homelessness who had at least one prescription for buprenorphine and participated in a MAT program between 2017 and 2019. The sample included 64.4% men, almost exclusively white, and 35% lived in a place not meant for human habitation. Of the sample, 97 patients were retained at 3 months and 209 were not. Results from a logistic regression model showed that counseling appointments were positively associated with retention at three months (OR = 1.57, p < 0.001). Findings from this study inform future MAT program design components for people experiencing homelessness.

Lay knowledge and practices of methamphetamine use to manage opioid-related overdose risks

AIM

Methamphetamine use has increased among individuals with opioid use disorder. The key aims of this study are to detail and contextualise lay knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours related to methamphetamine use in relation to opioid overdose risks in an area dominated by non-pharmaceutical fentanyl-type drugs (NPF).

METHODS

The study recruited 41 individuals in Dayton, Ohio, who reported past 30-day use of methamphetamine and heroin/fentanyl. Interviews included structured and qualitative questions. Urine toxicology analysis was conducted to identify NPFs and other drugs. Open-ended interview sections were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analysed qualitatively using NVivo.

RESULTS

The mean age was 38.3 years, 51% were female, and 100% non-Hispanic white. Participants described an exceedingly unpredictable local opioid market that became saturated with NPFs. The sample tested positive for 10 NPFs, including fentanyl (100%), acetyl fentanyl (61%), tetrahydrofuran fentanyl (29%), and carfentanil (12%). Most participants believed that methamphetamine could help prevent and/or reverse an opioid-related overdose. Nearly half had personally used it to help manage overdose risks related to NPF. These beliefs were embedded in a lay understanding of how methamphetamine works to stimulate the cardiovascular system. They were acted upon in the context of last resort situations that were determined by a lack of immediate access to naloxone, ambiguities surrounding overdose symptomatology, and easy access to plentiful and inexpensive methamphetamine.

CONCLUSION

Lay efforts to rely on methamphetamine to manage NPF-related overdose risks highlight the need for a continuing expansion of take-home-naloxone programs and implementation of other novel harm reduction approaches in communities affected by NPFs.

Prevalence and correlates of non-fatal overdose among people who use drugs: findings from rapid assessments in Massachusetts, 2017-2019

BACKGROUND

People who experience non-fatal overdose (NFOD) are at high risk of subsequent overdose. With unprecedented increases in fentanyl in the US drug supply, many Massachusetts (MA) communities have seen a surge in opioid-related overdoses. The objective of this study was to determine factors associated with lifetime and past year NFOD in at-risk MA communities.

METHODS

We conducted multiple rapid assessments among people who use drugs (PWUD) in eight MA communities using non-probability sampling (purposive, chain referral, respondent-driven) methods. We collected sociodemographic, substance use, overdose history, substance use treatment, and harm reduction services utilization data. We examined the prevalence of NFOD (lifetime and past year) and identified factors associated with NFOD through multivariable logistic regression analyses in a subset of 469 study participants between 2017 and 2019.

RESULTS

The prevalence of lifetime and last year non-fatal opioid overdose was 62.5% and 36.9%, respectively. Many of the study participants reported heroin (64%) and fentanyl (45%) use during the 30 days preceding the survey. Nonprescription buprenorphine and fentanyl use were independently associated with higher odds of lifetime NFOD, while marijuana use was associated with lower odds of lifetime NFOD (p < 0.05). Injection as the route of administration, benzodiazepine, nonprescription buprenorphine, heroin, and fentanyl use were independently associated with higher odds, while methadone use was associated with lower odds of past year NFOD (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

We documented a high prevalence of past year and lifetime NFOD among PWUD in MA. Our findings provide indicators that can help inform interventions to prevent overdoses among PWUD, including overdose prevention, medication treatment, and naloxone distribution.

Increasing rates of buprenorphine diversion in the United States, 2002 to 2019

PURPOSE

Recent reports suggest that buprenorphine is being diverted and used non-medically. However, no apparent studies have reported national-level data on buprenorphine diversion.

METHODS

Case report data were drawn from a quarterly survey of prescription drug diversion completed by a national sample of law enforcement and regulatory agencies who engage in drug diversion investigations. Quarterly rates of buprenorphine diversion per 100 000 population and 100 000 prescriptions dispensed were calculated for the period 2002 through 2019. Population-based diversion rates were also calculated by U.S. region.

RESULTS

In total, 9670 cases of diverted buprenorphine were reported across all 50 states and the District of Columbia during the study period. Buprenorphine diversion rates, per 100 000 population, were characterized by an accelerating increase over time; increases in diversion rates from 1st quarter 2002 through 4th quarter 2006 were not statistically significant, yet from 1st quarter 2007 through 4th quarter 2019, the rate of diversion cases increased by 0.0067 cases per 100 000 per quarter (p < 0.001). Buprenorphine diversion rates per 100 000 prescriptions dispensed indicated a gradual increase over time; from 3rd quarter 2010 through 4th quarter 2019, diversion rates showed a statistically significant increase of 0.28 cases (p = 0.037) per quarter on average. The Northeast was the only region that did not observe an increase in the average quarterly change in buprenorphine diversion rates after 2006.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings from this study illustrate longitudinal national trends of increasing buprenorphine diversion. Continued systematic surveillance of this phenomenon is needed.

Alternative use of buprenorphine among people who use opioids in three U.S. Cities

Background: Buprenorphine is an effective treatment for opioid use disorder, yet some persons are concerned with its "alternative use" (i.e., any use unintended by the prescriber). There is limited evidence on the factors associated with alternative use of buprenorphine (AUB); in this study, we examined correlates of recent (past 6 months) AUB. Methods: Multivariable logistic regression was used to analyze survey data from a multi-site, cross-sectional study of people who use drugs (PWUD) (N = 334) in Baltimore, Maryland; Boston, Massachusetts; and Providence, Rhode Island. Results: One-fifth (20%) of the sample reported recent AUB. In adjusted analyses, significant negative correlates of AUB were female gender (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.48, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.24-0.95), recent emergency room visit (aOR 0.45, 95% CI 0.23-0.89), and recent injection drug use (aOR 0.41, 95% CI 0.19-0.88). Significant positive correlates were alternative use of other prescription opioids (aOR 8.32, 95% CI 4.22-16.38), three or more overdoses in the past year (aOR 3.74, 95% CI 1.53-9.17), recent buprenorphine use as prescribed (aOR 2.50, 95% CI 1.12-5.55), and recent residential rehabilitation treatment (aOR 3.71, 95% CI 1.50-9.16). Conclusions: Structural and behavioral correlates of AUB may help identify PWUD at high risk of overdose with unmet treatment needs.

Perspectives of opioid use disorder treatment providers during COVID-19: Adapting to flexibilities and sustaining reforms

Objective

The COVID-19 pandemic led to unprecedented temporary federal and state regulatory flexibilities that rapidly transformed medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) treatment delivery. This study aimed to understand changes in treatment providers' care during COVID-19, provider experiences with the adaptations, and perceptions of which changes should be sustained long-term.

Methods

We conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 20 New Jersey MOUD providers, purposively sampled to reflect diversity in provider setting, specialty, and other characteristics. Using a rapid analysis approach, we summarized content within interview domains and analyzed domains across participants for recurring concepts and themes.

Results

MOUD treatment practice changes taking place during the COVID-19 pandemic included a rapid shift from in-person care to telehealth, reduction in frequency of toxicology testing and psychosocial/counseling services, and modifications to prescription durations and take-home methadone supplies. Modifications to practice were positively received and reinforced a sense of autonomy for providers as well as enhancing the ability to provide patient-centered care. All respondents expressed support for making temporary regulatory flexibilities permanent, but differed in their implementation of the flexibilities and the extent to which they planned to modify their own practices long-term.

Conclusion

Findings support sustaining temporary regulatory and payment changes to MOUD practice, which may have improved treatment access and allowed for more flexible, individually tailored patient care. Few negative, unintended consequences were reported by providers, but more research is needed to evaluate the patient experience with changes to practice during the COVID-19 pandemic.

"People need them or else they're going to take fentanyl and die": A qualitative study examining the 'problem' of prescription opioid diversion during an overdose epidemic

The practice of prescription opioid (PO) diversion remains highly controversial and has been characterized as a source of significant drug-related harm by physicians and public health officials. We critically analyze the "problem" of diversion through an examination of the perspectives of people who divert POs during an overdose epidemic to better understand the practice, including benefits and challenges, as well as how diversion is shaped by structural contexts. Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 21 participants recruited from ongoing cohort studies involving people who use drugs in Vancouver, Canada. Prohibitive prescribing policies made accessing POs difficult, leading some to smuggle drugs out of clinics. Others would buy POs in bulk or do trades to acquire them. Participants risked having their prescriptions terminated, but rationalized this risk as a protective measure that allows them to provide safer drugs to others (e.g., to prevent overdose or treat withdrawal). Poverty also framed diversion, with some participants diverting their POs to generate income to pay for expenses including food and sometimes illicit fentanyl (perceived as a stronger alternative). However, diversion was shaped by other constraints, including criminalization, negative health impacts from not consistently consuming POs, and supplies running out, which led some participants to rely on other illegal means to generate income. This study highlights the intricate means by which POs are acquired and diverted and how environmental contexts frame how participants negotiated risk and rationalized diversion. Our study provides an alternative perspective on the "problem" of diversion and demonstrate a positive effect in providing a safer drug supply to others during an overdose crisis. Given that drug policy, criminalization, and poverty created challenges, our findings demonstrate the need for strategies that engender greater safety, reduce harm, and alleviate the effects of these constraints, including through policies promoting safer drug supplies, decriminalization, and employment.

New and Emerging Opioid Overdose Risk Factors

Purpose of Review

The purpose of this review is to provide a review of the current literature surrounding opioid overdose risk factors, focusing on relatively new factors in the opioid crisis.

Recent Findings

Both a market supply driving force and a subpopulation of people who use opioids actively seeking out fentanyl are contributing to its recent proliferation in the opioid market. Harm reduction techniques such as fentanyl testing strips, naloxone education and distribution, drug sampling behaviors, and supervised injection facilities are all seeing expanded use with increasing amounts of research being published regarding their effectiveness. Availability and use of interventions such as medication for opioid use disorder and peer recovery coaching programs are also on the rise to prevent opioid overdose.

Summary

The opioid epidemic is an evolving crisis, necessitating continuing research to identify novel overdose risk factors and the development of new interventions targeting at-risk populations.

A 2019 evaluation of opioid use disorder treatment resources in rural Utah counties

OBJECTIVES

The opioid crisis significantly affects residents of rural communities who already experience poor health outcomes based on social determinants. Therefore, this project evaluated the reported availability and accessibility of opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment resources in rural Utah county pharmacies through a multistep process intended to estimate the distance (miles) to registered (waivered) OUD care providers and community pharmacies and, thus, the ability to fill prescriptions for OUD treatment medications.

METHODS

First, the United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service dichotomous classification scheme was used to identify nonmetropolitan counties. Second, online resources were used to identify the volume of waivered treatment providers and community pharmacies by county. Third, the driving distances to both resources were estimated according to ZIP Code and county. Finally, the immediate availability of filling a prescription for OUD treatment medications was determined by surveying community pharmacists in rural Utah counties.

RESULTS

Nineteen of the 29 Utah counties were identified as rural and included in the study. Pharmacists in 50 of the 75 viable pharmacies completed surveys (66.7% usable response rate). OUD treatment medications were immediately available for dispensing in 90% (45 of 50) of the responding pharmacies. Two of the 19 counties (10.5%) lacked a pharmacy, and 6 of the 19 counties (31.6%) lacked a registered OUD treatment provider. Driving distances ranged from 1 mile to 71 miles to the nearest pharmacy and from 1 mile to 96 miles to the nearest waivered treatment provider.

CONCLUSION

OUD treatment medications were readily available in some but not all rural Utah pharmacies. However, geographic barriers may prevent reasonable access to treatment providers and pharmacies for residents of smaller, remote communities.