Increasing diversion of methadone in Vancouver, Canada, 2005-2015

Clients' experiences on North America's first take-home injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) program: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

To support public health measures during the COVID-19 pandemic, oral opioid agonist treatment (OAT) take-home doses were expanded in Western countries with positive results. Injectable OAT (iOAT) take-home doses were previously not an eligible option, and were made available for the first time in several sites to align with public health measures. Building upon these temporary risk-mitigating guidelines, a clinic in Vancouver, BC continued to offer two of a possible three daily doses of take-home injectable medications to eligible clients. The present study explores the processes through which take-home iOAT doses impacted clients' quality of life and continuity of care in real-life settings.

METHODS

Three rounds of semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted over a period of seventeen months beginning in July 2021 with eleven participants receiving iOAT take-home doses at a community clinic in Vancouver, British Columbia. Interviews followed a topic guide that evolved iteratively in response to emerging lines of inquiry. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and then coded using NVivo 1.6 using an interpretive description approach.

RESULTS

Participants reported that take-home doses granted them the freedom away from the clinic to have daily routines, form plans, and enjoy unstructured time. Participants appreciated the greater privacy, accessibility, and ability to engage in paid work. Furthermore, participants enjoyed greater autonomy to manage their medication and level of engagement with the clinic. These factors contributed to greater quality of life and continuity of care. Participants shared that their dose was too essential to divert and that they felt safe transporting and administering their medication off-site. In the future, all participants would like more accessible treatment such as access longer take-home prescriptions (e.g., one week), the ability to pick-up at different and convenient locations (e.g., community pharmacies), and a medication delivery service.

CONCLUSIONS

Reducing the number of daily onsite injections from two or three to only one revealed the diversity of rich and nuanced needs that added flexibility and accessibility in iOAT can meet. Actions such as licencing diverse opioid medications/formulations, medication pick-up at community pharmacies, and a community of practice that supports clinical decisions are necessary to increase take-home iOAT accessibility.

Office-based Methadone Prescribing for Opioid Use Disorder: The Canadian Model

In the context of the US overdose crisis, improving access to medications for opioid use disorder is urgently needed. The Canadian model of methadone treatment, whereby clinicians can prescribe methadone for opioid use disorder in office-based settings and methadone can be dispensed through community pharmacies, offers a compelling model for adoption in the US. Office-based settings in which methadone is prescribed often adopt a rapid-access model, allowing walk-in appointments and same-day initiation of methadone. Prescribing authorization requirements have been relaxed over the past 25 years to improve access to methadone. This paper summarizes the model of office-based methadone prescribing in Canada, highlighting the regulatory structures, prescribing practices, and interprofessional collaborations that enable methadone treatment in office-based settings. Potential implementation strategies for adopting office-based prescribing in the US are discussed.

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.

Loss or Theft of Controlled Substances Declared to Health Canada From 2014 to 2018: A Retrospective Study

Theft of prescription drugs is nothing new for Canadian pharmacists. Recently, an increasing body of literature has covered the diversion of controlled substances from Canadian hospitals. However, little has been published in the scientific literature concerning the data collected by Health Canada’s Loss or Theft Report Program regulated under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Data from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2018, were obtained from Health Canada’s Office of Controlled Substances (OCS). Reports to the OCS are mostly provided by pharmacies and hospitals, by veterinarian, dental, and physician clinics, pharmaceutical distributors and producers, and federal establishments and organizations. Entries include information related to the date, province, and location type; type of loss or theft; and generic name of the product, its strength, dosage form, quantity, and drug identification number. During the studied period, 45,379 submissions to the OCS provided information to create 213,895 entries to the database. After exclusions, 212,317 reports were retained for analysis. Opioids count for 45% of reports, benzodiazepines for 29%, and psychostimulants for 21%. Approximately, 29 million individual doses were lost or stolen of which 7.7 million were opioids (26%), totalizing approximately 178 million oral morphine milligram equivalents with 95% having been lost or stolen in community pharmacies. Moreover, approximately four out of 10 individual doses lost in community pharmacies are unexplained losses, which represent about 4.6 million individual doses. Reporting lost or stolen controlled substances and precursors is essential to tracking the diversion of Canada’s prescription drugs. Pharmacists therefore have an important role to play when it comes to minimizing their potential diversion. A better understanding of the situation across Canada may help to increase health care professionals’ awareness, improve practices, enhance the quality of collected data, and prevent further losses and thefts.

Take home injectable opioids for opioid use disorder during and after the COVID-19 Pandemic is in urgent need: a case study

Background

In North America the opioid poisoning crisis currently faces the unprecedented challenges brought by the COVID-19 pandemic, further straining people and communities already facing structural and individual vulnerabilities. People with opioid use disorder (OUD) are facing unique challenges in response to COVID-19, such as not being able to adopt best practices (e.g., physical distancing) if they’re financially insecure or living in shelters (or homeless). They also have other medical conditions that make them more likely to be immunocompromised and at risk of developing COVID-19. In response to the COVID-19 public health emergency, national and provincial regulatory bodies introduced guidance and exemptions to mitigate the spread of the virus. Among them, clinical guidance for prescribers were issued to allow take home opioid medications for opioid agonist treatment (OAT). Take Home for injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) is only considered within a restrictive regulatory structure, specific to the pandemic. Nevertheless, this risk mitigation guidance allowed carries, mostly daily dispensed, to a population that would not have access to it prior to the pandemic. In this case it is presented and discussed that if a carry was possible during the pandemic, then the carry could continue post COVID-19 to address a gap in our approach to individualize care for people with OUD receiving iOAT.

Case presentation

Here we present the first case of a patient in Canada with long-term OUD that received take home injectable diacetylmorphine to self-isolate in an approved site after being diagnosed with COVID-19 during a visit to the emergency room where he was diagnosed with cellulitis and admitted to receive antibiotics.

Conclusion

In the present case we demonstrated that it is feasible to provide iOAT outside the community clinic with no apparent negative consequences. Improving upon and making permanent these recently introduced risk mitigating guidance during COVID-19, have the potential not just to protect during the pandemic, but also to address long-overdue barriers to access evidence-based care in addiction treatment.

Endogenous Opiates and Behavior: 2018

This paper is the forty-first consecutive installment of the annual anthological review of research concerning the endogenous opioid system, summarizing articles published during 2018 that studied the behavioral effects of molecular, pharmacological and genetic manipulation of opioid peptides and receptors as well as effects of opioid/opiate agonists and antagonists. The review is subdivided into the following specific topics: molecular-biochemical effects and neurochemical localization studies of endogenous opioids and their receptors (2), the roles of these opioid peptides and receptors in pain and analgesia in animals (3) and humans (4), opioid-sensitive and opioid-insensitive effects of nonopioid analgesics (5), opioid peptide and receptor involvement in tolerance and dependence (6), stress and social status (7), learning and memory (8), eating and drinking (9), drug abuse and alcohol (10), sexual activity and hormones, pregnancy, development and endocrinology (11), mental illness and mood (12), seizures and neurologic disorders (13), electrical-related activity and neurophysiology (14), general activity and locomotion (15), gastrointestinal, renal and hepatic functions (16), cardiovascular responses (17), respiration and thermoregulation (18), and immunological responses (19).

Characteristics Associated with Nonmedical Methadone Use among People Who Inject Drugs in California

Background: Illicit, nonmedical use of opioid agonist medications such as methadone is an ongoing concern. Yet, few studies have examined nonmedical use of methadone by people who inject drugs (PWID). Objectives: This study describes the prevalence of nonmedical methadone use in a community sample of PWID and examines factors associated with recent use of nonmedical methadone. Methods: A cross-sectional sample of PWID (N = 777) was recruited using targeted sampling and interviewed in California (2011-2013). Descriptive, bivariate, and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to determine characteristics associated with nonmedical methadone use in the last 30 days. To determine if nonmedical methadone use was associated with overdose in the last 6 months, a separate multivariate analysis was conducted. Results: Among PWID sampled, 21% reported nonmedical methadone use in the last 30 days. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, nonmedical methadone use was associated with recent methadone maintenance treatment (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 2.86; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.90, 4.30), recent nonmedical buprenorphine use (AOR = 3.12; 95% CI = 1.31, 7.47), higher injection frequency (referent <30 injections; 30-89 injections AOR = 1.89; 95% CI = 1.19, 3.02; 90-plus injections AOR = 2.43; 95% CI = 1.53, 3.87), schizophrenia diagnosis (AOR = 2.36; 95% CI = 1.36, 4.10), recent non-injection opioid prescription use (AOR = 2.97; 95% CI = 1.99, 4.43), and recent injection opioid prescription misuse (AOR = 2.13; 95% CI = 1.27, 3.59). Nonmedical methadone use was found not to be associated with nonfatal overdose (AOR = 0.77; 95% CI = 0.38, 1.56). Conclusion: Nonmedical methadone use identifies a vulnerable subpopulation among PWID, is not associated with elevated nonfatal overdose risk, and evidences a need to expand methadone treatment availability.

Non-prescribed use of methadone and buprenorphine prior to opioid substitution treatment: lifetime prevalence, motives, and drug sources among people with opioid dependence in five Swedish cities

BACKGROUND

Opioid substitution treatment (OST) with methadone or buprenorphine is the most effective means of treating opioid dependence. If these substances are used by people who are not undergoing OST, they can however carry serious risks. This article examines the lifetime prevalence, motives, and drug sources for such use, as well as geographical differences in these variables.

METHODS

Structured interviews were conducted with 411 patients from 11 OST clinics in five Swedish cities. The researchers carried out 280 interviews on-site, while 131 interviews were conducted by specially trained patients through privileged access interviewing. Data were analyzed by frequency and average calculations, cross-tabulations, and χ2 tests.

RESULTS

The lifetime prevalence of non-prescribed use was 87.8% for methadone, 80.5% for buprenorphine, and 50.6% for buprenorphine/naloxone. Pseudo-therapeutic motives-avoiding withdrawal symptoms, staying clean from heroin, detoxification, or taking care of one's own OST-were commonly cited as driving the use, while using the drugs for euphoric purposes was a less common motive. Most respondents had bought or received the substances from patients in OST, but dealers were also a significant source of non-prescribed methadone and buprenorphine. Geographical differences of use, motives, and sources suggest that prescription practices in OST have a great impact on which substances are used outside of the treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Experiences of non-prescribed use of methadone and buprenorphine are extremely common among those in OST in southern Sweden. As the use is typically driven by pseudo-therapeutic motives, increased access to OST might decrease the illicit demand for these substances. Buprenorphine/naloxone has a lower abuse potential than buprenorphine and should therefore be prioritized as the prescribed drug. Supervised dosage and other control measures are important provisions in the prevention of drug diversion and non-prescribed use among people not undergoing OST.