"No home to take methadone to": Experiences with addiction services during the COVID-19 pandemic among survivors of opioid overdose in Boston

Structural and social changes due to the COVID-19 pandemic and their impact on engagement in substance use disorder treatment services: a qualitative study among people with a recent history of injection drug use in Baltimore, Maryland

BACKGROUND

Substance use disorder treatment and recovery support services are critical for achieving and maintaining recovery. There are limited data on how structural and social changes due to the COVID-19 pandemic impacted individual-level experiences with substance use disorder treatment-related services among community-based samples of people who inject drugs.

METHODS

People with a recent history of injection drug use who were enrolled in the community-based AIDS Linked to the IntraVenous Experience study in Baltimore, Maryland participated in a one-time, semi-structured interview between July 2021 and February 2022 about their experiences living through the COVID-19 pandemic (n = 28). An iterative inductive coding process was used to identify themes describing how structural and social changes due to the COVID-19 pandemic affected participants' experiences with substance use disorder treatment-related services.

RESULTS

The median age of participants was 54 years (range = 24-73); 10 (36%) participants were female, 16 (57%) were non-Hispanic Black, and 8 (29%) were living with HIV. We identified several structural and social changes due the pandemic that acted as barriers and facilitators to individual-level engagement in treatment with medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) and recovery support services (e.g., support group meetings). New take-home methadone flexibility policies temporarily facilitated engagement in MOUD treatment, but other pre-existing rigid policies and practices (e.g., zero-tolerance) were counteracting barriers. Changes in the illicit drug market were both a facilitator and barrier to MOUD treatment. Decreased availability and pandemic-related adaptations to in-person services were a barrier to recovery support services. While telehealth expansion facilitated engagement in recovery support group meetings for some participants, other participants faced digital and technological barriers. These changes in service provision also led to diminished perceived quality of both virtual and in-person recovery support group meetings. However, a facilitator of recovery support was increased accessibility of individual service providers (e.g., counselors and Sponsors).

CONCLUSIONS

Structural and social changes across several socioecological levels created new barriers and facilitators of individual-level engagement in substance use disorder treatment-related services. Multilevel interventions are needed to improve access to and engagement in high-quality substance use disorder treatment and recovery support services among people who inject drugs.

Perspectives of substance use disorder counselors on the benefits and drawbacks of medications for opioid use disorder

Background

Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) are among the best tools we have to combat the opioid epidemic. Yet, use of MOUD among people with opioid use disorder (OUD) remains low. Interventions to increase MOUD access in the United States have largely focused on improving organizational capacity and addressing funding barriers, yet stigma toward MOUD may inhibit uptake even where MOUD is readily available. Substance use disorder (SUD) treatment counselors likely have considerable influence on a client's choice to initiate and adhere to MOUD, but beliefs that counselors convey about MOUD in interaction with clients are understudied. The current study explores what advantages and disadvantages that SUD treatment counselors communicate about buprenorphine, methadone, and naltrexone.

Methods

From June to December 2021, we surveyed counselors from publicly-funded SUD treatment agencies under a municipality-wide mandate to offer MOUD to all clients with OUD. Counselors were asked to describe, in a free-response format, the most important advantages and disadvantages to communicate to their clients about taking buprenorphine, methadone, and naltrexone. Counselor responses were coded for one or more advantage and disadvantage.

Results

A total of 271 SUD counselors from 29 agencies completed the survey, generating 1,995 advantages and disadvantages across three types of MOUD. The most frequently reported advantage across all three types of MOUD was their ability to reduce cravings and illicit drug use. The most frequently reported disadvantage related to the potential for some types of MOUD to develop long-term medication dependence.

Conclusions

As the availability and variety of MOUD treatment options continue to expand, it is important that SUD counselors are equipped with evidence-based recommendations for OUD care. We identified misalignments with the MOUD-prescribing evidence base and stigmatizing language toward MOUD within counselors' responses, highlighting the potential to refine training materials for MOUD and mitigate stigmatizing beliefs.

"It didn't hurt me": patients' and providers' perspectives on unsupervised take-home doses, drug diversion, and overdose risks in the provision of medication for opioid use disorder during COVID-19 in San Juan, Puerto Rico

BACKGROUND

During the COVID-19 pandemic, clinics offering medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) needed to rapidly introduce unsupervised take-home dosing, while relapsing patients and patients unable to enter treatment faced increased risks of fentanyl-related overdose deaths and other drug-related harms. Based on a qualitative study of people who inject drugs (PWID) receiving MOUD treatment and MOUD staff in Puerto Rico, this paper documents the lived experiences of patients and providers during this period and the risk perceptions and management strategies to address substance misuse and drug diversion attributable to unsupervised take-home-dose delivery.

METHODS

In-depth qualitative interviews were conducted with patients (N = 25) and staff (N = 25) in two clinics providing MOUD in San Juan, Puerto Rico, during 2022. Patients and staff were receiving or providing treatment during the pandemic, and patients reported injection drug use during the past thirty days.

RESULTS

Patients were overwhelmingly male (84%), unmarried (72%), and unemployed (52%), with almost half (44%) injecting one to three times a day. Mean time in treatment was 7 years. Staff had a mean age of 46 years with more than half of the sample (63%) female. The majority of patients believed that unsupervised take-home dosing had no significant effect on their treatment adherence or engagement. In contrast, providers expressed concerns over the potential for drug diversion and possible increased risks of patient attrition, overdose episodes, and poor treatment outcomes.

CONCLUSION

This study underscores the importance of insider perspectives on harm-reduction changes in policy implemented during a health crisis. Of note is the finding that staff disagreed among themselves regarding the potential harms of diversion and changes in drug testing protocols. These different perspectives are important to address so that future pandemic policies are successfully designed and implemented. Our study also illuminates disagreement in risk assessments between patients and providers. This suggests that preparation for emergency treatment plans requires enhanced communication with patients to match treatments to the context of lived experience.

Patient and Clinician Experiences with the Implementation of Telemedicine and Related Adaptations in Office-Based Buprenorphine Treatment During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Study

Background

Deaths from opioid overdose have increased dramatically in the past decade, representing an epidemic in the United States. For individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD), agonist medications such as methadone and buprenorphine reduce opioid-related morbidity and mortality. Historically, the provision of buprenorphine treatment in office-based settings has relied on frequent in-person contact, likely influencing patients' access to and retention in care. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, providers of office-based buprenorphine treatment rapidly adapted their care processes, increasingly relying on telemedicine visits. To date, relatively few prior studies have combined patient and clinician perspectives to examine the implementation of telemedicine and related care adaptations, particularly in safety-net settings.

Methods

Qualitative methods were used to explore clinician and patient experiences with telemedicine in an office-based buprenorphine treatment clinic affiliated with an urban safety-net hospital. From this clinic, we interviewed 25 patients and 16 clinicians (including prescribers and non-prescribers) to understand how telemedicine impacted treatment quality and engagement in care, as well as preferences for using telemedicine moving forward.

Results

Five themes regarding the implementation of telemedicine and other COVID-19-related care adaptations arose from patient and clinician perspectives: 1) telemedicine integration precipitated openness to more flexibility in care practices, 2) concerns regarding telemedicine-related adaptations centered around safety and accountability, 3) telemedicine encounters required rapport and trust between patients and clinicians to facilitate open communication, 4) safety-net patient populations experienced unique challenges when using telemedicine, particularly in terms of the technology required and the need for privacy, and 5) there is an important role for telemedicine in office-based buprenorphine treatment moving forward, primarily through its use in hybrid models of care.

Conclusions

Telemedicine implementation within office-based buprenorphine treatment has the potential to improve patients' engagement in care; however, our findings emphasize the need for tailored approaches to implementing telemedicine in office-based buprenorphine treatment, particularly within safety-net settings. Overall, this study supports the maintenance of changes to policy and practice that facilitate the use of telemedicine in office-based buprenorphine treatment beyond the COVID-19 public health emergency.

Loss, liberation, and agency: Patient experiences of methadone treatment at opioid treatment programs during the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

Despite its safety and effectiveness, methadone treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) remains highly stigmatized, and stringent opioid treatment program (OTP) attendance requirements create barriers to retention for many patients. The COVID-19 pandemic prompted a shift in federal regulations governing methadone, including a blanket exemption permitting increased take-home doses of methadone. We studied the impact of these changes upon established patients' experiences of OTP care.

METHOD

We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with 18 OTP patients who met our criteria of having established OTP care (i.e., enrolled at the OTP for at least 12 weeks) and were administered methadone three to six days weekly prior to the March 2020 blanket exemption. Interviews centered on how COVID-19 had affected their experiences of receiving treatment at an OTP.

RESULTS

We identified three interconnected themes relevant to transformation of OTP care by the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants described mourning therapeutic OTP relationships and structure (1. loss), yet feeling more satisfaction with fewer in-person OTP visits (2. liberation), and appreciating more opportunities to self-direct their OUD care (3. agency).

DISCUSSION

Structural changes made to OTP care early in the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in loss of community and structure. Increasing the availability of take-home methadone also improved patient experience and sense of agency. Our findings join a diverse body of converging evidence in support of policy changes allowing for more flexible dosing and individualized OTP care.

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.

Flexible delivery of opioid agonist treatment during COVID-19 in Norway: qualitative and quantitative findings from an online survey of provider experiences

BACKGROUND

For patients receiving daily opioid agonist treatment (OAT) for opioid dependence, several countries relaxed treatment guidelines at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. This involved longer take-home intervals for methadone and buprenorphine doses as well as a reduction in supervised dosing and drug screening. To date, little is known about the medium or long-term experience of OAT deregulation. Therefore, we conducted a survey to explore how OAT providers perceived greater flexibility in OAT service delivery at the end of the second year of the pandemic.

METHODS

Nationwide cross-sectional study of twenty-three OAT units in 19 publicly funded hospital trusts in Norway. OAT units were sent a 29-item online questionnaire comprising closed-format and open-ended questions on treatment provider experiences and changes in OAT service delivery during the past 12 months (January to December 2021).

RESULTS

Twenty-three (of whom female: 14; 60.8%) managers or lead physicians of OAT units completed the questionnaire reporting that, in 2021, most OAT units (91.3%, n = 21) still practiced some adjusted approaches as established in the beginning of the pandemic. The most common adaptions were special protocols for COVID-19 cases (95.7%, n = 22), increased use of telephone- (91.3%, n = 21) and video consultations (87.0%, n = 20), and longer take-home intervals for OAT medications (52.2%, n = 12). The use of depot buprenorphine also increased substantially during the pandemic. According to the OAT providers, most patients handled flexible treatment provision well. In individual cases, patients' substance use was identified as key factor necessitating a reintroduction of supervised dosing and drug screening. Collaboration with general practitioners and municipal health and social services was generally perceived as crucial for successful treatment delivery.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the Norwegian OAT system proved resilient in the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic, as its healthcare workforce embraced innovation in technology (telemedicine) and drug development (depot buprenorphine). According to our nationally representative sample of OAT providers, most patients were compliant with longer take-home doses of methadone and buprenorphine. Our findings suggest that telemedicine can be useful as adjunct to face-to-face treatment and provide greater flexibility for patients.

Opioid use and COVID-19: a secondary analysis of the impact of relaxation of methadone take-home dosing guidelines on use of illicit opioids

Background: An exemption to existing U.S. regulation of methadone maintenance therapy after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic permitted increased take-home doses beginning March 2020.Objectives: We assessed the impact of this exemption on opioid use.Methods: A pre/post study of 187 clients recruited from an OTP who completed a survey and consented to share their urine drug testing (UDT) data. Use of fentanyl, morphine, hydromorphone, codeine, and heroin was assessed via UDT. Receipt of take-home methadone doses was assessed from clinic records for 142 working days pre- and post-COVID exemption. Analysis was conducted using a linear regression model to assess the association between increased take-home doses and use of illicit opioids.Results: In the pre- vs. post-COVID-19 SAMHSA exemption periods, 26.2% vs. 36.3% of UDTs were positive for 6-acetylmorphine respectively, 32.6% vs. 40.6% positive for codeine, 34.2% vs 44.2% positive for hydromorphone, 39.5% vs. 48.1% positive for morphine, 8.0% vs. 14.4% positive for fentanyl (p-value < .001). However, in the unadjusted descriptive data, when grouped by change in substance use, those clients who experienced a decrease in the use of morphine, codeine, and heroin post-COVID-19 were given significantly more take-home doses than the groups that had no change or an increase in the use of these substances. In the adjusted model, there was no significant relationship between change in opioid use and increased receipt of take-home methadone doses.Conclusions: Although take-home doses post-COVID-19 nearly doubled, this increase was not associated with a significant change in use of illicit opioids.

Transitioning off methadone: A qualitative study exploring why patients discontinue methadone treatment for opioid use disorder

INTRODUCTION

Patients who discontinue methadone for opioid use disorder are at increased risk of overdose and death. We know little about how patients make the decision to stop treatment. This study explored reasons why patients discontinue methadone treatment.

METHODS

We conducted 20 individual semi-structured patient interviews and two staff focus groups, each with five participants, at two opioid treatment programs in Baltimore, MD, in the United States from June 2021 to May 2022. Patient interviews and staff focus groups covered three domains: 1) reasons why patients may want to discontinue methadone; 2) perspectives about the ideal length of methadone treatment; and 3) changes that could improve retention. We used a modified grounded theory approach to code interviews, identify emergent themes, and develop a conceptual model.

RESULTS

We identified three themes related to patients' internal relationships to methadone: patients (1) viewed methadone as a bridge to opioid-free recovery, (2) believed that long-term methadone damages the body, and (3) felt that methadone increases craving for cocaine; and three themes related to their external relationships with opioid treatment programs and society at large: patients (4) viewed daily dosing as burdensome, (5) feared methadone inaccessibility could trigger relapse, and (6) experienced stigma from friends, family, and peers. Patients with internal reasons planned to stop as soon as possible and asked for education about perceived side effects and treatment for cocaine craving to promote retention. Patients with external reasons were willing to continue for longer and asked for adaptive take-home policies and reduced societal stigma around methadone.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients want to discontinue methadone either because of their internal relationship to methadone and its real or perceived side effects, or because of their external experiences with opioid treatment programs and societal stigma of methadone. To improve retention, clinical and policy changes should consider responses to both of these categories of reasons.

A Scoping Review on the Effects of COVID-19 on Syringe Service Programs in the United States

The COVID-19 pandemic has had worldwide impacts, including disrupting community services. One interrupted service was syringe service programs (SSPs), community-established initiatives that provide sterile supplies and aid in overcoming addiction in drug-using participants. In the United States (U.S.), SSPs have been key in combating the recent opioid use crisis and associated infections such as the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis C. While some published reports on the pandemic's overall impacts on SSPs exist, certain aspects such as operational changes and repercussions on staff and participants may still be lacking. Information about the impact of interrupted SSP services due to the pandemic may provide insight into how to prepare to mitigate similar outcomes during possible future health outbreaks. The aim of this scoping review was thus to explore the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the operations, staff, and participants of SSPs in the U.S. The initial search of the databases PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science with selected keywords yielded 117 articles published in English between January 1, 2020, and August 31, 2022. After screening each article for study eligibility, 11 articles were included in the final review. Of the seven articles exploring SSP operational impacts from the pandemic, five acknowledged that mitigation strategies influenced functions, seven highlighted supply changes, and four emphasized the resulting staffing changes. Four studies inspected the pandemic's impacts on SSP participants, which included two articles highlighting participants' struggles with isolation and loneliness, one referencing the fear of exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and two examining the overall negative psychological effects experienced during this time. SSPs in various settings and regions across the U.S. experienced changes due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Many of these modifications negatively impacted operations, staffing, and participant relationships. Examining the issues that individual SSPs encountered highlights opportunities for structured solutions for the present and in the case of future infectious disease outbreaks. With the severity of the opioid use crisis in the U.S. and the dependence on SSPs for its mitigation, future work in this space should be prioritized.

Enumerating contributions of fentanyls and other factors to the unprecedented 2020 rise in opioid overdose deaths: model-based analysis

In 2020, the ongoing US opioid overdose crisis collided with the emerging COVID-19 pandemic. Opioid overdose deaths (OODs) rose an unprecedented 38%, due to a combination of COVID-19 disrupting services essential to people who use drugs, continued increases in fentanyls in the illicit drug supply, and other factors. How much did these factors contribute to increased OODs? We used a validated simulation model of the opioid overdose crisis, SOURCE, to estimate excess OODs in 2020 and the distribution of that excess attributable to various factors. Factors affecting OODs that could have been disrupted by COVID-19, and for which data were available, included opioid prescribing, naloxone distribution, and receipt of medications for opioid use disorder. We also accounted for fentanyls' presence in the heroin supply. We estimated a total of 18,276 potential excess OODs, including 1,792 lives saved due to increases in buprenorphine receipt and naloxone distribution and decreases in opioid prescribing. Critically, growth in fentanyls drove 43% (7,879) of the excess OODs. A further 8% is attributable to first-ever declines in methadone maintenance treatment and extended-released injectable naltrexone treatment, most likely due to COVID-19-related disruptions. In all, 49% of potential excess OODs remain unexplained, at least some of which are likely due to additional COVID-19-related disruptions. While the confluence of various COVID-19-related factors could have been responsible for more than half of excess OODs, fentanyls continued to play a singular role in excess OODs, highlighting the urgency of mitigating their effects on overdoses.

Patient experiences of methadone treatment changes during the first wave of COVID-19: a national community-driven survey

BACKGROUND

During COVID-19, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) allowed Methadone Maintenance Treatment (MMT) programs to relax in-person MMT requirements to reduce COVID-19 exposure. This study examines patient-reported changes to in-person methadone clinic attendance requirements during COVID-19.

METHODS

From June 7, 2020, to July 15, 2020, a convenience sample of methadone patients (N = 392) were recruited in collaboration with National Survivors Union (NSU) in 43 states and Washington D.C. through social media (Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, and Web site pop-ups). The community-driven research (CDR) online survey collected information on how patient take-home methadone dosing and in-person drug testing, counseling, and clinic visit frequency changed prior to COVID-19 (before March 2020) to during COVID-19 (June and July 2020).

RESULTS

During the study time period, the percentage of respondents receiving at least 14 days of take-home doses increased from 22 to 53%, while the percentage receiving one or no take-home doses decreased from 22.4% before COVID-19 to 10.2% during COVID-19. In-person counseling attendance decreased from 82.9% to 19.4%. While only 3.3% of respondents accessed counseling through telehealth before COVID-19, this percentage increased to 61.7% during COVID-19. Many respondents (41.3%) reported visiting their clinics in person once a week or more during COVID-19.

CONCLUSIONS

During the first wave of COVID-19, methadone patients report decreased in-person clinic attendance and increased take-home doses and use of telehealth for counseling services. However, respondents reported considerable variations, and many were still required to make frequent in-person clinic visits, which put patients at risk of COVID-19 exposure. Relaxations of MMT in-person requirements during COVID-19 should be consistently implemented and made permanent, and patient experiences of these changes should be explored further.

Synthesising evidence of the effects of COVID-19 regulatory changes on methadone treatment for opioid use disorder: implications for policy

As the USA faces a worsening overdose crisis, improving access to evidence-based treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) remains a policy priority. Federal regulatory changes in response to the COVID-19 pandemic substantially expanded flexibilities on take-home doses for methadone treatment for OUD. These changes have fuelled questions about the effect of new regulations on OUD outcomes and the potential effect on health of permanently integrating these flexibilities into treatment policy going forward. To aide US policy makers as they consider implementing permanent methadone regulatory changes, we conducted a review synthesising peer-reviewed research on the effect of the flexibilities of methadone take-home policies introduced during COVID-19 on methadone programme operations, OUD patient and provider experiences, and patient health outcomes. We interpret the findings in the context of the federal rule-making process and discuss avenues by which these findings can be incorporated and implemented into US policies on substance use treatment going forward.

Examination of methadone involved overdoses during the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

The US opioid overdose epidemic continues to escalate. The restrictions on methadone availability including take-home dosing were loosened during the COVID-19 pandemic although there have been concerns about the high street value of diverted methadone. This report examined how fatal overdoses involving methadone have changed over the past two-decades including during the pandemic.

METHODS

The CDC's Wide-ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research (WONDER) was used to find the unintentional methadone related overdose death rate from 1999 to 2020. Unintentional methadone deaths were defined using the ICD X40-44 codes with only data for methadone (T40.3). Data from the DEA's Automation of Reports and Consolidated Orders System (ARCOS) on methadone overall use, opioid treatment programs use, and pain management use was gathered for all states for 2020 and corrected for population.

RESULTS

There have been dynamic changes over the past two-decades in methadone overdoses. Overdoses increased from 1999 (0.9/million) to 2007 (15.9) and declined until 2019 (6.5). Overdoses in 2020 (9.6) were 48.1% higher than in 2019 (t(50) = 3.05, p < .005). The state level correlations between overall methadone use (r(49) = +0.75, p < .001), and opioid treatment program use (r(49) = +0.77, p < .001) with overdoses were positive, strong, and statistically significant. However, methadone use for pain treatment was not associated with methadone overdoses (r(49) = -0.08).

CONCLUSIONS

Overdoses involving methadone significantly increased by 48.1% in 2020 relative to 2019. Policy changes that were implemented following the COVID-19 pandemic involving methadone take-homes may warrant further study before they are made permanent.

Patient experiences of COVID-19-induced changes to methadone treatment in a large community-based opioid treatment program in Baltimore

INTRODUCTION

Following the March 2020 federal declaration of a COVID-19 public health emergency, in line with recommendations for social distancing and decreased congregation, federal agencies issued sweeping regulation changes to facilitate access to medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) treatment. These changes allowed patients new to treatment to receive multiple days of take-home medications (THM) and to use remote technology for treatment encounters-allowances that previously had been reserved exclusively for "stable" patients who met minimum adherence and time-in-treatment criteria. The impact of these changes on low-income, minoritized patients (frequently the largest recipients of opioid treatment program [OTP]-based addiction care), however, is not well characterized. We aimed to explore the experiences of patients who were enrolled in treatment prior to COVID-19 OTP regulation changes, with the goal of understanding patients' perceptions of the impact of these changes on treatment.

METHODS

This study included semistructured, qualitative interviews with 28 patients. We used a purposeful sampling method to recruit individuals who were active in treatment just before COVID-19-related policy changes went into effect, and who were still in treatment several months later. To ensure a diverse array of perspectives, we interviewed individuals who either had or had not experienced challenges with methadone medication adherence from 3/24/21 to 6/8/21, approximately 12-15 months following the onset of COVID-19. Interviews were transcribed and coded using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Participants were majority male (57 %), Black/African American (57 %), with a mean age of 50.1 (SD = 9.3). Fifty percent received THM prior to COVID-19, which increased to 93 % during the pandemic. COVID-19 program changes had mixed effects on treatment and recovery experiences. Themes identified convenience, safety, and employment as reasons for preferring THM. Challenges included difficulty with managing/storing medications, experiencing isolation, and concern about relapse. Furthermore, some participants reported that telebehavioral health encounters felt less personal.

CONCLUSIONS

Policymakers should consider patients' perspectives to foster a more patient-centered approach to methadone dosing that is safe, flexible, and accommodating to a diverse array of patients' needs. Additionally, technical support should be provided to OTPs to ensure interpersonal connections are maintained in the patient-provider relationship beyond the pandemic.

Envisioning Minimally Disruptive Opioid Use Disorder Care

Most people who need and want treatment for opioid addiction cannot access it. Among those who do get treatment, only a fraction receive evidence-based, life-saving medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD). MOUD access is not simply a matter of needing more clinicians or expanding existing treatment capacity. Instead, many facets of our health systems and policies create unwarranted, inflexible, and punitive practices that create life-threatening barriers to care. In the USA, opioid use disorder care is maximally disruptive. Minimally disruptive medicine (MDM) is a framework that focuses on achieving patient goals while imposing the smallest possible burden on patients' lives. Using MDM framing, we highlight how current medical practices and policies worsen the burden of treatment and illness, compound life demands, and strain resources. We then offer suggestions for programmatic and policy changes that would reduce disruption to the lives of those seeking care, improve health care quality and delivery, begin to address disparities and inequities, and save lives.

The development and validation of the pandemic medication-assisted treatment questionnaire for the assessment of pandemic crises impact on medication management and administration for patients with opioid use disorders

Pandemic and the globally applied restriction measures mainly affect vulnerable population groups, such as patients with opioid use disorders. Towards inhibiting SARS-Cov-2 spread, the medication-assisted treatment (MAT) programs follow strategies targeting the reduction of in-person psychosocial interventions and an increase of take-home doses. However, there is no available instrument to examine the impact of such modifications on diverse health aspects of patients under MAT. The aim of this study was to develop and validate the PANdemic Medication-Assisted Treatment Questionnaire (PANMAT/Q) to address the pandemic effect on the management and administration of MAT. In total, 463 patients under ΜΑΤ participated. Our findings indicate that PANMAT/Q has been successfully validated exerting reliability and validity. It can be completed within approximately 5 min, and its implementation in research settings is advocated. PANMAT/Q could serve as a useful tool to identify the needs of patients under MAT being at high risk of relapse and overdose.

"And Then COVID Hits": A Qualitative Study of How Jails Adapted Services to Treat Opioid Use Disorder During COVID-19

Background: Jails in Massachusetts are among the first nationwide to provide correctional populations with medications to treat opioid use disorder (MOUD). The COVID-19 pandemic caused jails to pivot and adapt MOUD programming. We aimed to identify adaptations and barriers to MOUD access that COVID-19 exacerbated or created, and document new elements that staff wish to sustain as COVID-19 recedes. Methods: We conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews and focus groups in 2020-2021 with 29 jail staff who implement MOUD programming in two Massachusetts jails. We conducted qualitative data analysis in Atlas.ti 8 using an inductive approach. Results: Participants shared that access to MOUD among correctional populations is understood by jail staff to be an essential health service. Thus, to facilitate continued access to MOUD, both during incarceration and also at community reentry, jail staff quickly implemented changes in MOUD regulations and dosing protocols and established telehealth capacity. Despite these program adaptations, participants identified how COVID-19 increased health and social needs among correctional populations, reduced availability of community-based healthcare and recovery-supportive services, and introduced new factors that could undermine recovery. Innovations that participants wished to sustain as COVID-19 receded included telehealth capacity, smaller-sized therapeutic groups, and application of a public health approach to treat opioid use disorder among correctional populations. Conclusions: During disruptive events, jails can adapt MOUD programming to ensure access for people living in jail and upon release. Findings identify factors for understanding the outcomes of jail-based MOUD programming during COVID-19 and highlight opportunities to improve service delivery after COVID-19.

Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic on a Rural Opioid Support Services Program

During 2020, Kentucky saw the third highest increase in overdose deaths in the U.S. Employment issues, inadequate housing, transportation problems, and childcare needs present barriers to accessing treatment in rural areas. These barriers and others (e.g., technology) arose during the pandemic negatively affecting individuals in recovery and service providers as they adjusted services to provide primarily telehealth and remote services. This study examines the impact of COVID-19 in its early stages on an opioid use disorder (OUD) support services program in a nonprofit located in rural eastern Kentucky, part of the central Appalachia region. A qualitative design was applied, employing semi-structured interviews in early fall 2020. Participants were associated with one OUD support services program, including service recipients, program coordinators, and business vendors. Guided by the Social Determinants of Health framework, two-cycle coding-descriptive coding and pattern coding-was utilized. Codes were sorted into three patterns: changes to daily life; financial impacts; and service access and provision. Overall, early stages of COVID-19 brought increased stress for individuals in recovery, as they were taking on more responsibility and navigating a changing environment. Coordinators were under pressure to provide services in a safe, timely manner. Vendors vocalized their struggles and successes related to finances. These findings can help organizations make realistic adjustments and policymakers set reasonable expectations and consider additional financial support.

Changes in Buprenorphine and Methadone Supplies in the US During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Importance

The opioid crisis has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic in the US, with concerns over major disruptions to medication treatment of opioid use disorder.

Objective

To investigate whether the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with disruption of buprenorphine and methadone supplies in the US.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This repeated cross-sectional study used ARCOS (Automated Reports and Consolidated Ordering System) data, which monitor the flow of controlled substances in the US, from January 1, 2012, through June 30, 2021. Manufacturers and point of sale or distribution at the dispensing or retail level, including hospitals, retail pharmacies, clinicians, midlevel clinicians, and teaching institutions, were included in the analysis.

Exposures

COVID-19 pandemic.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Quarterly supplies of buprenorphine and methadone per capita in milligrams.

Results

The per capita supply of methadone dropped from 13.2 mg in the first quarter of 2020 to 10.5 mg in the second quarter of 2020, whereas the per capita supply of buprenorphine increased from 3.6 mg to 3.7 mg in the same period. The per capita supply of methadone declined 20% (-2.7 mg) in the second quarter of 2020 compared with the first quarter of 2020, and the supply had not returned to 2019 levels as of June 2021, whereas the supply of buprenorphine per person increased consistently during the same period. There were considerable state disparities in the reduction of the methadone supply during the pandemic, with many states experiencing pronounced per capita supply decreases, including reductions as great as 50% in New Hampshire and Florida. These decreases in per capita methadone supply were not compensated by proportional increases in the per capita buprenorphine supply (linear fit, 0.17 [95% CI, -0.43 to 0.76]; P = .47).

Conclusions and Relevance

This cross-sectional study of buprenorphine and methadone supplies during the COVID-19 pandemic found a pronounced decline in the methadone supply but no disruption to the buprenorphine supply. Future research is needed to explain the pronounced state disparities in the methadone supply.