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

Transitions of care between jail-based medications for opioid use disorder and ongoing treatment in the community: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Offering medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) in carceral settings significantly reduces overdose. However, it is unknown to what extent individuals in jails continue MOUD once they leave incarceration. We aimed to assess the relationship between in-jail MOUD and MOUD continuity in the month following release.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of linked NYC jail-based electronic health records and community Medicaid OUD treatment claims for individuals with OUD discharged from jail between 2011 and 2017. We compared receipt of MOUD within 30 days of release, among those with and without MOUD at release from jail. We tested for effect modification based on MOUD receipt prior to incarceration and assessed factors associated with treatment discontinuation.

RESULTS

Of 28,298 eligible incarcerations, 52.8 % received MOUD at release. 30 % of incarcerations with MOUD at release received community-based MOUD within 30 days, compared to 7 % of incarcerations without MOUD (Risk Ratio: 2.62 (2.44-2.82)). Most (69 %) with MOUD claims prior to incarceration who received in-jail MOUD continued treatment in the community, compared to 9 % of those without prior MOUD. Those who received methadone (vs. buprenorphine), were younger, Non-Hispanic Black and with no history of MOUD were less likely to continue MOUD following release.

CONCLUSIONS

MOUD maintenance in jail is strongly associated with MOUD continuity upon release. Still, findings highlight a gap in treatment continuity upon-reentry, especially among those who initiate MOUD in jail. In the wake of worsening overdose deaths and troubling disparities, improving MOUD continuity among this population remains an urgent priority.

Buprenorphine Prescribing Characteristics Following Relaxation of X-Waiver Training Requirements

Importance

Local-level data are needed to understand whether the relaxation of X-waiver training requirements for prescribing buprenorphine in April 2021 translated to increased buprenorphine treatment.

Objective

To assess whether relaxation of X-waiver training requirements was associated with changes in the number of clinicians waivered to and who prescribe buprenorphine for opioid use disorder and the number of patients receiving treatment.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This serial cross-sectional study uses an interrupted time series analysis of 2020-2022 data from the HEALing Communities Study (HCS), a cluster-randomized, wait-list-controlled trial. Urban and rural communities in 4 states (Kentucky, Massachusetts, New York, and Ohio) with a high burden of opioid overdoses that had not yet received the HCS intervention were included.

Exposure

Relaxation of X-waiver training requirements (ie, allowing training-exempt X-waivers) on April 28, 2021.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The monthly number of X-waivered clinicians, X-waivered buprenorphine prescribers, and patients receiving buprenorphine were each summed across communities within a state. Segmented linear regression models to estimate pre- and post-policy change by state were used.

Results

The number of individuals in 33 participating HCS communities included 347 863 in Massachusetts, 815 794 in Kentucky, 971 490 in New York, and 1 623 958 in Ohio. The distribution of age (18-35 years: range, 29.4%-32.4%; 35-54 years: range, 29.9%-32.5%; ≥55 years: range, 35.7%-39.3%) and sex (female: range, 51.1%-52.6%) was similar across communities. There was a temporal increase in the number of X-waivered clinicians in the pre-policy change period in all states, which further increased in the post-policy change period in each state except Ohio, ranging from 5.2% (95% CI, 3.1%-7.3%) in Massachusetts communities to 8.4% (95% CI, 6.5%-10.3%) in Kentucky communities. Only communities in Kentucky showed an increase in the number of X-waivered clinicians prescribing buprenorphine associated with the policy change (relative increase, 3.2%; 95% CI, 1.5%-4.9%), while communities in other states showed no change or a decrease. Similarly, only communities in Massachusetts experienced an increase in patients receiving buprenorphine associated with the policy change (relative increase, 1.7%; 95% CI, 0.8%-2.6%), while communities in other states showed no change.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this serial cross-sectional study, relaxation of X-waiver training requirements was associated with an increase in the number of X-waivered clinicians but was not consistently associated with an increase in the number of buprenorphine prescribers or patients receiving buprenorphine. These findings suggest that training requirements may not be the primary barrier to expanding buprenorphine treatment.

Prolonged diacetylmorphine take-home during the COVID-19 pandemic-Results of a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Legal regulations for dispensing in Swiss heroin-assisted treatment were relaxed during the COVID-19 pandemic, allowing prolonged take-home of up to 7 days instead of two to reduce patient contact and the risk of infection. Our study aimed to measure the consequences of this new practice.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

This was a retrospective cohort study set in Switzerland's largest outpatient centre for opioid agonist therapy. One hundred and thirty-four (72.4%) of the 185 patients receiving oral diacetylmorphine (DAM) participated in the study.

MEASUREMENTS

Through the utilization of electronic medication prescription and dispensing software, as well as the electronic medical record, the following data were extracted to explore the potential consequences: dose of DAM, the number of antibiotic therapies, emergency hospitalizations and incarcerations. Age, gender, prescriptions for psychotrophic drugs and additional prescription for injectable DAM were tested to assess an increased risk of losing prolonged take-home privileges. Data in the year since prolonged take-home (period 2) were compared with data from the equivalent prior year (period 1).

FINDINGS

DAM take-home was not associated with a change in DAM dose (P = 0.548), the number of emergency hospitalizations (P = 0.186) or the number of incarcerations (P = 0.215); 79.1% of all patients were able to maintain their extended take-home privileges. However, patients who had injectable DAM experienced significant reductions in their prolonged take-home privileges.

CONCLUSION

Allowing patients to take home oral diacetylmorphine for up to 7 days as treatment for opioid use disorder does not appear to pose any demonstrable health risk. It is generally manageable for the large majority of patients. However, careful consideration of prolonged take-home for patients with additional injectable diacetylmorphine is recommended, as these patients are more likely to lose take-home privileges.

Exploration of weekly variation in naloxone possession and carriage among people who use opioids in New York City before, during, and after the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

Naloxone is critical for reversing opioid-related overdoses. However, there is a dearth of research examining how naloxone possession and carriage are impacted by time-varying individual and social determinants, and if this differed during the height of the COVID-related mitigation measures (e.g., shutdowns).

METHODS

We utilized weekly ecological momentary assessments (EMA) to measure factors associated with naloxone possession and carriage among 40 people who use illicit opioids in New York City, for 24 months. Descriptive statistics were used to explore the frequency of weeks with consistent naloxone possession and carriage. Mixed effects binary and multivariable logistic regression was used to test for the impact of time-varying EMA- and baseline-level factors on each outcome.

RESULTS

Approximately 70% of weekly EMAs were associated with consistent naloxone possession or carriage. In multivariable models, compared to during the height of the COVID-related shutdowns (March 12, 2020-May 19, 2021), the time before was associated with lower odds of consistent possession (Odds Ratio (OR) = 0.05, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) = 0.01-0.15) and consistent carriage (OR = 0.06, CI = 0.01-0.25). Additionally, being female (OR = 11.15, CI = 2.85-43.42), being White versus being Black or Hispanic/Latinx (OR = 8.05, CI = 1.96-33.06), and lifetime overdose (OR = 1.96, CI = 1.16-19.80) were associated with higher odds of consistent possession. Recent opioid injection (OR = 3.66, CI = 1.34-9.94), being female (OR = 7.91, CI = 3.91-8.23), and being White (OR = 5.77, CI = 1.35-24.55) were associated with higher odds of consistent carriage. Not wanting to be perceived as a drug user was reported in nearly one third (29.0%; 190/656) of EMAs where inconsistent possession was reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings paint a relatively positive picture of possession and carriage during COVID-related shutdowns, particularly among white and female participants, and highlight the importance of capturing time-varying factors to understand naloxone-related behavior. To curb growing disparities, outreach to equip Black and Hispanic/Latinx people with naloxone is needed as well as interventions to reduce stigma as a barrier to naloxone engagement.

Payment-related barriers to medications for opioid use disorder: A critical review of the literature and real-world application

BACKGROUND

The national opioid crisis continues to intensify, despite the fact that opioid use disorder (OUD) is treatable and opioid overdose deaths are preventable through first-line treatment with medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD). This study identifies and categorizes payment-related barriers that impact MOUD access and retention from both the provider and patient perspectives and provides insight into how these barriers can be addressed.

METHODS

We performed a critical review of the literature (peer-reviewed studies and relevant documents from the gray literature) to identify payment-related access and retention barriers to MOUD. We used the results of this review to develop an analytic framework to understand how payment impacts MOUD access and retention for both providers and patients. In addition, we reviewed action plans developed by Massachusetts communities that participated in the Healing Communities Study (HCS) to analyze which payment-related barriers were addressed through the study.

RESULTS

We identified 18 payment-related barriers that patients or providers face when initiating or continuing MOUD with either methadone or buprenorphine in Opioid Treatment Programs (OTP) and non-OTP settings. Patient-related barriers mainly relate to health insurance coverage or the design of health plans (e.g., cost sharing, covered benefits) resulting in direct (medical and non-medical) and indirect costs that can affect both access and retention, especially as they relate to services provided in OTPs. Provider-related barriers include low reimbursement and administrative burden and are most likely to impact access to MOUD. Evidence-based strategies to expand MOUD as part of the HCS in Massachusetts targeted about half of the patient and provider payment-related barriers identified.

CONCLUSION

Patients and providers face an array of payment-related barriers that impact access to and retention on MOUD, most of which relate to inadequate health insurance coverage, features of health plans, and key federal and state policies. As new regulatory policies are enacted that expand access to MOUD, such as greater flexibility in OTPs and MOUD delivered via telehealth, it will be important to align these delivery changes with payment reform involving payers, providers, and policymakers.

"If it wasn't for them, I don't think I would be here": experiences of the first year of a safer supply program during the dual public health emergencies of COVID-19 and the drug toxicity crisis

BACKGROUND

In response to the devastating drug toxicity crisis in Canada driven by an unregulated opioid supply predominantly composed of fentanyl and analogues, safer supply programs have been introduced. These programs provide people using street-acquired opioids with prescribed, pharmaceutical opioids. We use six core components of safer supply programs identified by people who use drugs to explore participant perspectives on the first year of operations of a safer supply program in Victoria, BC, during the dual public health emergencies of COVID-19 and the drug toxicity crisis to examine whether the program met drug-user defined elements of an effective safer supply model.

METHODS

This study used a community-based participatory research approach to ensure that the research was reflective of community concerns and priorities, rather than being extractive. We interviewed 16 safer supply program participants between December 2020 and June 2021. Analysis was structured using the six core components of effective safer supply from the perspective of people who use drugs, generated through a prior study.

RESULTS

Ensuring access to the 'right dose and right drugs' of medications was crucial, with many participants reporting success with the available pharmaceutical options. However, others highlighted issues with the strength of the available medications and the lack of options for smokeable medications. Accessing the safer supply program allowed participants to reduce their use of drugs from unregulated markets and manage withdrawal, pain and cravings. On components related to program operations, participants reported receiving compassionate care, and that accessing the safer supply program was a non-stigmatizing experience. They also reported receiving support to find housing, access food, obtain ID, and other needs. However, participants worried about long term program sustainability.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants in the safer supply program overwhelmingly appreciated it and felt it was lifesaving, and unlike other healthcare or treatment services they had previously accessed. Participants raised concerns that unless a wider variety of medications and ability to consume them by multiple routes of administration became available, safer supply programs would remain unable to completely replace substances from unregulated markets.

Considerations for Opioid Use Disorder Treatment From Policy Makers' Experiences With COVID-19 Policy Flexibilities

OBJECTIVE

This qualitative study aimed to examine how states implemented COVID-19 public health emergency-related federal policy flexibilities for opioid use disorder treatment from the perspective of state-level behavioral health policy makers. Recommendations are given for applying lessons learned to improve the long-term impact of these flexibilities on opioid use disorder treatment.

METHODS

Eleven semistructured interviews were conducted with 13 stakeholders from six state governments, and transcripts were qualitatively coded. Data were analyzed by grouping findings according to state-, institution-, and provider-level barriers and facilitators and were then compared to identify overarching themes.

RESULTS

Policy makers expressed positive opinions about the opioid use disorder treatment flexibilities and described benefits regarding treatment access, continuity of care, and quality of care. No interviewees reported evidence of increased adverse events associated with the relaxed medication protocols. Challenges to state-level implementation included gaps in the federal flexibilities, competing state policies, facility and provider liability concerns, and persistent systemic stigma.

CONCLUSIONS

As the federal government considers permanent adoption of COVID-19-related flexibilities regarding opioid use disorder treatment policies, the lessons learned from this study are crucial to consider in order to avoid continuing challenges with policy implementation and to effectively remove opioid use disorder treatment barriers.

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.

Licensure Policies May Help States Ensure Access To Opioid Use Disorder Medication In Specialty Addiction Treatment

Despite the devastating toll of the overdose crisis in the United States, many addiction treatment programs do not offer medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD). Several states have incorporated MOUD requirements into their standards for treatment program licensure. This study examined policy officials' and treatment providers' perspectives on the implementation of these policies. During 2020-22, we conducted thirty-one semistructured interviews with forty policy officials and treatment providers in nine states identified through a legal analysis. Of these states, three states required treatment organizations to offer MOUD, and two prohibited organizations from denying admission to people receiving MOUD. Qualitative findings revealed that licensure policies were part of a broader effort to transition the specialty treatment system to a model of care more consistent with medical evidence; states perceived tension between raising quality standards and maintaining adequate treatment capacity; aligning other state policies with MOUD access goals facilitated implementation of the licensure requirement; and measuring compliance was challenging. Licensure may offer states an opportunity to take a more active role in ensuring access to effective treatment.

Methadone dosing at New York State opioid treatment programs following initial revisions to federal regulations

INTRODUCTION

In March 2020, a temporary federal regulatory exemption for opioid treatment programs (OTPs) was issued, allowing for a greater number of take-home methadone doses than was previously permitted. In the same month, to address financial sustainability, New York State (NYS) Medicaid also transitioned to a bundle reimbursement methodology for OTPs. We examined methadone dosing schedules in NYS before and after these regulatory and financing changes.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using NYS OTP patient data from two sources: the client data system for a baseline period (February 2020) and survey data collected after regulatory and financing changes (May 2020 to August 2021, 64 weekly surveys). We compared methadone dosing schedules over time using chi-square tests and Poisson regression.

RESULT

At baseline, data were available for 78% (n=77/99) of OTPs including 90.9% (n=26,225/28,839) of their enrolled patients. During the survey period, 99 OTPs completed 93.1% (n=5901/6336) of weekly surveys, with a mean statewide weekly patient census of 38,904 (SD=1214.5). Between February and May 2020, daily dosing significantly decreased from 55.4% to 16.3% of patients (-39.1 percentage points [95%CI: -39.8 to -38.4]), although it significantly increased subsequently (3.33%/4-weeks [95%CI: 3.28, 3.39]). In addition, weekly-to-monthly dosing significantly increased from 26.9% to 54.5% of patients (27.6 percentage points [95%CI: 26.9, 28.4]), although it significantly decreased subsequently (-1.19%/4-weeks [95%CI: -1.23, -1.15]).

DISCUSSION

Despite large initial changes, we found a trend toward gradual return to more restrictive dosing schedules. OTPs need further support in leveraging new opportunities to improve methadone treatment and outcomes.

Managing Opioid Withdrawal Symptoms During the Fentanyl Crisis: A Review

Illicitly manufactured fentanyl (IMF) is a significant contributor to the increasing rates of overdose-related deaths. Its high potency and lipophilicity can complicate opioid withdrawal syndromes (OWS) and the subsequent management of opioid use disorder (OUD). This scoping review aimed to collate the current OWS management of study populations seeking treatment for OWS and/or OUD directly from an unregulated opioid supply, such as IMF. Therefore, the focus was on therapeutic interventions published between January 2010 and November 2023, overlapping with the period of increasing IMF exposure. A health science librarian conducted a systematic search on November 13, 2023. A total of 426 studies were screened, and 173 studies were reviewed at the full-text level. Forty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Buprenorphine and naltrexone were included in most studies with the goal of transitioning to a long-acting injectable version. Various augmenting agents were tested (buspirone, memantine, suvorexant, gabapentin, and pregabalin); however, the liberal use of adjunctive medication and shortened timelines to initiation had the most consistently positive results. Outside of FDA-approved medications for OUD, lofexidine, gabapentin, and suvorexant have limited evidence for augmenting opioid agonist initiation. Trials often have low retention rates, particularly when opioid agonist washout is required. Neurostimulation strategies were promising; however, they were developed and studied early. Precipitated withdrawal is a concern; however, the rates were low and adequately mitigated or managed with low- or high-dose buprenorphine induction. Maintenance treatment continues to be superior to detoxification without continued management. Shorter induction protocols allow patients to initiate evidence-based treatment more quickly, reducing the use of illicit or non-prescribed substances.

First-hand accounts of structural stigma toward people who use opioids on Reddit

People who use opioids face multilevel stigma that negatively affects their health and well-being and drives opioid-related overdose. Little research has focused on lived experience of the structural levels of stigma toward opioid use. This study identified and qualitatively analyzed Reddit content about structural stigma toward opioid use. Iterative, human-in-the-loop natural language processing methods were used to identify relevant posts and comments from an opioid-related subforum. Ultimately, 273 posts and comments were qualitatively analyzed via directed content analysis guided by a prominent conceptualization of stigma. Redditors described how structures-including governmental programs and policies, the pharmaceutical industry, and healthcare systems-stigmatize people who use opioids. Structures were reported to stigmatize through labeling (i.e., particularly in medical settings), perpetuating negative stereotypes, separating people who use opioids into those who use opioids "legitimately" versus "illegitimately," and engendering status loss and discrimination (e.g., denial of healthcare, loss of employment). Redditors also posted robust formulations of structural stigma, mostly describing how it manifests in the criminalization of substance use, is often driven by profit motive, and leads to the pervasiveness of fentanyl in the drug supply and the current state of the overdose crisis. Some posts and comments highlighted interpersonal and structural resources (e.g., other people who use opioids, harm reduction programs, telemedicine) leveraged to navigate structural stigma and its effects. These findings reveal key ways by which structural stigma can pervade the lives of people who use opioids and show the value of social media data for investigating complex social processes. Particularly, this study's findings related to structural separation may help encourage efforts to promote solidarity among people who use opioids. Attending to first-hand accounts of structural stigma can help interventions aiming to reduce opioid-related stigma be more responsive to these stigmatizing structural forces and their felt effects.

Association of random and observed urine drug screening with long-term retention in opioid treatment programs

BACKGROUND

In the US, opioid treatment providers (OTPs) have wide latitude to perform urine drug screening (UDS) and discharge clients for positive results. OTP clients have identified randomized and directly observed UDS as potentially stigmatizing, but little research has examined the association between UDS modality and retention in OTPs.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study uses the 2016-2017 NDATSS wave among OTPs that administered methadone. The exposure was a 4-level variable based on whether OTPs had a high percentage (≥ 90% of clients) who experienced randomized, observed, both, or neither modality of UDS. The outcome was the proportion of clients retained in treatment 1 year or longer (long-term retention). Analyses were conducted using fractional logit regression with survey weighting and presented as percentages and 95% confidence intervals. We also present how policies for involuntary clinic discharge modify these effects.

RESULTS

150 OTPs were eligible with a median of 310 clients. 40 (27%) OTPs did not highly utilize either randomized or observed UDS, 22 (15%) only highly utilized observed UDS, 42 (28%) only highly utilized randomized UDS and 46 (31%) utilized both practices on ≥ 90% of clients. Adjusted estimates for long-term retention ranged from 57.7% in OTPs that conducted both randomized and observed UDS on ≥ 90% of clients and 70.4% in OTPs that did not highly utilize these practices. Involuntary discharge may moderate this relationship.

CONCLUSION

Findings showed an association between high utilization of randomized and observed UDS and decreased long-term retention, suggesting that UDS modality may impact long-term OTP retention.

Adoption of methadone take home policy by U.S. state opioid treatment authorities during COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Patients face well documented problems accessing methadone from opioid treatment programs (OTPs) in the U.S., yet addressing these barriers has proven difficult due in part to the sheer number of actors governing treatment, including state authorities. Changes in federal methadone regulations during COVID-19 offer an opportunity to study the timing and extent of U.S. state opioid treatment authority (SOTA) adoption of policies expanding take home dosing for methadone treatment since March 2020.

METHODS

We completed a policy scan between February 23 and May 2, 2023 on state adoption and subsequent rescinding of federal regulatory exemptions for expanded take-home dosing. This scan involved three components: a policy survey of SOTAs, a freedom of information act (FOIA) request of SAMHSA, and outreach to members of National Survivors Union (NSU)'s methadone work group.

RESULTS

Of the 39 of 50 (78 %) SOTAs that responded, only 2 states (HI and MT) indicated that they never adopted federal exemptions for expanded take-home dosing. Of the 37 adopting states, all adopted the exemptions within the first month after the agency's announcement. Additionally, four SOTAs (OH, IN, FL, MS) indicated that their state subsequently rescinded expanded take-home dosing for methadone.

CONCLUSIONS

Among responding states, regulations expanding take-home dosing appear to have been adopted by U.S. SOTAs in a widespread and rapid manner at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, but some states have begun to rescind such policies. Our findings suggest that state regulators can rapidly modify OTP regulations in response to federal policy changes. SOTA policies are likely to become critical factors in the adoption of methadone treatment innovations if new federal regulatory flexibilities become permanent.

Navigating addiction treatment during COVID-19: policy insights from state health leaders

To mitigate pandemic-related disruptions to addiction treatment, US federal and state governments made significant changes to policies regulating treatment delivery. State health agencies played a key role in implementing these policies, giving agency leaders a distinct vantage point on the feasibility and implications of post-pandemic policy sustainment. We interviewed 46 state health agency and other leaders responsible for implementing COVID-19 addiction treatment policies across 8 states with the highest COVID-19 death rate in their census region. Semi-structured interviews were conducted from April through October 2022. Transcripts were analyzed using summative content analysis to characterize policies that interviewees perceived would, if sustained, benefit addiction treatment delivery long-term. State policies were then characterized through legal database queries, internet searches, and analysis of existing policy databases. State leaders viewed multiple pandemic-era policies as useful for expanding addiction treatment access post-pandemic, including relaxing restrictions for telehealth, particularly for buprenorphine induction and audio-only treatment; take-home methadone allowances; mobile methadone clinics; and out-of-state licensing flexibilities. All states adopted at least 1 of these policies during the pandemic. Future research should evaluate these policies outside of the acute COVID-19 pandemic context.

Utilization and disparities in medication treatment for opioid use disorder among patients with comorbid opioid use disorder and chronic pain during the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic's impact on utilization of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) among patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) and chronic pain is unclear.

METHODS

We analyzed New York State (NYS) Medicaid claims from pre-pandemic (August 2019-February 2020) and pandemic (March 2020-December 2020) periods for beneficiaries with and without chronic pain. We calculated monthly proportions of patients with OUD diagnoses in 6-month-lookback windows utilizing MOUD and proportions of treatment-naïve patients initiating MOUD. We used interrupted time series to assess changes in MOUD utilization and initiation rates by medication type and by race/ethnicity.

RESULTS

Among 20,785 patients with OUD and chronic pain, 49.3% utilized MOUD (versus 60.3% without chronic pain). The pandemic did not affect utilization in either group but briefly disrupted initiation among patients with chronic pain (β=-0.009; 95% CI [-0.015, -0.002]). Overall MOUD utilization was not affected by the pandemic for any race/ethnicity but opioid treatment program (OTP) utilization was briefly disrupted for non-Hispanic Black individuals (β=-0.007 [-0.013, -0.001]). The pandemic disrupted overall MOUD initiation in non-Hispanic Black (β=-0.007 [-0.012, -0.002]) and Hispanic individuals (β=-0.010 [-0.019, -0.001]).

CONCLUSIONS

Adults with chronic pain who were enrolled in NYS Medicaid before the COVID-19 pandemic had lower MOUD utilization than those without chronic pain. MOUD initiation was briefly disrupted, with disparities especially in racial/ethnic minority groups. Flexible MOUD policy initiatives may have maintained overall treatment utilization, but disparities in initiation and care continuity remain for patients with chronic pain, and particularly for racial/ethnic minoritized subgroups.

Retention and critical outcomes among new methadone maintenance patients following extended take-home reforms: a retrospective observational cohort study

Background

Approximately 1800 opioid treatment programs (OTPs) in the US dispense methadone to upwards of 400,000 patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) annually, operating under longstanding highly restrictive guidelines. OTPs were granted novel flexibilities beginning March 15, 2020, allowing for reduced visit frequency and extended take-home doses to minimize COVID exposure with great variation across states and sites. We sought to use electronic health records to compare retention in treatment, opioid use, and adverse events among patients newly entering methadone maintenance in the post-reform period in comparison with year-ago, unexposed, controls.

Methods

Retrospective observational cohort study across 9 OTPs, geographically dispersed, in the National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA) Clinical Trials Network. Newly enrolled patients between April 15 and October 14, 2020 (post-COVID, reform period) v. March 15-September 14, 2019 (pre-COVID, control period) were assessed. The primary outcome was 6-month retention. Secondary outcomes were opioid use and adverse events including emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and overdose.

Findings

821 individuals were newly admitted in the post-COVID and year-ago control periods, average age of 38.3 (SD 11.1), 58.9% male. The only difference across pre- and post-reform groups was the prevalence of psychostimulant use disorder (25.7% vs 32.9%, p = 0.02). Retention was non-inferior (60.0% vs 60.1%) as were hazards of adverse events in the aggregate (X2 (1) = 0.55, p = 0.46) in the post-COVID period. However, rates of month-level opioid use were higher among post-COVID intakes compared to pre-COVID controls (64.8% vs 51.1%, p < 0.001). Moderator analyses accounting for stimulant use and site-level variation in take-home schedules did not change findings.

Interpretation

Policies allowing for extended take-home schedules were not associated with worse retention or adverse events despite slightly elevated rates of measured opioid use while in care. Relaxed guidelines were not associated with measurable increased harms and findings could inform future studies with prospective trials.

Funding

USDHHSNIDACTNUG1DA013035-15.

"Get in and get out, get on with life": Patient and provider perspectives on methadone van implementation for opioid use disorder treatment

BACKGROUND

Expanding access to opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment, including methadone, is imperative to address the US overdose crisis. In June 2021, the Drug Enforcement Administration announced new regulations allowing all opioid treatment programs (OTPs) to deploy mobile medication units, or methadone vans, to dispense OUD medication treatment outside of clinic walls, ending a 13-year moratorium. We conducted a qualitative study evaluating one opioid treatment program's experience, including benefits and challenges with implementing a methadone van, to inform future policy and clinical practice.

METHODS

We recruited staff and patients receiving OUD medication treatment from an OTP in San Francisco, CA. The OTP had one operating van before March 2020 and began operating an additional van in response to COVID-19-related efforts to de-populate clinic settings. We interviewed 10 providers and 20 patients from August to November 2020. We transcribed, coded, and analyzed all interviews using modified grounded theory methodologies.

RESULTS

Both patients and providers perceived significant benefits with receiving OUD medications using methadone vans. Patients preferred dosing at the van over the clinic because they were able to "get in and out" faster. Both staff and patients appreciated being able to use phone counseling to connect with counselors which helped reduce in-person visits and streamline workflows. Providers also noted van implementation challenges, including daily van set up, urine drug testing, and delivering counseling to patients who lacked phones.

CONCLUSIONS

Eased restrictions on methadone van implementation represent a new strategy for expanding OUD treatment access. In our qualitative study, patients and staff were satisfied with methadone van implementation, though the OTP still faced implementation challenges. Audio-only counseling and other workflow solutions helped facilitate implementation, and several policy considerations like maintaining audio-only counseling flexibilities are key to ensuring future van success. Methadone vans offer the potential to expand treatment uptake, while prioritizing patient-centered care.

Treatment Updates for Pain Management and Opioid Use Disorder

The medical community has proposed several clinical recommendations to promote patient safety and health amid the opioid overdose public health crisis. For a frontline practicing physician, distilling the evidence and implementing the latest guidelines may prove challenging. This article aims to highlight pertinent updates and clinical care pearls as they relate to primary care management of chronic pain and opioid use disorder.

Impact of COVID-19-related methadone regulatory flexibilities: views of state opioid treatment authorities and program staff

BACKGROUND

During the COVID-19 pandemic, federal regulations in the USA for methadone treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) were temporarily revised to reduce clinic crowding and promote access to treatment.

METHODS

As part of a study seeking to implement interim methadone without routine counseling to hasten treatment access in Opioid Treatment Programs with admission delays, semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted via Zoom with participating staff (N = 11) in six OTPs and their State Opioid Treatment Authorities (SOTAs; N = 5) responsible for overseeing the OTPs' federal regulatory compliance. Participants discussed their views on the response of OTPs in their states to the pandemic and the impact of the COVID-related regulatory flexibilities on staff, established patients, and new program applicants. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and a content analysis was conducted using ATLAS.ti.

RESULTS

All SOTAs requested the blanket take-home exemption and supported the use of telehealth for counseling. Participants noted that these changes were more beneficial for established patients than program applicants. Established patients were able to obtain a greater number of take-homes and attend individual counseling remotely. Patients with limited resources had greater difficulty or were unable to access remote counseling. The convenience of intake through telehealth did not extend to new program applicants because the admission physical exam requirement was not waived.

CONCLUSIONS

The experienced reflections of SOTAs and OTP providers on methadone practice changes during the COVID-19 pandemic offer insights on SAMHSA's proposed revisions to its OTP regulations. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov # NCT04188977.

Trends in self-reported non-fatal overdose and patterns of substance use before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in a prospective cohort of adults who have injected drugs - Baltimore, Maryland, 2014-2022

BACKGROUND

Overdose deaths increased during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. Less is known about drug use behavior changes during the same time period. We examined differences in non-fatal overdose and drug use behaviors before and after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in a community-recruited cohort of adults who have injected drugs.

METHODS

721 participants attended 7401 visits between Jan 2014 and Mar 2022. Outcomes (non-fatal overdose, drug route of administration, type of drugs used) were assessed via self-report in the last six months. We compared pre-pandemic (Jan 2014-Mar 2020) to inter-pandemic (Dec 2020-Mar 2022) prevalence of each outcome using Cohcrane-Maentel-Haeszel odds ratios (CMH-OR). We then estimated probabilities for transitioning between specific behaviors from participants' last pre-pandemic visit to their first inter-pandemic visit.

RESULTS

Comparing pre-pandemic visits to inter-pandemic visits, the prevalence of non-fatal overdose did not change (CMH-OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.75-1.50); the prevalence of injection (CMH-OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.1-0.17) and non-injection (CMH-OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.42-0.61) drug use declined. More than a third (35.7%) of persons using both injection and non-injection drugs pre-pandemic transitioned to exclusive non-injection use during the pandemic. By contrast, few (4.0%) persons using non-injection drugs exclusively pre-pandemic transitioned to injecting during the pandemic.

CONCLUSION

Among adults who have injected drugs, the start of the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a reduced drug use prevalence and transitions from injection to non-injection use. Average overdose prevalence was unchanged, but these behavior changes may have helped mitigate overdose harm.

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.

Typology of laws restricting access to methadone treatment in the United States: A latent class analysis

BACKGROUND

In the United States, methadone treatment for opioid use disorder is only available at opioid treatment programs (OTPs). In addition to federal regulations, states can enact laws which shape access to OTPs. We aimed to define classes of states according to restrictiveness of state OTP laws and examine population characteristics associated with class membership.

METHODS

A set of laws was extracted from a database of statutes and regulations governing OTPs in 49 states and the District of Columbia as of June 2021. Latent class analysis of laws was used to estimate the probability of class membership for each state. Class-weighted multinomial logistic regression analysis assessed state-level correlates of class membership and adjusted Relative Risk Ratio (aRRR) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were generated.

RESULTS

States (n = 50) were assigned to three classes; Class 1) High restrictiveness on patient experience, low restrictiveness on access to service (n = 13); Class 2) Medium restrictiveness on patient experience, high restrictiveness on access to service (n = 14); Class 3) Low restrictiveness on patient experience, low restrictiveness on access to service (n = 23). States with a higher probability of membership in Classes with higher restrictiveness had higher rates of unemployment (Class 1 vs Class 3, aRRR:1.24; 95%CI:1.06-1.45), and Black residents (Class 2 vs Class 3, aRRR:1.10; 95%CI:1.04-1.15), and lower likelihood of Medicaid coverage of methadone (Class 1 vs Class 3, aRRR:0.25; 95%CI:0.07-0.88). States with a higher probability of membership in Classes with higher restrictiveness also had higher rates of potential indicators for opioid use disorder treatment need, including rates of opioid dispensing (Class 1 vs Class 3, aRRR:1.06; 95%CI:1.02-1.10, Class 2 vs Class 3, aRRR:1.07; 95%CI:1.03-1.11) and HIV diagnoses attributed to injection (Class 1 vs Class 3, aRRR:3.92; 95%CI:1.25-12.22).

CONCLUSIONS

States with indicators of greater potential need for opioid use disorder treatment have the most restrictions, raising concerns about unmet treatment need.

Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on enrollment in medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) in Vancouver, Canada: An interrupted time series analysis

BACKGROUND

In anticipation of COVID-19 related disruptions to opioid use disorder (OUD) care, new provincial and federal guidance for the management of OUD and risk mitigation guidance (RMG) for prescription of pharmaceutical opioids were introduced in British Columbia, Canada, in March 2020. This study evaluated the combined impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and counteracting OUD policies on enrollment in medications for OUD (MOUD).

METHODS

Using data from three cohorts of people with presumed OUD in Vancouver, we conducted an interrupted time series analysis to estimate the combined effects impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and counteracting OUD policies on the prevalence of enrollment in MOUD overall, as well as in individual MOUDs (methadone, buprenorphine/naloxone, slow-release oral morphine) between November 2018 and November 2021, controlling for pre-existing trends. In sub-analysis we considered RMG opioids together with MOUD.

RESULTS

We included 760 participants with presumed OUD. In the post-COVID-19 period, MOUD and slow-release oral morphine prevalence rates showed an estimated immediate increase in level (+7.6%, 95% CI: 0.6%, 14.6% and 1.8%, 95% CI: 0.3%, 3.3%, respectively), followed by a decline in the monthly trend (-0.8% per month, 95% CI: -1.4%, -0.2% and -0.2% per month, 95% CI: -0.4, -0.1, respectively). There were no significant changes in the prevalence trends of enrollment in methadone, buprenorphine/naloxone, or when RMG opioids were considered together with MOUD.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite immediate improvements in MOUD enrollment in the post-COVID-19 period, this beneficial trend reversed over time. RMG opioids appeared to have provided additional benefits to sustain retention in OUD care.

Differential risks of syringe service program participants in Central Ohio: a latent class analysis

BACKGROUND

Significant heterogeneity exists among people who use drugs (PWUD). We identify distinct profiles of syringe service program (SSP) clients to (a) evaluate differential risk factors across subgroups and (b) inform harm reduction programming.

METHODS

Latent class analysis (LCA) was applied to identify subgroups of participants (N = 3418) in a SSP in Columbus, Ohio, from 2019 to 2021. Demographics (age, sex, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, housing status) and drug use characteristics (substance[s] used, syringe gauge, needle length, using alone, mixing drugs, sharing supplies, reducing use, self-reported perceptions on the impact of use, and treatment/support resources) were used as indicators to define latent classes. A five-class LCA model was developed, and logistic regression was then employed to compare risk factors at program initiation and at follow-up visits between latent classes.

RESULTS

Five latent classes were identified: (1) heterosexual males using opioids/stimulants with housing instability and limited resources for treatment/support (16.1%), (2) heterosexual individuals using opioids with stable housing and resources for treatment/support (33.1%), (3) individuals using methamphetamine (12.4%), (4) young white individuals using opioids/methamphetamine (20.5%), and (5) females using opioids/cocaine (17.9%). Class 2 served as the reference group for logistic regression models, and at the time of entry, class 1 was more likely to report history of substance use treatment, overdose, HCV, sharing supplies, and mixing drugs, with persistently higher odds of sharing supplies and mixing drugs at follow-up. Class 3 was more likely to report history of overdose, sharing supplies, and mixing drugs, but outcomes at follow-up were comparable. Class 4 was the least likely to report history of overdose, HCV, and mixing drugs, but the most likely to report HIV. Class 5 was more likely to report history of substance use treatment, overdose, HCV, sharing supplies, and mixing drugs at entry, and higher reports of accessing substance use treatment and testing positive for HCV persisted at follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Considerable heterogeneity exists among PWUD, leading to differential risk factors that may persist throughout engagement in harm reduction services. LCA can identify distinct profiles of PWUD accessing services to tailor interventions that address risks, improve outcomes, and mitigate disparities.

Pandemic telehealth flexibilities for buprenorphine treatment: a synthesis of evidence and policy implications for expanding opioid use disorder care in the United States

Buprenorphine is a highly effective treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) and a critical tool for addressing the worsening US overdose crisis. However, multiple barriers to treatment-including stringent federal regulations-have historically made this medication hard to reach for many who need it. In 2020, under the COVID-19 public health emergency, federal regulators substantially changed access to buprenorphine by allowing prescribers to initiate patients on buprenorphine via telehealth without first evaluating them in person. As the public health emergency has been set to expire in May of 2023, Congress and federal agencies can leverage extensive evidence from studies conducted during the wake of the pandemic to make evidence-based decisions on the regulation of buprenorphine going forward. To aid policy makers, this narrative review synthesizes and interprets peer-reviewed research on the effect of buprenorphine flexibilities on the uptake and implementation of telehealth, and its impact on OUD patient and prescriber experiences, access to treatment, and health outcomes. Overall, our review finds that many prescribers and patients took advantage of telehealth, including the audio-only option, with a wide range of benefits and few downsides. As a result, federal regulators-including agencies and Congress-should continue nonrestricted use of telehealth for buprenorphine initiation.

Treatment of opioid use disorder in Ukraine during the first year of the Russia-Ukraine war: Lessons learned from the crisis

The Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 caused major disruptions of societal functions, including health care. Patients receiving medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) depend on receiving daily treatment and face a risk of withdrawal in case of medication supply disruption. MOUD are banned in Russia, making treatment continuation impossible in temporarily occupied areas. In this paper, we review the situation with MOUD delivery in Ukraine during the first year of the Russia-Ukraine war. Legislative changes and mobilization of efforts in the time of crisis ensured treatment continuation for thousands of patients. In areas controlled by Ukraine, most patients were receiving take-home doses for up to 30 days, some experienced temporary dosing reductions. Programs in temporarily occupied regions were shut down likely leading to abrupt withdrawal among many patients. At least 10% of patients have been internally displaced. One year into the war, the number of MOUD patients in governmental clinics of Ukraine increased by 17%, and the data suggest that the coverage of private clinics has also increased. But the risks for program stability remain high as the current medication supply relies on one manufacturing facility. Using lessons learned from the crisis, we provide recommendations for future response to minimize the risks of major adverse outcomes among patients treated for opioid use disorder.

"Come try it out. Get your foot in the door:" Exploring patient perspectives on low-barrier treatment for opioid use disorder

PURPOSE

Low-barrier treatment is an emerging strategy for opioid use disorder (OUD) care that prioritizes access to evidence-based medication while minimizing requirements that may limit treatment access in more traditional delivery models, particularly for marginalized patients. Our objective was to explore patient perspectives about low-barrier approaches, with a focus on understanding barriers to and facilitators of engagement from the patient point of view.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with patients accessing buprenorphine treatment from a multi-site, low-barrier mobile treatment program in Philadelphia, PA from July-December 2021. We analyzed interview data using thematic content analysis and identified key themes.

RESULTS

The 36 participants were 58% male, 64% Black, 28% White, and 31% Latinx. 89% were enrolled in Medicaid, and 47% were unstably housed. Our analysis revealed three main facilitators of treatment in the low-barrier model. These included 1) program structure that met participant needs, such as flexibility, rapid medication access and robust case management services; 2) harm reduction approach that included acceptance of patient goals other than abstinence and provision of harm reduction services on-site; and 3) strong interpersonal connections with team members, including those with lived experience. Participants contrasted these experiences with other care they had received in the past. Barriers related to lack of structure, limitations of street-based care, and limited support for co-occurring needs, particularly mental health.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides key patient perspectives on low-barrier approaches for OUD treatment. Our findings can inform future program design to increase treatment access and engagement for individuals poorly served by traditional delivery models.

Recent modifications to the US methadone treatment system are a Band-Aid-not a solution-to the nation's broken opioid use disorder treatment system

For 5 decades, US federal regulations have segregated methadone treatment for opioid use disorder from the rest of the health care system, confining its availability to specialty treatment programs that are highly regulated. These regulations have led to severe shortages in the availability of methadone and grave underutilization of this lifesaving medication despite a worsening overdose crisis. In this commentary, we discuss current barriers to methadone in the US opioid treatment system and how recent changes to federal regulations fall short of the reforms needed to significantly expand access to this treatment. Instead, we propose the urgent need to expand methadone to mainstream health care settings by allowing for office-based prescribing and pharmacy dispensing of methadone, the norm in many other developed countries.

Racial, Ethnic, and Sex Differences in Methadone-Involved Overdose Deaths Before and After the US Federal Policy Change Expanding Take-home Methadone Doses

Importance

In March 2020, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) permitted states to relax restrictions on take-home methadone doses for treatment-adherent patients to minimize COVID-19 exposures.

Objective

To assess whether the methadone take-home policy change was associated with drug overdose deaths among different racial, ethnic, and sex groups.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Interrupted time series analysis from January 1, 2018, to June 30, 2022. Data analysis was conducted from February 18, 2023, to February 28, 2023. In this population-based cohort study of drug overdose mortality including 14 529 methadone-involved deaths, monthly counts of methadone-involved drug overdose deaths were obtained for 6 demographic groups: Hispanic men and women, non-Hispanic Black men and women, and non-Hispanic White men and women.

Exposure

On March 16, 2020, in response to the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, SAMHSA issued an exemption to the states that permitted up to 28 days of take-home methadone for stable patients and 14 days for less stable patients.

Main Outcome Measures

Monthly methadone-involved overdose deaths.

Results

From January 1, 2018, to June 30, 2022 (54 months), there were 14 529 methadone-involved deaths in the United States; 14 112 (97.1%) occurred in the study's 6 demographic groups (Black men, 1234; Black women, 754; Hispanic men, 1061; Hispanic women, 520; White men, 5991; and White women, 4552). Among Black men, there was a decrease in monthly methadone deaths associated with the March 2020 policy change (change of slope from the preintervention period, -0.55 [95% CI, -0.95 to -0.15]). Hispanic men also experienced a decrease in monthly methadone deaths associated with the policy change (-0.42 [95% CI, -0.68 to -0.17]). Among Black women, Hispanic women, White men, and White women, the policy change was not associated with a change in monthly methadone deaths (Black women, -0.27 [95% CI, -1.13 to 0.59]; Hispanic women, 0.29 [95% CI, -0.46 to 1.04]; White men, -0.08 [95% CI, -1.05 to 0.88]; and White women, -0.43 [95% CI, -1.26 to 0.40]).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this interrupted time series study of monthly methadone-involved overdose deaths, the take-home policy may have helped reduce deaths for Black and Hispanic men but had no association with deaths of Black or Hispanic women or White men or women.

Provider experiences with relaxing restrictions on take-home medications for opioid use disorder during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative systematic review

BACKGROUND

Historical restrictions on take-home medications for opioid use disorder have generated considerable debate. The COVID-19 pandemic shifted the perceived risks and benefits of daily clinic attendance and led to widespread policy reform, creating an unprecedented opportunity to explore the impact of more flexible prescribing. We conducted a qualitative systematic review to synthesize the evidence on providers' experiences with relaxing restrictions on take-home doses of medications prescribed for opioid use disorder during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

The protocol for this systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022360589; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/). From Sept.-Nov. 2022, we searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Web of Science, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and the grey literature from 2020 onward. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they used qualitative methods to investigate providers' experiences with relaxed restrictions on take-home medications for opioid use disorder during the COVID-19 pandemic. We appraised study quality using the CASP qualitative checklist and used thematic synthesis and GRADE-CERQual to synthesize the results.

RESULTS

We retrieved 13 articles representing 11 studies. Six were conducted in the United States and most focused on changes to methadone treatment. Providers' experiences with increased flexibilities around take-homes were broadly positive, despite widespread initial concern over client safety and the potential for medication misuse. For a small number of providers, concerns about diversion were a specific manifestation of more general unease with loss of control over clients and the treatment process. Most providers appreciated increased flexibilities and described them as enabling more individualized, person-centered care.

CONCLUSION

Our findings support the continuation of flexibilities around take-homes and demonstrate that regulations and policies that reduce flexibility around take-homes conflict with person-centered approaches to care. Stronger guidance and support from professional regulatory agencies may help increase uptake of flexibilities around take-homes.

Pandemic telehealth flexibilities for buprenorphine treatment: A synthesis of evidence and policy implications for expanding opioid use disorder care in the U.S

Buprenorphine is a highly effective treatment for opioid use disorder and a critical tool for addressing the worsening U.S. overdose crisis. However, multiple barriers to treatment - including stringent federal regulations - have historically made this medication hard to reach for many who need it. In 2020, under the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency, federal regulators substantially changed access to buprenorphine by allowing prescribers to initiate patients on buprenorphine via telehealth without first evaluating them in person. As the Public Health Emergency is set to expire in May of 2023, Congress and federal agencies can leverage extensive evidence from studies conducted during the wake of the pandemic to make evidence-based decisions on the regulation of buprenorphine going forward. To aid policy makers, this review synthesizes and interprets peer-reviewed research on the effect of buprenorphine flexibilities on uptake and implementation of telehealth, and its impact on OUD patient and prescriber experiences, access to treatment and health outcomes. Overall, our review finds that many prescribers and patients took advantage of telehealth, including the audio-only option, with a wide range of benefits and few downsides. As a result, federal regulators-including agencies and Congress-should continue non-restricted use of telehealth for buprenorphine initiation.