Validation of Self-reported Opioid Agonist Treatment Among People Who Inject Drugs Using Prescription Dispensation Records

First-line opioid agonist treatment as prevention against assisting others in initiating injection drug use: A longitudinal cohort study of people who inject drugs in Vancouver, Canada

Background

Among people who inject drugs, frequent injecting and experiencing withdrawal are associated with facilitating others' first injections. As these factors may reflect an underlying substance use disorder, we investigated whether first-line oral opioid agonist treatment (OAT; methadone or buprenorphine/naloxone) reduces the likelihood that people who inject drugs help others initiate injecting.

Methods

We used questionnaire data from semi-annual visits between December 2014-May 2018 on 334 people who inject drugs with frequent non-medical opioid use in Vancouver, Canada. We estimated the effect of current first-line OAT on subsequent injection initiation assistance provision (i.e., helped someone initiate injecting in the following six months) using inverse-probability-weighted estimation of repeated measures marginal structural models to reduce confounding and informative censoring by time-fixed and time-varying covariates.

Results

By follow-up visit, 54-64% of participants reported current first-line OAT whereas 3.4-6.9% provided subsequent injection initiation assistance. Per the primary weighted estimate (n = 1114 person-visits), participants currently on first-line OAT (versus no OAT) were 50% less likely, on average, to subsequently help someone initiate injecting (relative risk [RR]=0.50, 95% CI=0.23-1.11). First-line OAT was associated with reduced risk of subsequent injection initiation assistance provision in participants who, at baseline, injected opioids less than daily (RR=0.15, 95% CI=0.05-0.44) but not in those who injected opioids daily (RR=0.86, 95% CI=0.35-2.11).

Conclusions

First-line OAT seemingly reduces the short-term likelihood that people who inject drugs facilitate first injections. However, the extent of this potential effect remains uncertain due to imprecise estimation and observed heterogeneity by baseline opioid injecting frequency.

The influence of poly-drug use patterns on the association between opioid agonist treatment engagement and injecting initiation assistance

BACKGROUND

Evidence suggests people who inject drugs (PWID) prescribed opioid agonist treatment (OAT) are less likely to provide injection drug use (IDU) initiation assistance. We investigated the association between OAT engagement and providing IDU initiation assistance across poly-drug use practices in Vancouver, Canada.

METHODS

Preventing Injecting by Modifying Existing Responses (PRIMER) is a prospective study seeking to identify structural interventions that reduce IDU initiation. We employed data from linked cohorts of PWID in Vancouver and extended the findings of a latent profile analysis (LPA). Multivariable logistic regression models were performed separately for the six poly-drug use LPA classes. The outcome was recently assisting others in IDU initiation; the independent variable was recent OAT engagement.

RESULTS

Among participants (n = 1218), 85 (7.0%) reported recently providing injection initiation assistance. When adjusting for age and sex, OAT engagement among those who reported a combination of high-frequency heroin and methamphetamine IDU and low-to-moderate-frequency prescription opioid IDU and methamphetamine non-injection drug use (NIDU) was associated with lower odds of IDU initiation assistance provision (Adjusted Odds Ratio [AOR]: 0.18, 95% CI: 0.05-0.63, P = 0.008). Significant associations were not detected among other LPA classes.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings extend evidence suggesting that OAT may provide a population-level protective effect on the incidence of IDU initiation and suggest that this effect may be specific among PWID who engage in high-frequency methamphetamine and opioid use. Future research should seek to longitudinally investigate potential causal pathways explaining the association between OAT and initiation assistance provision among PWID to develop tailored intervention efforts.

Evaluating interventions to facilitate opioid agonist treatment access among people who inject drugs in Toronto, Ontario during COVID-19 pandemic restrictions

Background

In March 2020, following a provincial COVID-19 emergency declaration, modifications to opioid agonist treatment (OAT) were introduced in Ontario, Canada to promote treatment access amid the pandemic and ongoing opioid overdose crisis. Modifications included federal exemptions to facilitate OAT prescription re-fills, extensions, and deliveries and interim treatment guidance emphasizing take-home (non-observed) doses and reduced urine drug screening for OAT patients.

Methods

We conducted an interrupted time series study using health administrative data from September 17^th, 2019–September 21^st, 2020, on 359 people who inject drugs with suspected opioid use disorder in Toronto, Ontario. We used segmented regression analyses to evaluate the joint effects of the provincial COVID-19 emergency declaration, federal OAT exemptions, and interim treatment guidance—all implemented between March 17^th–23^rd, 2020—on the weekly proportion of participants enrolled in OAT (i.e., ≥1 day(s) covered with methadone or buprenorphine/naloxone), with an opioid-related overdose (based on emergency department visits and hospitalizations), and who died (all-cause), and the weekly proportion of OAT-enrolled participants receiving take-home doses (i.e., ≥1 day(s) covered) and undergoing urine drug screening.

Results

Post-implementation, the interventions were associated with immediate absolute changes in OAT enrollment (+1.95%; 95% CI=0.04%–3.85%), receipt of take-home doses (+18.3%; 95% CI=13.2%–23.4%), and urine drug screening (-22.4%; 95% CI=[-26.9%]–[-17.9%]) and a gradual absolute increase of 0.56% in urine drug screening week-to-week (95% CI=0.27%–0.86%) beyond the pre-implementation trend. At 26 weeks post-implementation, OAT enrollment and urine drug screening approached pre-implementation levels whereas the increase in take-home doses was largely sustained (+15.0%; 95% CI=4.33%–25.6%). No post-implementation increases in opioid-related overdoses were observed. Death was not modelled (low event frequency).

Conclusion

Changes to OAT provision following provincial COVID-19 restrictions were associated with an immediate and sustained increase in take-home dose coverage among OAT-enrolled participants, without corresponding increases in opioid-related overdoses among all participants.