"It's like 'liquid handcuffs": The effects of take-home dosing policies on Methadone Maintenance Treatment (MMT) patients' lives

Methadone's Resurgence in Bridging the Treatment Gap in the Overdose Crisis: Position Statement of AMERSA, Inc (Association for Multidisciplinary Education, Research, Substance Use, and Addiction)

BACKGROUND

The United States is grappling with an unprecedented overdose crisis, exacerbated by the proliferation of potent synthetic opioids like illicitly manufactured fentanyl. Despite the efficacy of methadone treatment in managing opioid use disorder, regulatory barriers hinder its widespread utilization. This article examines the complex landscape of methadone regulation across federal, state, and local levels, highlighting disparities and opportunities for reform.

ISSUE

The COVID-19 public health emergency prompted temporary flexibility in methadone regulations, including expanded take-home doses and telehealth counseling, leading to improved treatment experiences and retention. Permanent revisions to federal guidelines have since been introduced by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, reflecting a progressive shift toward patient-centered care and streamlined access. State regulations, managed by Single State Agencies and State Opioid Treatment Authorities, vary widely, often imposing additional restrictions that impede access to methadone treatment. Local OTP clinics further exacerbate barriers through stringent policies, despite federal and state guidelines advocating for flexibility.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Coordinated efforts among policymakers, healthcare providers, and communities are needed to promote the development of accountability measures, incentives, and community involvement to ensure equitable access and quality of care. To truly meet the demand needed to end the existing overdose crisis and enhance accessibility and comprehensive healthcare services, methadone treatment expansion beyond traditional OTP settings into primary care offices and community pharmacies should take place.

Association between virus infection and periodontitis: Evidence from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2009-2014

Periodontitis is a cumulative inflammatory disease associated with multiple health conditions and various systemic diseases. As a common disease, virus infection along with its consequences has become a serious health burden. The study aims to evaluate the relationship between common viruses including hepatitis virus, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), herpes simplex virus (HSV), human papillomavirus (HPV), and periodontitis. The data from the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2009-2014 was adopted and screened through, including 10 714 participants. Generalized linear regression was conducted to verify the relationships between the virus infections and periodontitis. Moreover, we also performed analyses in age and gender subgroups. The results suggested that the infection of HCV, HSV-1, and HSV-2 was significantly associated with the prevalence of periodontitis (odds ratio [OR] 1.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.26-1.70; OR 1.09, 95% CI 1.05-1.13; OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.01 - 1.11, respectively) and risk of developing moderate or severe periodontitis (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.29-1.77; OR 1.08, 95% CI 1.04-1.12; OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.01-1.10, respectively) after adjusting all relevant co-factors. Subgroup analyses revealed a steady association between periodontitis and hepatitis C virus (HCV) or HSV-1 infection, while the relationship between HSV-2 and HPV infection can also be found in some subgroups. The presence of HCV and HSV infection was found to be significantly associated with the prevalence of periodontitis, including moderate or severe cases. Moreover, the association of periodontitis and HPV infection can also be observed in people < 35 years.

Feasibility and effectiveness of extended-release buprenorphine (XR-BUP) among correctional populations: a systematic review

Background: Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) reduce risks for overdose among correctional populations. Among other barriers, daily dosing requirements hinder treatment continuity post-release. Extended-release buprenorphine (XR-BUP) may therefore be beneficial. However, limited evidence exists.Objectives: To conduct a systematic review examining the feasibility and effectiveness of XR-BUP among correctional populations.Methods: Searches were carried out in Pubmed, Embase, and PsychINFO in October 2023. Ten studies reporting on feasibility or effectiveness of XR-BUP were included, representing n = 819 total individuals (81.6% male). Data were extracted and narratively reported under the following main outcomes: 1) Feasibility; 2) Effectiveness; and 3) Barriers and Facilitators.Results: Studies were heterogeneous. Correctional populations were two times readier to try XR-BUP compared to non-correctional populations. XR-BUP was feasible and safe, with no diversion, overdoses, or deaths; several negative side effects were reported. Compared to other MOUD, XR-BUP significantly reduced drug use, resulted in similar or higher treatment retention rates, fewer re-incarcerations, and was cost-beneficial, with a lower overall monthly/yearly cost. Barriers to XR-BUP, such as side effects and a fear of needles, as well as facilitators, such as a lowered risk of opioid relapse, were also identified.Conclusion: XR-BUP appears to be a feasible and potentially effective alternative treatment option for correctional populations with OUD. XR-BUP may reduce community release-related risks, such as opioid use and overdose risk, as well as barriers to treatment retention. Efforts to expand access to and uptake of XR-BUP among correctional populations are warranted.

Experience of Patients With Heroin Addiction Receiving Methadone Maintenance Treatment in Community Settings in Taiwan

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization has identified methadone maintenance therapy (MMT) as the most effective treatment for reducing patient dependence on heroin. In Taiwan, MMT has been used as a heroin harm reduction strategy since 2006. Although the effectiveness of MMT in reducing heroin addiction has been examined quantitatively in prison samples, little attention has been paid to the experiences and perspectives of patients with heroin addiction receiving MMT. This study was designed to address this gap in scientific knowledge.

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to investigate the experiences of individuals struggling with heroin addiction who are receiving MMT in the community.

METHODS

A qualitative descriptive research approach and semistructured interviews were used in this study. We interviewed 14 participants who had received MMT in a medical center in central Taiwan. All of the interview data were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

Four themes emerged: (a) a chance to change one's life, (b) the helpfulness of MMT, (c) a sense of being restricted and controlled, and (d) need for support.

CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

This article fills a gap in current scholarly understanding of patient experiences and their perspectives on the helpfulness of MMT. Understanding patient experiences and perspectives is critical to informing and developing concrete strategies for clinical practice and MMT policy. Clinical professionals should assess patient needs and concerns to determine whether they are met by current treatment programs. Policymakers should design more flexible policies to facilitate easier access by patients to methadone to reduce the risk of relapse.

"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.

Unintended consequences of methadone regulation for opioid use disorder treatment among hospitalized patients

BACKGROUND

In the United States, there are no federal restrictions on the use of methadone to manage opioid withdrawal symptoms when patients are hospitalized with a medical or surgical condition other than addiction. In contrast, in an outpatient setting, methadone for opioid use disorder (OUD) is highly regulated by federal and state governments and can only be dispensed from an opioid treatment program (OTP). Discrepancies in regulatory requirements across these settings may lead to barriers in care for patients with OUD.

OBJECTIVE

Identify how methadone regulation impacts the care of patients with OUD during hospitalization, care transitions, and in the OTP setting.

METHODS

We completed 26 interviews with clinicians and social workers working on hospital-based addiction consultation services across the United States. Study findings are the result of a secondary content analysis of interviews to identifying the word "methadone" and construct themes resulting from the data.

RESULTS

We identified three major themes related to "methadone" for OUD treatment, all of which impacted patient care: (1) limited OTP hours leads to tenuous or delayed hospital discharges; (2) inadequate information-sharing between hospitals and OTPs leads to delays in care; and (3) methadone regulations create treatment barriers for the most vulnerable patients.

CONCLUSION

Strict methadone regulations have resulted in unintended consequences for patients with OUD in the hospital setting, during care transitions, and in the OTP setting. Recent and ongoing federal efforts to reform methadone provision may improve some of the reported challenges, but significant hurdles remain in providing safe, equitable care to hospitalized patients with OUD.

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.

"I'm just searching to get better": Constructions of treatment citizenship on injectable opioid agonist treatment

BACKGROUND

As part of the response to Canada's worsening overdose crisis driven by a toxic, adulterated drug supply, there has been increased attention to and expansion of drug treatment, options, including injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT). iOAT typically involves the, witnessed daily injection of opioids under healthcare provider supervision. There is a robust, evidence base on iOAT; however, there has been less focus on how people engage with this; treatment outside of clinical trials. This paper examines how people engage with iOAT programs, in expanded treatment settings in Canada, focusing on how the broader socio-structural context, shapes patient subjectivities in treatment.

METHODS

This study draws on critical ethnographic and community-based research approaches, conducted with people accessing four iOAT programs in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside; neighbourhood from May 2018 to November 2019. Data included in-depth baseline and followup, interviews and approximately 50 h of observation fieldwork conducted in one iOAT, program and with a subsample of participants in the surrounding neighbourhood. Analysis, leveraged the concepts of biological citizenship and structural vulnerability.

RESULTS

This analysis characterized three narrative frames-regular long-term engagers, pain, patients, and sporadic and short-term engagers-through in-depth case presentations of participants with distinct types of engagement with iOAT programs. Participants within these, narrative frames described a dominant form of iOAT citizenship, an autonomous patient who, regularly engages in treatment and avoids pleasure. However, structural vulnerabilities, including, homelessness and housing instability, entrenched poverty, criminal-legal system engagement, and unmanaged pain, shaped the ability of participants to make claims to this normative model of citizenship.

CONCLUSION

This study examined how structural vulnerabilities impact people's construction and ability to make iOAT citizenship claims. Findings point to the need for changes within and outside of iOAT programs, such as lower threshold treatment models, improved social services (e.g., secure housing), and pain management support.

Time for Australia to increase take away doses in opioid agonist treatment

Opioid Agonist Treatment is the cornerstone of minimising harms related to opioid use, however its uptake is limited by a tightly regulated and stigmatising treatment environment. The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated relaxation of some treatment restrictions, with global evidence pointing to more patient-centred care in this time. In light of local evidence to support the safety of increased access to takeaway doses and a precedent set by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration, we recommend adoption of the Australian Interim Medication Assisted Treatment of Opioid Dependence guidance in Australia.

Towards a social harm approach in drug policy

In this paper, we explore how the social harm approach can be adapted within drug policy scholarship. Since the mid-2000s, a group of critical criminologists have moved beyond the concept of crime and criminology, towards the study of social harm. This turn proceeds decades of research that highlights the inequities within the criminal legal system, the formation of laws that protect the privileged and punish the disadvantaged, and the systemic challenge of the effectiveness of retribution and punishment at addressing harm in the community. The purpose of this paper is to first identify parallels between the social harm approach and critical drug scholarship, and second to advocate for the adoption of a social harm lens in drug policy scholarship. In the paper, we draw out the similarities between social harm and drug policy literatures, as well as outline what the study of social harm can bring to an analysis of drug policy. This includes a discussion on the ontology of drug crime, the myth of drug crime and the ineffective use of the crime control system in response to drug use. The paper then discusses how these conversations in critical criminology and critical drugs scholarship can be brought together to inform future drug policy research. This reflection details the link between social harm and the impingement of human flourishing, explores the role of decolonizing drug policy, advocates for the centralization of lived experience within the research process and outlines how this might align with harm reduction approaches. We conclude by arguing that the social harm approach challenges the idea that neutrality is the goal in drug policy and explicitly seeks to expand new avenues in activist research and social justice approaches to policymaking.

Examining inequities in access to opioid agonist treatment (OAT) take-home doses (THD): A Canadian OAT guideline synthesis and systematic review

BACKGROUND

Daily supervised Opioid Agonist Treatment (OAT) medication has been identified as a barrier to treatment retention. Canadian OAT guidelines outline take-home dose (THD) criteria, yet, OAT prescribers use their clinical judgement to decide whether an individual is 'clinically stable' to receive THD. There is limited information regarding whether these decisions may result in inequitable access to THD, including in the context of updated COVID-19 guidance. The current Canadian OAT THD guideline synthesis and systematic review aimed to address this knowledge gap.

METHODS

This systematic review included a two-pronged approach. First, we searched available academic literature in Embase, Medline, and PsychINFO up until October 12th, 2022, to identify studies that compared characteristics of individuals on OAT who had and had not been granted access to THD to explore potential inequities in access. Next, we identified all Canadian national and provincial OAT guidelines through a semi-structured grey literature search (conducted between September-October 2022) and extracted all THD 'stability' and allowances/timeline criteria to compare against characteristics identified in the literature search. Data from both review arms were synthesized and narratively presented.

RESULTS

A total of n = 56 guidelines and n = 7 academic studies were included. The systematic review identified a number of patient characteristics such as age, sex, race/ethnicity, marital status, housing, employment, neighborhood income, drug use, mental health, health service utilization, as well as treatment duration that were associated with differential access to THD. The Canadian OAT THD guideline synthesis identified many of these same characteristics as 'stability' criteria, underscoring the potential for Canadian OAT guidelines to result in inequitable access to THD.

CONCLUSIONS

This two-pronged literature review demonstrated that current guidelines likely contribute to inequitable OAT THD access due primarily to inconsistent 'stability' criteria across guidelines. More research is needed to understand differential OAT THD access with a focus on prescriber decision-making and evaluating associated treatment and safety outcomes. The development of a client-centered, equity-focused, and evidence-informed decision making framework that incorporates more clear definitions of 'stability' criteria and indications for prescriber discretion is warranted.

Healthcare staff's perspectives on long-acting injectable buprenorphine treatment: a qualitative interview study

BACKGROUND

Long-acting injectable buprenorphine (LAIB) formulations are a novel treatment approach in opioid agonist treatment (OAT), which provide patients with a steady dose administered weekly or monthly and thus reduce the need for frequent clinic visits. Several studies have analyzed patient experiences of LAIB but the perspective of OAT staff is unknown. This study aimed to explore how healthcare staff working in OAT clinics in Sweden perceive and manage treatment with LAIB.

METHODS

Individual qualitative interviews were conducted with OAT physicians (n = 10) in tandem with nine focus group sessions with OAT nurses and other staff categories (n = 41). The data was analyzed with thematic text analysis.

RESULTS

Five central themes were identified in the data: (1) advantages and disadvantages of LAIB, (2) patient categories that may or may not need LAIB, (3) patients' degrees of medication choice, (4) keeping tabs, control and treatment alliance, and (5) LAIB's impact on risk and enabling environments in OAT. Overall staff found more advantages than disadvantages with LAIB and considered that patients with ongoing substance use and low adherence were most likely to benefit from LAIB. However, less frequent visits were viewed as problematic in terms of developing a treatment alliance and being able to keep tabs on patients' clinical status. Clinics differed regarding patients' degrees of choice in medication, which varied from limited to extensive. LAIB affected both risk and enabling environments in OAT.

CONCLUSIONS

LAIB may strengthen the enabling environment in OAT for some patients by reducing clinic visits, exposure to risk environments, and the pressure to divert medication. A continued discussion about the prerequisites and rationale for LAIB implementation is needed in policy and practice.

Insufficient Impact: Limited Implementation of Federal Regulatory Changes to Methadone and Buprenorphine Access in Arizona During COVID-19

Introduction

This study examined the impact of federal regulatory changes on methadone and buprenorphine treatment during COVID-19 in Arizona.

Methods

A cohort study of methadone and buprenorphine providers from September 14, 2021 to April 15, 2022 measured the proportion of 6 treatment accommodations implemented at 3 time periods: before COVID-19, during Arizona's COVID-19 shutdown, and at the time of the survey completion. Accommodations included (1) telehealth, (2) telehealth buprenorphine induction, (3) increased multiday dosing, (4) license reciprocity, (5) home medications delivery, and (6) off-site dispensing. A multilevel model assessed the association of treatment setting, rurality, and treatment with accommodation implementation time.

Results

Over half (62.2%) of the 74-provider sample practiced in healthcare settings not primarily focused on addiction treatment, 19% practiced in methadone clinics, and 19% practiced in treatment clinics not offering methadone. Almost half (43%) were unaware of the regulatory changes allowing treatment accommodation. Telehealth was most frequently reported, increasing from 30% before COVID-19 to 80% at the time of the survey. Multiday dosing was the only accommodation substantially retracted after COVID-19 shutdown: from 41% to 23% at the time of the survey. Providers with higher patient limits were 2.5-3.2 times as likely to implement telehealth services, 4.4 times as likely to implement buprenorphine induction through telehealth, and 15.2-20.9 times as likely to implement license reciprocity as providers with lower patient limits. Providers of methadone implemented 12% more accommodations and maintained a higher average proportion of implemented accommodations during the COVID-19 shutdown period but were more likely to reduce the proportion of implemented accommodations (a 17-percentage point gap by the time of the survey).

Conclusions

Federal regulatory changes are not sufficient to produce a substantive or sustained impact on provider accommodations, especially in methadone medical treatment settings. Practice change interventions specific to treatment settings should be implemented and studied for their impact.

"The machine doesn't judge": Counternarratives on surveillance among people accessing a safer opioid supply via biometric machines

People who use illegal drugs experience routine surveillance, including in healthcare and harm reduction settings. The MySafe Project - a safer supply pilot project that dispenses prescription opioids via a biometric vending machine - exists in the Canadian province of British Columbia. The machine scans a participant's palmprint and has a built-in camera that records every machine interaction. The aim of this paper is to understand participants' experiences of surveillance, privacy, and personal security when accessing this novel program. An integrative case study and grounded theory methodology was employed. Qualitative one-to-one interviews were conducted with 46 MySafe participants across three different program sites in Vancouver. We used a team-based approach to code interview transcripts and utilized directed and conventional content analyses for deductive and inductive analyses. While participants described negative experiences of surveillance in other public and harm reduction settings, they did not have concerns regarding cameras, collection of personal information, tracking, nor staff issues associated with MySafe. Similarly, while some participants had privacy concerns in other settings, very few privacy and confidentiality concerns were expressed regarding accessing the machine in front of others. Lastly, while some participants reported being targeted by others when accessing the machines, most participants described how cameras, staff, and machine locations helped ensure a sense of safety. Despite negative experiences of surveillance and privacy issues elsewhere, participants largely lacked concern regarding the MySafe program and machines. The machine-human interaction was characterized as different than some human-human interactions as the machine is completing tasks in a manner that is acceptable and comfortable to participants, leading to a social preference toward the machines in comparison to other surveilled means of accessing medications. These findings provide an opportunity to rethink how we conceptualize surveillance, medication access, and harm reduction programs targeting people who use drugs.

Opioid agonist treatment in transition: A cross-country comparison between Austria, Germany and Switzerland

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

OAT is a well developed and successful treatment strategy for opioid dependent patients in Europe. It has significantly contributed to the fight against the HIV and HCV pandemics, leading to an increased life expectancy in this population. Building on the OAT experiences in Austria, Germany, and Switzerland and their models of care, the objective of this study is to analyse experiences and changes in patient structures to identify necessary adaptations for the system of care.

METHODS

We analysed national register-based data from patients receiving OAT during the period spanning from 2010 to 2020 in Austria, Germany (cases), and Switzerland. We examined and compared OAT policies and practice at national levels through a review of literature and publicly available policy documents.

RESULTS

Across these three countries, the life expectancy of OAT patients increased substantially. The mean age increased from 33.0 in 2010 to 39.1 in 2020 in Austria, from 35.6 years to 41.5 years in Germany (cases), and from 39.6 to 47.1 in Switzerland, respectively. In all three countries, the percentage of patients/cases aged 60 years and older increased more than tenfold between 2010 and 2020.

CONCLUSIONS

Integrated support models, reliable care structures, internationally comparable high treatment coverage, flexible prescribing practices, and a wide range of available OAT medications are successful strategies. The experiences in these countries indicate that it is possible to address the complex and chronic nature of opioid dependence and its concurrent mental and physical health challenges, resulting in an increasing life expectancy of OAT patients.

Exploring Patients' Perceptions on Injectable Opioid Agonist Treatment: Influences on Treatment Initiation and Implications for Practice

INTRODUCTION

Injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) with diacetylmorphine is an effective option for individuals previously considered non-responsive to opioid substitution treatment. Despite implementation in Canada and several European countries, relatively few eligible people choose to initiate iOAT. To better understand what encourages or deters prospective patients from initiating iOAT, the current study explores patients' perceptions on iOAT and how these influence therapy initiation in practice.

METHODS

We conducted 34 semi-structured interviews with individuals currently in or eligible for iOAT in two German outpatient iOAT clinics. Transcripts were analysed following qualitative content analysis, with development of inductive categories and use of consensual coding. For member checking, we consulted individuals with lived experiences prior to data collection and publication.

RESULTS

Participants based their choice to initiate iOAT on the perceived implications of the treatment on one's daily life and individual recovery. Participants were encouraged to initiate iOAT due to the therapy's perceived potential in reducing cravings and substance use, its positive health consequences, and due to the image of iOAT as a path towards abstinence. Regarding deterring perceptions, participants feared a profound impairment of daily life due to factors such as the daily visits to the clinic, were concerned about whether iOAT would sufficiently promote or even impede one's recovery, and described negative health effects.

CONCLUSION

Perceptions found in this study profoundly influenced participants' decisions on iOAT enrolment and contextualize the previous literature. The study reveals the dynamic coexistence of different perceptions about iOAT and sheds light on the inner-group stigmatization of iOAT. Practitioners and future research should acknowledge the complexities found in the current study in order to exploit the full potential of effective treatment modalities such as iOAT.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

"As safe as possible": a qualitative study of opioid withdrawal and risk behavior among people who use illegal opioids

BACKGROUND

Opioid withdrawal is a regular occurrence among many people who use illicit opioids (PWUIO) that has also been shown to increase their willingness to engage in risk-involved behavior. The proliferation of fentanyl in the illicit opioid market may have amplified this relationship, potentially putting PWUIO at greater risk of negative health outcomes. Understanding the relationship between withdrawal and risk-involved behavior may also have important implications for the ways that problematic drug use is conceptualized, particularly in disease models of addiction, which position risk behavior as evidence of pathology that helps to justify ontological distinctions between addicts and non-addicts. Examining withdrawal, and its role in PWUIO's willingness to engage in risk, may aid in the development of alternative theories of risk involvement and create discursive spaces for de-medicalizing and de-othering people who use illegal drugs.

METHODS

This article is based on 32 semi-structured interviews with PWUIO in the New York City area who also reported recent withdrawal experience. Interviews were conducted remotely between April and August 2022 and recorded for later transcription. Data were then coded and analyzed based on a combination of inductive and deductive coding strategies and informed by the literature.

RESULTS

Participants described a strong relationship between withdrawal and their willingness to engage in risk-involved behavior that was exacerbated by the proliferation of fentanyl. Yet, their descriptions did not align with narratives of risk as a product of bad decisions made by individuals. Rather, data demonstrated the substantial role of social and structural context, particularly drug policies like prohibition and criminalization, in the kinds of risks that PWUIO faced and their ability to respond to them.

CONCLUSIONS

Withdrawal should be taken more seriously both from an ethical perspective and as an important catalyst of risk behavior. However, theories that position activities taken to avoid withdrawal as irrational and as evidence of pathology are poorly aligned with the complexity of PWUIO's actual lives. We recommend the use of less deterministic and less medicalized theories of risk that better account for differences between how people view the world, and for the role of socio-structural forces in the production of risk.

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.

Rising Racial Disparities in Opioid Mortality and Undertreatment of Opioid Use Disorder and Mental Health Comorbidities in Virginia

Introduction

There were more than 100,000 fatal drug overdoses in the U.S. in 2021 alone. In recent years, there has been a shift in opioid mortality from predominantly White rural communities to Black urban communities. This study aimed to identify the Virginia communities disproportionately affected by the overdose crisis and to better understand the systemic factors contributing to disparities in opioid mortality.

Methods

Using the state all-payer claims database, state mortality records, and census data, we created a multivariate model to examine the community-level factors contributing to racial disparities in opioid mortality. We used generalized linear mixed models to examine the associations between socioecologic factors and fatal opioid overdoses, opioid use disorder diagnoses, opioid-related emergency department visits, and mental health diagnoses.

Results

Between 2015 and 2020, racial disparities in mortality widened. In 2020, Black males were 1.5 times more likely to die of an opioid overdose than White males (47.3 vs 31.6 per 100,000; p<0.001). The rate of mental health disorders strongly correlated with mortality (β=0.53, p<0.001). Black individuals are not more likely to be diagnosed with opioid use disorder (β=0.01, p=0.002) or with mental health disorders (β= -0.12, p<0.001), despite higher fatal opioid overdoses.

Conclusions

There are widening racial disparities in opioid mortality. Untreated mental health disorders are a major risk factor for opioid mortality. Findings show pathways to address inequities, including early linkage to care for mental health and opioid use disorders. This analysis shows the use of comprehensive socioecologic data to identify the precursors to fatal overdoses, which could allow earlier intervention and reallocation of resources in high-risk communities.

Is non-medical use normal? Normalisation, medicalisation and pharmaceutical consumption

The theory of the normalisation of youth drug use in advanced capitalist societies has had an enduring legacy in contemporary drug scholarship. While the literature on the normalisation of 'illicit' drugs is well developed, less has been written about application of the theory to emerging discourse of pharmaceutical 'abuse', and how this might necessitate different thinking around what can be considered normal consumption. Pharmaceuticals are not directly associated with criminality, and their use does not traditionally attract stigma. In fact, social science scholarship has illustrated how many substances deemed illicit are normalised in the context of an ever-growing set of medical treatments. This paper explores the assumptions about legality, sociality and pleasure which sit behind the drug normalisation thesis, by reflecting on the relevance of drug normalisation in relation to pharmaceuticals, as well as examining scholarship on the medicalisation of society and qualitative research on non-medical use to illustrate the parallel processes of normalisation that apply to pharmaceuticals. The paper argues that questions of normalisation in relation to pharmaceutical use require a deeper engagement with the normative expectations we attach to pleasure, consumption and medicine, and the way this is structured by proximity to medical authority, whiteness and middle-classness.

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.

Changes to methadone maintenance therapy in the United States, Canada, and Australia during the COVID-19 pandemic: A narrative review

INTRODUCTION

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, countries across the world made adaptations to policies regulating the provision of methadone maintenance therapy (MMT) to facilitate social distancing for health care providers and people in treatment. Many countries issued guidance about increasing take-home methadone doses after the onset of the pandemic.

METHODS

In this review, we compare the regulation of MMT prior to the pandemic in the United States, Canada, and Australia, analyze changes to treatment policy in the context of COVID-19, and review emerging data on treatment outcomes.

RESULTS

The United States only permits the prescription and disbursement of methadone for MMT treatment at federally designated opioid treatment programs (OTPs). Conversely, Australia and Canada operate on a community pharmacy-based distribution model, where patients can access methadone doses either in participating pharmacies or in some methadone clinics.

CONCLUSION

Given reports of similar treatment outcomes and increased patient satisfaction since the pandemic-related policy changes, some changes including increased receipt of take-home doses should be considered for incorporation into post-pandemic treatment policies and regulations.

The impact of methamphetamine use on medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) treatment retention: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

An emerging public health threat of methamphetamine/opioid co-use is occurring in North America, including increases in overdoses related to concomitant methamphetamine/opioid use. This presents a potential risk to established treatments for opioid use disorder (i.e., medications for opioid use disorder [MOUD]). To date, few studies have examined the impact of methamphetamine use on MOUD-related outcomes, and no studies have synthesized data on MOUD retention.

METHODS

A scoping review was undertaken to examine the impact of methamphetamine use on MOUD retention. All original published research articles were searched in Embase, MEDLINE, PsychINFO, CINAHL, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Protocols, and Google scholar databases. Data were extracted into a standardized data extraction chart. Findings were presented narratively.

RESULTS

All eight included studies demonstrated an increased likelihood of treatment discontinuation or dropout among patients enrolled in MOUD who used methamphetamine. The frequency of methamphetamine use was also associated with MOUD dropout, in that those who used methamphetamine more often were more likely to discontinue MOUD. The definitions and measurements of MOUD retention varied considerably, as did the magnitude of effect size.

CONCLUSIONS

Results indicate that methamphetamine use has an undesirable impact on MOUD retention and results in an increased risk of treatment discontinuation or dropout. Strategies to identify concurrent methamphetamine use among individuals engaging in MOUD and educate them on the increased risk for dropout should be undertaken. Further research is needed to understand how MOUD retention among patients with concomitant opioid and methamphetamine use can be improved.

Trajectories of drug treatment and illicit opioid use in the AIDS Linked to the IntraVenous Experience cohort, 2014-2019

BACKGROUND

Medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) is an effective intervention to combat opioid use disorder and overdose, yet there is limited understanding of engagement in treatment over time in the community, contextualized by ongoing substance use. We aimed to identify concurrent trajectories of methadone prescriptions, buprenorphine prescriptions, and illicit opioid use among older adults with a history of injection drug use.

METHODS

We used data on 887 participants from the AIDS Linked to the IntraVenous Experience cohort, who were engaged in the study in 2013 and attended ≥1 visit during follow-up (2014-2019). Outcomes were self-reported MOUD prescription and illicit opioid use in the last 6 months. To identify concurrent trajectories in all 3 outcomes, we used group-based multi-trajectory modeling. We examined participant characteristics, including sociodemographics, HIV status, and other substance use, overall and by cluster.

RESULTS

We identified 4 trajectory clusters: (1) no MOUD and no illicit opioid use (43%); (2) buprenorphine and some illicit opioid use (11%); (3) methadone and no illicit opioid use (28%); and (4) some methadone and illicit opioid use (18%). While prevalence of each outcome was stable across time, transitions on/off treatment or on/off illicit opioid use occurred, with the rate of transition varying by cluster. The rate of transition was highest in Cluster 3 (0.74/person-year) and lowest in Cluster 1 (0.18/person-year). We saw differences in participant characteristics by cluster, including that the buprenorphine cluster had the highest proportion of people with HIV and participants who identified as non-Hispanic Black.

CONCLUSIONS

Most participants had discontinued illicit opioid use and were also not accessing MOUD. Trajectories defined by engagement with buprenorphine or methadone had distinct sociodemographic and behavioral characteristics, indicating that tailored interventions to expand access to both types of treatment are likely needed to reduce harms associated with untreated opioid use disorder.

Intersectional Stigma as a Fundamental Cause of Health Disparities: A case study of how drug use stigma intersecting with racism and xenophobia creates health inequities for Black and Hispanic persons who use drugs over time

Recent evidence points to racial and ethnic disparities in drug-related deaths and health conditions. Informed by stigma, intersectionality, intersectional stigma, and fundamental cause theories, we aimed to explore whether intersectional stigma was a fundamental cause of health. We document key events and policies over time and find that when progress is made new mechanisms emerge that negatively affect health outcomes for Black and Hispanic persons. We then focus on intersectional stigma targeting Black and Hispanic persons who use drugs. We document that when a person, or group of people, occupy multiple stigmatized identities the processes of stigmatization and scapegoating are particularly persistent and pernicious since people and groups can be stigmatized and scapegoated on varying intersections. We propose that an intersectional stigma framework allows for a better understanding of observed patterns over time, thereby providing a better guide for policies and interventions designed to reduce disparities. As a framework, intersectional stigma aims to recognize that when different sources of stigma collide, a new set of circumstances is created for those who reside in the intersection. We conclude that intersectional stigma is a fundamental cause of health inequities and provide policy recommendations aimed at dismantling intersectional stigma processes and mitigating the effects of intersectional stigmas to ultimately promote better health outcomes for Black and Hispanic persons who use drugs.

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.

Substance use disorders and COVID-19: reflections on international research and practice changes during the "poly-crisis"

Since March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic has had a disproportionately high toll on vulnerable populations, coinciding with increased prevalence of alcohol-and drug-related deaths and pre-existing societal issues such as rising income inequality and homelessness. This poly-crisis has posed unique challenges to service delivery for people with substance use disorders, and innovative approaches have emerged. In this Perspectives paper we reflect on the poly-crisis and the changes to research and practice for those experiencing substance use disorders, following work undertaken as part of the InterGLAM project (part of the 2022. Lisbon Addictions conference). The authors, who were part of an InterGLAM working group, identified a range of creative and novel responses by gathering information from conference attendees about COVID-19-related changes to substance use disorder treatment in their countries. In this paper we describe these responses across a range of countries, focusing on changes to telehealth, provision of medications for opioid use disorder and alcohol harm reduction, as well as changes to how research was conducted. Implications include better equity in access to technology and secure data systems; increased prescribed safer supply in countries where this currently does not exist; flexible provision of medication for opioid use disorder; scale up of alcohol harm reduction for people with alcohol use disorders; greater involvement of people with lived/living experience in research; and additional support for research in low- and middle-income countries. The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the addictions field and there are lessons for ongoing and emerging crises.

Incremental expenditures attributable to daily dispensation and witnessed ingestion for opioid agonist treatment in British Columbia: 2014-20

BACKGROUND AND AIM

While daily witnessed opioid agonist treatment (OAT) ingestion is common in British Columbia (BC), Canada, and elsewhere, sparse evidence supports this resource-intensive practice. Many settings across North America relaxed restrictions for take-home dosing during the COVID-19 pandemic and have reported consistent or improved patient outcomes. This study measured excess expenditures attributed to daily witnessed pharmacy dispensing compared with weekly or biweekly dispensation schedules.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

This study was a population-level retrospective analysis. We included all methadone, buprenorphine/naloxone and slow-release oral morphine dispensations in BC from 1 January 2014 to 30 December 2020. A total of 24 357 107 OAT dispensations among 51 195 unique individuals with 122 793 person-years of follow-up were included during the study period.

MEASUREMENTS

Total expenditures for each person-week of OAT with an estimated expenditure under two scenarios are as follows: (1) a weekly dispensation scenario and (2) a biweekly dispensation scenario.

FINDINGS

We estimated excess expenditures attributable to current dispensing practices of between $38 million (2014) and $47.4 million (2018) compared with a hypothetical weekly dispensing schedule, and $43.9 million (2014) to $54.9 million (2018) compared with biweekly dispensing. The majority of these expenditures (58-64%) were attributed to pharmacy dispensing fees ($23 million in 2014 to $30 million in 2018 compared with weekly dispensing; $26.6 million in 2014 to $34.7 million in 2018 compared with biweekly dispensing).

CONCLUSION

Daily witnessed opioid agonist treatment ingestion results in more than $30 million in excess expenditures annually in the province of British Columbia, Canada compared with the costs of weekly or biweekly dispensation schedules.

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.

Clinics Optimizing MEthadone Take-homes for opioid use disorder (COMET): Protocol for a stepped-wedge randomized trial to facilitate clinic level changes

INTRODUCTION

Regulatory changes made during the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE) that relaxed criteria for take-home dosing (THD) of methadone offer an opportunity to improve quality of care with a lifesaving treatment. There is a pressing need for research to study the long-term effects of the new PHE THD rules and to test data-driven interventions to promote more effective adoption by opioid treatment programs (OTPs). We propose a two-phase project to develop and test a multidimensional intervention for OTPs that leverages information from large State administrative data.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We propose a two-phased project to develop then test a multidimensional OTP intervention to address clinical decision making, regulatory confusion, legal liability concerns, capacity for clinical practice change, and financial barriers to THD. The intervention will include OTP THD specific dashboards drawn from multiple State databases. The approach will be informed by the Health Equity Implementation Framework (HEIF). In phase 1, we will employ an explanatory sequential mixed methods design to combine analysis of large state administrative databases-Medicaid, treatment registry, THD reporting-with qualitative interviews to develop and refine the intervention. In phase 2, we will conduct a stepped-wedge trial over three years with 36 OTPs randomized to 6 cohorts of a six-month clinic-level intervention. The trial will test intervention effects on OTP-level implementation outcomes and patient outcomes (1) THD use; 2) retention in care; and 3) adverse healthcare events). We will specifically examine intervention effects for Black and Latinx clients. A concurrent triangulation mixed methods design will be used: quantitative and qualitative data collection will occur concurrently and results will be integrated after analysis of each. We will employ generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) in the analysis of stepped-wedge trials. The primary outcome will be weekly or greater THD. The semi-structured interviews will be transcribed and analyzed with Dedoose to identify key facilitators, barriers, and experiences according to HEIF constructs using directed content analysis.

DISCUSSION

This multi-phase, embedded mixed methods project addresses a critical need to support long-term practice changes in methadone treatment for opioid use disorder following systemic changes emerging from the PHE-particularly for Black and Latinx individuals with opioid use disorder. By combining findings from analyses of large administrative data with lessons gleaned from qualitative interviews of OTPs that were flexible with THD and those that were not, we will build and test the intervention to coach clinics to increase flexibility with THD. The findings will inform policy at the local and national level.

Deimplementation in the provision of opioid agonist treatment to achieve equity of care for people engaged in treatment: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Deimplementation, the removal or reduction of potentially hazardous approaches to care, is key to progressing social equity in health. While the benefits of opioid agonist treatment (OAT) are well-evidenced, wide variability in the provision of treatment attenuates positive outcomes. During the COVID-19 pandemic, OAT services deimplemented aspects of provision which had long been central to treatment in Australia; supervised dosing, urine drug screening, and frequent in-person attendance for review. This analysis explored how providers considered social inequity in health of patients in the deimplementation of restrictive OAT provision during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

Between August and December 2020, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 29 OAT providers in Australia. Codes relating to the social determinants of client retention in OAT were clustered according to how providers considered deimplementation in relation to social inequities. Normalisation Process Theory was then used to analyse the clusters in relation to how providers understood their work during the COVID-19 pandemic as responding to systemic issues that condition OAT access.

RESULTS

We explored four overarching themes based on constructs from Normalisation Process Theory: adaptive execution, cognitive participation, normative restructuring, and sustainment. Accounts of adaptive execution demonstrated tensions between providers' conceptions of equity and patient autonomy. Cognitive participation and normative restructuring were integral to the workability of rapid and drastic changes within the OAT services. Key transformative actors included communities of practice and "thought leaders" who had long supported deimplementation for more humane care. At this early stage of the pandemic, providers had already begun to consider how this period could inform sustainment of deimplementation. When considering a future, post-pandemic period, several providers expressed discomfort at operating with "evidence-enough" and called for narrowly defined types of data on adverse events (e.g. overdose) and expert consensus on takeaway doses.

CONCLUSIONS

The possibilities for achieving social equity in health are limited by the divergent treatment goals of providers and people receiving OAT. Sustained and equitable deimplementation of obtrusive aspects of OAT provision require co-created treatment goals, patient-centred monitoring and evaluation, and access to a supportive community of practice for providers.

Comparative effectiveness of urine drug screening strategies alongside opioid agonist treatment in British Columbia, Canada: a population-based observational study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Urine drug tests (UDTs) are commonly used for monitoring opioid agonist treatment (OAT) responses, supporting the clinical decision for take-home doses and monitoring potential diversion. However, there is limited evidence supporting the utility of mandatory UDTs-particularly the impact of UDT frequency on OAT retention. Real-world evidence can inform patient-centred approaches to OAT and improve current strategies to address the ongoing opioid public health emergency. Our objective is to determine the safety and comparative effectiveness of alternative UDT monitoring strategies as observed in clinical practice among OAT clients in British Columbia, Canada from 2010 to 2020.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We propose a population-level retrospective cohort study of all individuals 18 years of age or older who initiated OAT from 1 January 2010 to 17 March 2020. The study will draw on eight linked health administrative databases from British Columbia. Our primary outcomes include OAT discontinuation and all-cause mortality. To determine the effectiveness of the intervention, we will emulate a 'per-protocol' target trial using a clone censoring approach to compare fixed and dynamic UDT monitoring strategies. A range of sensitivity analyses will be executed to determine the robustness of our results.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The protocol, cohort creation and analysis plan have been classified and approved as a quality improvement initiative by Providence Health Care Research Ethics Board and the Simon Fraser University Office of Research Ethics. Results will be disseminated to local advocacy groups and decision-makers, national and international clinical guideline developers, presented at international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals electronically and in print.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

'This is hardcore': a qualitative study exploring service users' experiences of Heroin-Assisted Treatment (HAT) in Middlesbrough, England

BACKGROUND

Heroin-Assisted Treatment (HAT) is well evidenced internationally to improve health and social outcomes for people dependent on opioids who have not been helped by traditional treatment options. Despite this evidence base, England has been slow to implement HAT. The first service outside of a trial setting opened in 2019, providing twice-daily supervised injections of medical-grade heroin (diamorphine) to a select sample of high-risk heroin users in Middlesbrough. This paper explores their experiences, including the negotiation of the strict regularly controls required of a novel intervention in the UK context.

METHODS

We conducted in-depth interviews with service providers and users of the Middlesbrough HAT service between September and November 2021. Data from each group were thematically analysed and reported separately. This paper details the experiences of the twelve heroin dependent men and women accessing HAT.

RESULTS

Participants' accounts of HAT treatment evidenced a tension between the regulatory constraints and uncertainty of treatment provision, and the positive outcomes experienced through supportive service provision and an injectable treatment option. Limited confidence was held in treatment efficacy, longevity of funding, and personal capacity for treatment success. This was counteracted by a strong motivation to cease engagement with the illicit drug market. While attendance requirements placed restrictions on daily activities, participants also experienced benefits from strong, supportive bonds built with the service providers through their continued engagement.

CONCLUSIONS

The Middlesbrough HAT programme provided benefits to a high-risk population of opioid dependent people who were unable or disinclined to participate in conventional opioid substitution treatments. The findings in this paper highlight the potential for service modifications to further enhance engagement. The closure of this programme in 2022 prohibits this opportunity for the Middlesbrough community, but holds potential to inform advocacy and innovation for future HAT interventions in England.

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.

Optimally Choosing Medication Type for Patients With Opioid Use Disorder

Patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) tend to get assigned to one of 3 medications based on the treatment program to which the patient presents (e.g., opioid treatment programs tend to treat patients with methadone, while office-based practices tend to prescribe buprenorphine). It is possible that optimally matching patients with treatment type would reduce the risk of return to regular opioid use (RROU). We analyzed data from 3 comparative effectiveness trials from the US National Institute on Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network (CTN0027, 2006-2010; CTN0030, 2006-2009; and CTN0051 2014-2017), in which patients with OUD (n = 1,459) were assigned to treatment with either injection extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX), sublingual buprenorphine-naloxone (BUP-NX), or oral methadone. We learned an individualized rule by which to assign medication type such that risk of RROU during 12 weeks of treatment would be minimized, and then estimated the amount by which RROU risk could be reduced if the rule were applied. Applying our estimated treatment rule would reduce risk of RROU compared with treating everyone with methadone (relative risk (RR) = 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.60, 0.97) or treating everyone with XR-NTX (RR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.47, 0.96). Applying the estimated treatment rule would have resulted in a similar risk of RROU to that of with treating everyone with BUP-NX (RR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.73, 1.11).

Public transport access to drug treatment before and during COVID-19: Implications for the opioid epidemic

Public transport disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic had wide-ranging impacts on the ability of individuals to access health care. Individuals with opioid use disorder represent an especially vulnerable population due to the necessity of frequent, supervised doses of opioid agonists. Focused on Toronto, a major Canadian city suffering from the opioid epidemic, this analysis uses novel realistic routing methodologies to quantify how travel times to individuals\220 nearest clinics changed due to public transport disruptions from 2019 to 2020. Individuals seeking opioid agonist treatment face very constrained windows of access due to the need to manage work and other essential activities. We find that thousands of households in the most materially and socially deprived neighbourhoods crossed 30 and 20-minute travel time thresholds to their nearest clinic. As even small changes to travel times can lead to missed appointments and heighten the chances of overdose and death, understanding the distribution of those most impacted can help inform future policy measures to ensure adequate access to care.

Cost-effectiveness of flexible take-home buprenorphine-naloxone versus methadone for treatment of prescription-type opioid use disorder

BACKGROUND

Our objective was to examine the cost-effectiveness of flexible take-home buprenorphine-naloxone (BNX) versus methadone alongside the OPTIMA trial in Canada.

METHODS

The OPTIMA study was a pragmatic, open-label, noninferiority, two-arm randomized controlled trial, to assess the comparative effectiveness of flexible take-home BNX vs. methadone in routine clinical care for individuals with prescription-type opioid use disorder. We evaluated cost-effectiveness using a semi-Markov cohort model. Probabilities of overdose were calibrated, accounting for fentanyl prevalence and other overdose risk factors such as naloxone availability. We considered health sector and societal cost perspectives, including costs (2020 CAD) for treatment, health resource use, criminal activity, and health state-specific preference weights as outcomes to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Six-month and lifetime (3% annual discount rate) time-horizons were explored.

RESULTS

Over a lifetime time horizon, individuals accumulated -0.144 [CI: -0.302, -0.025] incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) in BNX compared with methadone. Incremental costs were -$2047 [CI: -$39,197, $24,250] from a societal perspective, and -$4549 [CI: -$6332, -$3001] from a health sector perspective. Over a six-month time-horizon, individuals accumulated 0.002 [credible interval (CI): -0.011, 0.016] incremental QALYs in BNX compared with methadone. Incremental costs were -$307 [CI: -$10,385, $8466] from a societal perspective and -$1111 [CI: -$1517, -$631] from a health sector perspective. BNX was dominated (costlier, less effective) in 49.7% of simulations when adopting a societal perspective over a lifetime time horizon.

CONCLUSIONS

Flexible take-home BNX was not cost-effective versus methadone over a lifetime time horizon, resulting from better treatment retention in methadone compared to BNX.

Access to tablet injectable opioid agonist therapy in rural and smaller urban settings in British Columbia, Canada: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Rural and smaller urban settings in Canada are disproportionately impacted by the overdose crisis, highlighting the need for novel public health interventions within these jurisdictions. Tablet injectable opioid agonist therapy (TiOAT) programs have been implemented in select rural communities as a means to address drug-related harms. However, little is known about the accessibility of these novel programs. Therefore, we conducted this study to understand the rural context and factors that affected access of TiOAT programs.

METHODS

Between October 2021 to April 2022, individual qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 32 individuals enrolled in a TiOAT program at participating rural and smaller urban sites in British Columbia, Canada. Interview transcripts were coded using NVivo 12 and data were analyzed thematically.

RESULTS

TiOAT access varied considerably. TiOAT delivery in rural settings is complicated due to geographic challenges. Participants who were homeless and staying at a nearby shelter or those in centrally-located supportive housing had minimal issues compared to those living in more affordable housing on the outskirts of town with limited transportation options. Dispensing policies that required daily-witnessed ingestion multiple times daily were challenging for most. Only one site provided evening take-home doses whereas participants at the other site could only resort to the illicit opioid supply to address withdrawal outside of program hours. Participants described the clinics as providing a positive and familial social environment compared to experiences of stigma elsewhere. Medication interruptions did occur when participants were in hospital and custodial settings, leading to withdrawal, program discontinuation, and overdose risk.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the beneficial ways in which health services tailored for people who use drugs can create a stigma-free environment with an emphasis on social bonds. Other factors such as transportation access, dispensing policies, and access in rural hospitals and custodial settings produced unique challenges for rural people who use drugs. Public health authorities in rural and smaller settings should consider these factors when designing, implementing, and scaling up future substance use services, including TiOAT programs.

A National Portrait of Public Attitudes toward Opioid Use in the US: A Latent Class Analysis

BACKGROUND

Opioid overdose rates have steadily been increasing in the United States (US) creating what is considered an overdose death crisis. The US has a mixture of public health and punitive policies aimed to address opioid use and the overdose crisis, yet little is known about public opinion relating to opioid use and policy support. Understanding the intersection of public opinion about opioid use disorder (OUD) and policy can be useful for developing interventions to address policy responses to overdose deaths.

METHODS

A national sample of cross-sectional data from the AmeriSpeak survey conducted from 27 February 2020 through 2 March 2020 was analyzed. Measures included attitudes toward OUD and policy beliefs. Latent class analysis, a person-centered approach, was used to identify groups of individuals endorsing similar stigma and policy beliefs. We then examined the relationship between the identified groups (i.e., classes) and key behavioral and demographic factors.

RESULTS

We identified three distinct groups: (1) "High Stigma/High Punitive Policy", (2) "High Stigma/Mixed Public Health and Punitive Policy", and (3) "Low Stigma/High Public Health Policy". People with higher levels of education had reduced odds of being in the "High Stigma/High Punitive Policy" group.

CONCLUSION

Public health policies are most effective in addressing OUD. We suggest targeting interventions toward the "High Stigma/Mixed Public Health and Punitive Policy" group since this group already displays some support for public health policies. Broader interventions, such as eliminating stigmatizing messaging in the media and redacting punitive policies, could reduce OUD stigma among all groups.

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.