Problems with hydromorphone prescribing as a response to the opioid crisis

Initiations of safer supply hydromorphone increased during the COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario: An interrupted time series analysis

AIMS

Calls to prescribe safer supply hydromorphone (SSHM) as an alternative to the toxic drug supply increased during the COVID-19 pandemic but it is unknown whether prescribing behaviour was altered. We aimed to evaluate how the number of new SSHM dispensations changed during the pandemic in Ontario.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective interrupted time-series analysis using provincial administrative databases. We counted new SSHM dispensations in successive 28-day periods from March 22, 2016 to August 30, 2021. We used segmented Poisson regression methods to test for both a change in level and trend of new dispensations before and after March 17, 2020, the date Ontario's pandemic-related emergency was declared. We adjusted the models to account for seasonality and assessed for over-dispersion and residual autocorrelation. We used counterfactual analysis methods to estimate the number of new dispensations attributable to the pandemic.

RESULTS

We identified 1489 new SSHM dispensations during the study period (434 [mean of 8 per 28-day period] before and 1055 [mean of 56 per 28-day period] during the pandemic). Median age of individuals initiating SSHM was 40 (interquartile interval 33-48) with 61.7% (N = 919) male sex. Before the pandemic, there was a small trend of increased prescribing (incidence rate ratio [IRR] per period 1.002; 95% confidence interval [95CI] 1.001-1.002; p<0.001), with a change in level (immediate increase) at the pandemic date (relative increase in IRR 1.674; 95CI 1.206-2.322; p = 0.002). The trend during the pandemic was not statistically significant (relative increase in IRR 1.000; 95CI 1.000-1.001; p = 0.251). We estimated 511 (95CI 327-695) new dispensations would not have occurred without the pandemic.

CONCLUSION

The pandemic led to an abrupt increase in SSHM prescribing in Ontario, although the rate of increase was similar before and during the pandemic. The absolute number of individuals who accessed SSHM remained low throughout the pandemic.

Public support for safer supply programs: analysis of a cross-sectional survey of Canadians in two provinces

OBJECTIVES

Canada's ongoing drug poisoning crisis has contributed to unprecedented rates of morbidity and mortality. Health Canada has funded safer supply pilot programs to help connect people who use drugs to pharmaceutical grade medications that reduce their reliance on a toxic drug supply. However, most provinces, including Alberta and Saskatchewan, have not endorsed these initiatives. We explored public support for safer supply programs in these two Canadian provinces and identified predictors of support for this policy option.

METHODS

Cross-sectional data were examined from an online panel survey that included measures assessing views on policy responses to substance use and addiction. A total of 1602 adults were recruited during March 2021. We used descriptive statistics to characterize support for safer supply programs in Alberta and Saskatchewan and multinominal logistic regression analysis to examine predictors of public support for safer supply.

RESULTS

The majority of respondents (AB: 63.5% and SK: 56.3%) supported safer supply programs that replace illegal street drugs with pharmaceutical alternatives for those unable to stop using. Predicted probabilities show a greater probability of support for safer supply among those with higher education and those leaning left on the political spectrum.

CONCLUSION

A majority of Canadians from Alberta and Saskatchewan supported provincial government efforts to expand safer supply, suggesting a lack of public support is not the main barrier to implementation. Efforts at mobilizing this public opinion are needed to scale up and facilitate evaluation of this drug poisoning response.

Prescribing safe supply: ethical considerations for clinicians

The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the drug poisoning epidemic in a number of ways: individuals use alone more often, there is decreased access to harm reduction services and there has been an increase in the toxicity of the unregulated drug supply. In response to the crisis, clinicians, policy makers and people who use drugs have been seeking ways to prevent the worst harms of unregulated opioid use. One prominent idea is safe supply. One form of safe supply enlists clinicians to prescribe opioids so that people have access to drugs of known composition and strength. In this paper, we assess the ethical case for clinicians providing this service. As we describe, there is much that is unknown about safe supply. However, given the seriousness of the overdose death epidemic and the current limited evidence for safe supply's efficacy, we argue that it is ethically permissible for clinicians to begin prescribing opioids for some select patients.

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.

Characterizing safer supply prescribing of immediate release hydromorphone for individuals with opioid use disorder across Ontario, Canada

BACKGROUND

In response to the ongoing overdose crisis, some clinicians in Canada have started prescribing immediate release hydromorphone (IRH) as an alternative to the toxic unregulated drug supply. This practice is often referred to as safer supply. We aimed to identify and characterize patients receiving safer supply IRH and their prescribers in Ontario.

METHODS

Using provincial administrative health data, we identified individuals with opioid use disorder prescribed safer supply IRH from January 2016 to March 2020 and reported the number of initiations over time. We summarized demographic, health, and medication use characteristics among patients who received safer supply IRH, and examined select clinical outcomes including retention and death. Finally, we characterized prescribers of safer supply IRH and compared frequent and infrequent prescribers.

RESULTS

We identified 534 initiations of safer supply IRH (447 distinct individuals) from 155 prescribers. Initiations increased over time with a peak in the third quarter of 2019 (103 initiations). Patients' median age was 42 (interquartile range [IQR] 34-50), and most were male (60.2%), urban residents, (96.2%), and in the lowest neighborhood income quintile (55.7%), with 13.9% having overdosed in the previous one year. The prevalence of HIV was 13.9%. The median duration on IRH was 272 days (IQR 30-1,244) and OAT was co-prescribed in 62.9% of courses. Death while receiving IRH or within 7 days of discontinuation was rare (≤5 courses;≤0.94 per person-year for each).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians are increasingly prescribing safer supply IRH in Ontario. Patients prescribed safer supply IRH had demographic and clinical characteristics associated with high risk of death from opioid-related overdose. Short-term deaths among people receiving safer supply IRH were rare.

Opioid analgesic prescribing for opioid-naïve individuals prior to identification of opioid use disorder in British Columbia, Canada

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Prescription opioid analgesics have contributed to the development of opioid use disorder (OUD) in many individuals. We aimed to characterize non-cancer opioid prescribing for opioid-naive individuals prior to OUD identification.

DESIGN

Population-based retrospective cohort study using six linked health administrative databases.

SETTING

British Columbia (BC), Canada.

PARTICIPANTS

People with OUD between 1 January 2001 and 30 September 2018 who initiated opioid analgesic therapy for non-cancer pain prior to OUD identification.

MEASUREMENTS

Dose (morphine milligram equivalent per day), days prescribed and clinical guideline non-concordance for initial opioid prescriptions (dose ≥ 90 morphine milligram equivalent per day; ≥ 7 days prescribed; concomitant sedative prescription). We estimated the probability of non-concordant initial prescriptions by source (inpatient post-discharge, non-inpatient acute, non-acute) using logistic regression, adjusting for individual characteristics and comorbidities.

FINDINGS

Among 66 372 individuals identified with OUD from 2001 to 2018, 21 331 (32.1%) received opioid analgesics prior to OUD identification. This proportion increased from 3.0% in 2001 to 41.0% in 2011, before decreasing to 34.2% in 2017. Roughly half of opioid prescriptions were attributed to non-acute care visits, peaking at 56.8% in 2007, while the proportion from inpatient visits increased from 19.7% in 2001 to 28.5% in 2017. The predicted probability of receiving non-guideline concordant prescriptions declined over time-periods across all three measures for inpatient and non-inpatient acute care, while remaining stable for non-acute care. In particular, the predicted probability of receiving ≥ 7-day prescriptions following inpatient visits decreased from 53.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 50.9, 55.8%] in 2001-06 to 37.2% (95% CI = 33.9, 40.5%) in 2013-18.

CONCLUSIONS

Among the 66 372 individuals in British Columbia, Canada diagnosed with opioid use disorder between 2001 and 2018, more than 32% were earlier prescribed non-cancer opioid analgesics. The proportion who had received an opioid analgesic prescription prior to OUD identification peaked at more than 40% in 2011, before stabilizing between 2011 and 2016 and declining thereafter. Guideline concordance improved over time for high-dose and concomitant sedative prescribing.

Perceptions of injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) among people who regularly use opioids in Australia: findings from a cross-sectional study in three Australian cities

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Not all people experiencing opioid dependence benefit from oral opioid agonist treatment. The aim of this study was to examine perceptions of (supervised) injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) (described as 'an opioid similar to heroin self-injected at a clinic several times a day') among people who regularly use opioids and determine how common iOAT eligibility criteria accord with interest in iOAT.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey SETTING: Sydney, Melbourne and Hobart, Australia PARTICIPANTS: A total of 344 people (63% male) who use opioids regularly and had ever injected opioids, interviewed December 2017-March 2018. The mean age of participants was 41.5 years [standard deviation (SD) = 8.5].

MEASUREMENTS

Primary outcome measures were interest in iOAT, factors associated with interest and the proportion of participants who would be eligible using common criteria from trials and guidelines. We examined willingness to travel for iOAT, medication preferences and perspectives on whom should receive iOAT.

FINDINGS

Overall, 53% of participants (n = 182) believed that iOAT would be a good treatment option for them. Participants who believed that iOAT was a good treatment option for them were more likely to be male [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.10-2.82], have used heroin in the past month (aOR = 6.03, 95% CI = 2.86-12.71), currently regularly inject opioids (aOR = 1.84, 95% CI = 1.16-2.91) and have met ICD-10 criteria for opioid dependence (aOR = 3.46, 95% CI = 1.65-7.24). Those interested in iOAT had commenced more treatment episodes (aOR =1.06, 95% CI = 1.00-1.12). Among those interested in iOAT (n = 182), 26% (n = 48) met common eligibility criteria for iOAT.

CONCLUSIONS

Interest in injectable opioid agonist treatment does not appear to be universal among people who regularly use opioids. Among study participants who expressed interest in injectable opioid agonist treatment, most did not meet common eligibility criteria.

Tackling the overdose crisis: The role of safe supply

North America is experiencing an unprecedented overdose crisis driven by the proliferation of fentanyl and its analogues in the illicit drug supply. In 2018 there were 67,367 drug overdose deaths in the United States, and since 2016, there have been more than 14,700 overdose deaths in Canada, with most related to fentanyl. Despite concerted efforts and some positive progress, current public health, substance use treatment, and harm reduction interventions (such as widespread naloxone distribution and implementation of supervised consumption sites) have not been able to rapidly decrease overdose fatalities. In view of the persistent gaps in services and the limitations of available options, immediate scale-up of low-barrier opioid distribution programs are urgently needed. This includes "off-label" prescription of pharmaceutical grade opioids (e.g., hydromorphone) to disrupt the toxic drug supply and make safer opioids widely available to people at high risk of fatal overdose.