Opioid Overdose Hospitalizations During COVID-19: The Experience of Pennsylvania

Objective

The COVID-19 pandemic placed extreme burden on hospitals, while opioid overdose is another challenging public health issue. This study aimed to examine the trends and outcomes of opioid overdose hospitalizations in Pennsylvania during 2018 to 2021.

Design

We identified opioid overdose hospitalizations in the state of Pennsylvania using the state-wide hospital discharge database (PHC4) 2018 to 2021. We examined the number of opioid overdose hospitalizations, the corresponding mortality and discharges against medical advice comparing the pre-COVID period (2018-2019) and the COVID period (2020-2021). We also assessed what patient and hospital characteristics were associated with in-hospital death or leaving against medical advice.

Results

A total of 13 446 opioid-related hospitalizations were identified in 2018 to 2021. Compared to pre-pandemic, a higher percentage of cases involving synthetics (17.0%vs 10.3%, P < .0001) were observed during COVID. After controlling for covariates, there was no significant difference in opioid overdose in-hospital deaths in the years 2020 to 2021 compared to 2018 to 2019 (OR = 0.846, 95% CI: 0.71-1.01, P = .065). The COVID period was significantly associated with more leaving against medical advice compared to years 2018 to 2019 (OR = 1.265, 95% CI: 1.11-1.44, P = .0003). Compared to commercial insurance, Medicaid insurance was associated with higher odds of both in-hospital death (OR = 1.383, 95% CI: 1.06-1.81, P = .0176) and leaving against medical advice (OR = 1.903, 95% CI: 1.56-2.33, P < .0001).

Conclusion

There were no substantial changes in the number of overall opioid overdose cases and deaths at hospitals following the outbreak of COVID-19 in Pennsylvania. This observation suggests that an increased number of patients may have succumbed to overdoses outside of hospital settings, possibly due to a higher severity of overdoses. Further, we found that patients were more likely to leave against medical advice during the COVID-19 pandemic.

COVID-19-related flexibility in methadone take-home doses associated with decreased attrition: Report from an opioid treatment program in central Pennsylvania

INTRODUCTION

Pennsylvania saw a dramatic increase in take-home doses of methadone after the COVID-19 pandemic-related relaxation in regulations. We evaluated whether pandemic-initiated relaxation in take-home methadone dose regulations was associated with changes in attrition and urine drug test (UDT) results at one outpatient opioid treatment program (OTP) among adult patients treated with methadone for opioid use disorder (OUD).

METHODS

We analyzed aggregated, retrospective clinical practice data, using data abstracted from the OTP's electronic health record (EHR) on the number of patients treated with methadone, those allowed take-home doses, the number of take-home methadone doses dispensed, and the number and type of patient discharge ("attrition") from treatments for 12 months before (March 2019-February 2020; "pre-pandemic") and 12 months after (March 2020-February 2021; "pandemic") the regulatory changes took place. We also examined monthly aggregate data on the number of urine samples testing positive for amphetamines, cocaine, benzodiazepines or illicit opioids, and compared these findings between the pre-pandemic and pandemic periods.

RESULTS

Pre-pandemic, 229 patients were treated with methadone, compared to 278 patients during the pandemic period. They received 11,047 and 28,563 take-home daily-doses of methadone (p < 0.0001) during each assessment period, respectively. All-cause treatment attrition (discharge from the program for any reason) decreased from 27.1 % in the pre-pandemic to 15.5 % in the pandemic period (p < 0.001). Compared to pre-pandemic, during the pandemic period the urine toxicology testing showed reduced positivity rates for cocaine (26.4 % vs 18.9 %, p < 0.001), and oxycodone and morphine (1.8 % vs 1.1 %, p < 0.019), and increased for fentanyl (24.0 % vs 30.5 %, p < 0.007), without statistically significant changes for benzodiazepines or amphetamines.

CONCLUSIONS

The relaxation of regulations guiding take-home methadone doses accompanied reduced treatment attrition and favorable changes in urine toxicology results in one OTP. Allowing OTPs to apply flexible decisions regarding take-home methadone doses could improve treatment retention, outcomes, and, in turn, save lives.

ASAM Clinical Considerations: Buprenorphine Treatment of Opioid Use Disorder for Individuals Using High-potency Synthetic Opioids

ABSTRACT

Treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) with buprenorphine has evolved considerably in the last decade as the scale of the OUD epidemic has increased along with the emergence of high-potency synthetic opioids (HPSOs) and stimulants in the drug supply. These changes have outpaced the development of prospective research, so a clinical consideration document based on expert consensus is needed to address pressing clinical questions. This clinical considerations document is based on a narrative literature review and expert consensus and will specifically address considerations for changes to the clinical practice of treatment of OUD with buprenorphine for individuals using HPSO. An expert panel developed 6 key questions addressing buprenorphine initiation, stabilization, and long-term treatment for individuals with OUD exposed to HPSO in various treatment settings. Broadly, the clinical considerations suggest that individualized strategies for buprenorphine initiation may be needed. The experience of opioid withdrawal negatively impacts the success of buprenorphine treatment, and attention to its management before and during buprenorphine initiation should be proactively addressed. Buprenorphine dose and dosing frequency should be individualized based on patients' treatment needs, the possibility of novel components in the drug supply should be considered during OUD treatment, and all forms of opioid agonist treatment should be offered and considered for patients. Together, these clinical considerations attempt to be responsive to the challenges and opportunities experienced by frontline clinicians using buprenorphine for the treatment of OUD in patients using HPSOs and highlight areas where prospective research is urgently needed.

Disability-Adjusted Life-Years for Drug Overdose Crisis and COVID-19 Are Comparable During the Two Years of Pandemic in the United States

OBJECTIVES

The drug overdose crisis with shifting patterns from primarily opioid to polysubstance uses and COVID-19 infections are 2 concurrent public health crises in the United States, affecting the population of sizes in different magnitudes (approximately < 10 million for substance use disorder [SUD] and drug overdoses vs 80 million for COVID-19 within 2 years of the pandemic). Our objective is to compare the relative scale of disease burden for the 2 crises within a common framework, which could help inform policy makers with resource allocation and prioritization strategies.

METHODS

We calculated disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) for SUD (including opioids and stimulants) and COVID-19 infections, respectively. We collected estimates for SUD prevalence, overdose deaths, COVID-19 cases and deaths, disability weights, and life expectancy from multiple publicly available sources. We then compared age distributions of estimated DALYs.

RESULTS

We estimated a total burden of 13.83 million DALYs for SUD and drug overdoses and 15.03 million DALYs for COVID-19 in 2 years since March 2020. COVID-19 burden was dominated by the fatal burden (> 95% of total DALYs), whereas SUD burden was attributed to both fatal (53%) and nonfatal burdens (47%). The highest disease burden was among individuals aged 30 to 39 years for SUD (27%) and 50 to 64 years for COVID-19 (31%).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the smaller size of the affected population, SUD and drug overdoses resulted in comparable disease burden with the COVID-19 pandemic. Additional resources supporting evidence-based interventions in prevention and treatment may be warranted to ameliorate SUD and drug overdoses during both the pandemic and postpandemic recovery.

Research priorities for expanding access to methadone treatment for opioid use disorder in the United States: A National Institute on Drug Abuse Center for Clinical Trials Network Task Force report

In the US, methadone treatment can only be provided to patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) through federal and state-regulated opioid treatment programs (OTPs). There is a shortage of OTPs, and racial and geographic inequities exist in access to methadone treatment. The National Institute on Drug Abuse Center for Clinical Trials Network convened the Methadone Access Research Task Force to develop a research agenda to expand and create more equitable access to methadone treatment for OUD. This research agenda included mechanisms that are available within and outside the current regulations. The task force identified 6 areas where research is needed: (1) access to methadone in general medical and other outpatient settings; (2) the impact of methadone treatment setting on patient outcomes; (3) impact of treatment structure on outcomes in patients receiving methadone; (4) comparative effectiveness of different medications to treat OUD; (5) optimal educational and support structure for provision of methadone by medical providers; and (6) benefits and harms of expanded methadone access. In addition to outlining these research priorities, the task force identified important cross-cutting issues, including the impact of patient characteristics, treatment, and treatment system characteristics such as methadone formulation and dose, concurrent behavioral treatment, frequency of dispensing, urine or oral fluid testing, and methods of measuring clinical outcomes. Together, the research priorities and cross-cutting issues represent a compelling research agenda to expand access to methadone in the US.

Combination Extended Smoking Cessation Treatment Plus Home Visits for Smokers With Schizophrenia: A Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

The majority of people with schizophrenia have a diagnosis of tobacco dependence during their lifetime. A major obstacle to reducing the burden of cigarette smoking in this population is that these smokers have lower quit rates when undergoing standard treatment compared to smokers with no mental illness. We sought to determine if combination extended treatment (COMB-EXT) and home visits (HV) would lead to improved outcomes in smokers with schizophrenia.

METHODS

Thirty-four cigarette smokers with schizophrenia completed either COMB-EXT with HV, COMB-EXT without HV, or treatment as usual (TAU) (random assignment). COMB-EXT consisted of group cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), bupropion, nicotine patch, and nicotine lozenge, which were initiated within 2 weeks and continued for 26 weekly visits. HV consisted of biweekly visits to the home with assessment of secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure and brief behavioral therapy with participants and others in the home environment. TAU consisted of group CBT plus serial single or combination medication trials as per standard care.

RESULTS

Smokers with schizophrenia who received COMB-EXT (with or without HV) had greater reductions in cigarettes per day than those treated with TAU (both ps < .01). In addition, 7-day point prevalence abstinence rates for the three groups were 45%, 20%, and 8%, respectively, which was significantly higher for COMB-EXT plus HV than TAU (χ²(1) = 4.8, p = .03). Groups did not differ significantly in the number of adverse events, and HV were easily scheduled.

CONCLUSION

COMB-EXT improves outcomes for smokers with schizophrenia. HV appeared to provide additional benefit for smoking cessation in this treatment-resistant population.

IMPLICATIONS

The clear benefit found here of rapidly initiated, combination, extended treatment over TAU suggests that aggressive and extended treatment should be considered in clinical practice for smokers with schizophrenia. Furthermore, HV to address SHS exposure showed initial promise for assisting smokers with schizophrenia in maintaining abstinence, indicating that this intervention may be worthy of future research.