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

Drug treatment and support service utilization amidst the COVID-19 pandemic among people who inject drugs in Baltimore, Maryland: An interrupted time-series analysis, 2015-2022

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic prompted many structural and social changes including adaptations to drug treatment policies and provision (e.g., take-home methadone flexibilities and telehealth services), but their collective impact on drug treatment use among people who inject drugs in the US remains unclear. This study characterized trends in drug treatment and support service utilization before and during the pandemic among current and former people who inject drugs in Baltimore, Maryland.

METHODS

An interrupted time-series analysis was conducted using longitudinal survey data collected between December 2015 and November 2022 among 780 participants in the AIDS Linked to the IntraVenous Experience (ALIVE) study-a community-based cohort of adults who have injected drugs in Baltimore (n = 7036 semi-annual person-visits). Average marginal changes in service utilization were estimated following logistic regression with generalized estimating equations.

RESULTS

At participants' first pre-pandemic visit, 46.8 % attended group counseling/support group services, 13.5 % were prescribed buprenorphine, and 38.8% were prescribed methadone. After the onset of the pandemic, there was an immediate reduction in attending group services (-13.4 % [95%CI = -17.8 %, -8.9 %]) and a change in the trajectory of attendance (difference in quarterly percentage point change [QPPC] comparing before vs. during the pandemic = -0.9 % [95 %CI = -1.6 %, -0.1 %]). In contrast, there was a small immediate increase in buprenorphine use (2.3 % [95 %CI = 0.1 %, 4.6 %]) and no change in its trajectory (QPPC difference = -0.1 % [95 %CI = -0.6 %, 0.3 %]) after the pandemic's onset. A declining trajectory in methadone use before the pandemic accelerated during the pandemic, but this change was not statistically significant (QPPC difference = -0.5 % [95 %CI = -1.2 %, 0.2 %]). When prescribed buprenorphine/methadone during the pandemic, 28.8 % reported engagement in telehealth services (50.0 % for buprenorphine; 16.7 % for methadone).

CONCLUSION

There were pandemic-related disruptions in group-based support service utilization. Meanwhile, service adaptations may have blunted the pandemic's impact on buprenorphine and methadone treatment, suggesting adaptive systems have the potential to optimize treatment delivery. Nonetheless, the observed declines in methadone treatment uptake warrant investigation.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

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

MEASUREMENTS

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

FINDINGS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

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.

Opioid-related ambulance attendances during the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic in Victoria, Australia

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Public health measures introduced to contain the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus likely affected opioid supply and demand, as well as the patterns and contexts of opioid use. We measured opioid-related harms during the first 2 years of COVID-19 restrictions in Victoria, Australia.

DESIGN

We adopted an interrupted time series analysis design using interventional autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) models. Opioid-related ambulance attendance data between January 2015 and March 2022 were extracted from the National Ambulance Surveillance System.

SETTING

Victoria, Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients (≥15 years) attended to by an ambulance for opioid-related harms.

MEASUREMENTS

Monthly opioid-related ambulance attendances for three drug types: heroin, prescription opioids and opioid agonist therapy (OAT) medications.

FINDINGS

The monthly rate of heroin-related attendances fell by 26% immediately after the introduction of COVID-19 restrictions. A reduced rate of heroin-related attendances was observed during COVID-19 restrictions, resulting in 2578 averted heroin-related attendances. There was no change in the rate of attendances for extra-medical OAT medications or prescription opioids.

CONCLUSIONS

Strict COVID-19 restrictions in Victoria, Australia appear to have resulted in a substantial reduction in heroin-related ambulance attendances, perhaps because of border closures and restrictions on movement affecting supply, changing patterns of drug consumption, and efforts to improve access to OAT. Despite policy changes allowing longer OAT prescriptions and an increased number of unsupervised doses, we found no evidence of increased harms related to the extra-medical use of these medications.

"It feels like I'm coming to a friend's house": an interpretive descriptive study of an integrated care site offering iOAT (Dr. Peter Centre)

BACKGROUND

Injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) has proven to be a safe and effective treatment option for severe opioid use disorder (OUD). Yet, iOAT is often isolated from other health and social services. To align with a person-centered care approach, iOAT can be embedded in sites that combine systems and services that have been historically fragmented and that address multiple comorbidities (integrated care sites). The present study investigates the addition of iOAT at an integrated care in Vancouver, British Columbia. We aimed to capture what it means for service users and service providers to incorporate iOAT in an integrated care site and describe the processes by which the site keeps people engaged.

METHODS

We conducted 22 interviews with 15 service users and 14 interviews with 13 service providers across two rounds of individual semi-structured interviews (Fall 2021, Summer 2022). The second interview round was precipitated by a service interruption in medication dispensation. Interview audio was recorded, transcribed, and then analysed in NVivo 1.6 following an interpretive description approach.

RESULTS

The emergent themes from the analysis are represented in two categories: (1) a holistic approach (client autonomy, de-medicalized care, supportive staff relationships, multiple opportunities for engagement, barriers to iOAT integration) and (2) a sense of place (physical location, social connection and community belonging, food).

CONCLUSION

Incorporating iOAT at an integrated care site revealed how iOAT delivery can be strengthened through its direct connection to a diverse, comprehensive network of health and social services that are provided in a community atmosphere with high quality therapeutic relationships.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

The impact of relaxing restrictions on take-home doses during the COVID-19 pandemic on program effectiveness and client experiences in opioid agonist treatment: a mixed methods systematic review

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic led to an unprecedented relaxation of restrictions on take-home doses in opioid agonist treatment (OAT). We conducted a mixed methods systematic review to explore the impact of these changes on program effectiveness and client experiences in OAT.

METHODS

The protocol for this review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022352310). From Aug.-Nov. 2022, we searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Web of Science, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and the grey literature. We included studies reporting quantitative measures of retention in treatment, illicit substance use, overdose, client health, quality of life, or treatment satisfaction or using qualitative methods to examine client experiences with take-home doses during the pandemic. We critically appraised studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. We synthesized quantitative data using vote-counting by direction of effect and presented the results in harvest plots. Qualitative data were analyzed using thematic synthesis. We used a convergent segregated approach to integrate quantitative and qualitative findings.

RESULTS

Forty studies were included. Most were from North America (23/40) or the United Kingdom (9/40). The quantitative synthesis was limited by potential for confounding, but suggested an association between take-home doses and increased retention in treatment. There was no evidence of an association between take-home doses and illicit substance use or overdose. Qualitative findings indicated that take-home doses reduced clients' exposure to unregulated substances and stigma and minimized work/treatment conflicts. Though some clients reported challenges with managing their medication, the dominant narrative was one of appreciation, reduced anxiety, and a renewed sense of agency and identity. The integrated analysis suggested reduced treatment burden as an explanation for improved retention and revealed variation in individual relationships between take-home doses and illicit substance use. We identified a critical gap in quantitative measures of patient-important outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The relaxation of restrictions on take-home doses was associated with improved client experience and retention in OAT. We found no evidence of an association with illicit substance use or overdose, despite the expansion of take-home doses to previously ineligible groups. Including patient-important outcome measures in policy, program development, and treatment planning is essential to ensuring that decisions around take-home doses accurately reflect their value to clients.

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.