Examination of methadone involved overdoses during the COVID-19 pandemic

Comparative effectiveness of methadone take-home dose initiation in British Columbia, Canada: protocol for a population-based retrospective cohort study using target trial guidelines

INTRODUCTION

Due to inferior safety profile and higher risk of diversion than buprenorphine/naloxone, guidelines typically recommend stringent eligibility criteria such as daily witnessed ingestion of methadone for at least 12 weeks before considering take-home doses. Recent research has focused on whether or not to initiate take-home methadone doses, often using pandemic-era data when temporary prescribing changes provided a natural experiment on the impact of access to take-home doses. However, none of these studies adequately examined the optimal timing and criteria for safely starting take-home doses to enhance treatment outcomes. To determine the optimal timing for initiating methadone take-home doses, we will compare the effects of different initiation times on time to treatment discontinuation, all-cause mortality and acute-care visits among individuals who completed methadone induction in British Columbia, Canada, from 2010 to 2022.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We propose emulating a target trial using linked population-level health administrative data for all individuals aged 18 or older living in British Columbia, Canada, completing methadone induction between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2022. The exposure strategies will include no take-home dosing and take-home dose initiation in ≤4, 5-12, 13-24 and 25-52 weeks since completed induction. The outcomes will include the time to treatment discontinuation, all-cause mortality and acute-care visits. We propose a per-protocol analysis with a clone-censor-weighting approach to address the immortal time bias implicit in the comparison of alternative take-home dose initiation times. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses, including cohort restrictions, study timeline variations, eligibility criteria modifications and outcome reclassifications, are proposed to assess 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.

Methadone treatment utilization and overdose trends among Medicaid beneficiaries in New Jersey before and during the COVID-19 pandemic

INTRODUCTION

The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the traditional mode of methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) delivery through the imposition of lockdowns and social distancing measures. In response, policy makers granted flexibilities to providers delivering MMT to change their practices to maintain patient participation while accommodating the measures imposed to prevent the spread of COVID-19. This study examines the utilization of MMT and overdoses of patients receiving MMT during the COVID-19 pandemic in one mid-Atlantic state.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analyzed Medicaid claims data for 2018-2020, calculating weekly trends for starts, discontinuations, and medically-treated overdoses for beneficiaries receiving MMT who had been continuously enrolled in Medicaid for the previous 12 months, to account for changes in the composition of the Medicaid population following the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE). We completed data analyses from January to June 2022.

RESULTS

We observed countervailing trends in new starts, which experienced an immediate, non-significant dip of -22.47 per 100,000 Medicaid beneficiaries (95%CI, -50.99 to 6.04) at the outset of the pandemic followed by an increasing upward trend of 1.41 per 100,000 beneficiaries per week (95%CI, 0.37 to 2.46), and in discontinuations, which also experienced an immediate dip of -3.23 per 1000 MMT enrollees (95%CI, -4.49 to -1.97) followed by an increasing upward trend of 0.14 per 1000 MMT enrollees per week (95%CI, 0.09 to 0.19). The net result of these shifts was a stable, slowly increasing rate of MMT treatment of 0.02 % per week before and after the PHE. We also found no statistically significant association of the PHE with medically-treated overdoses among beneficiaries enrolled in MMT (trend change = 0.02 overdoses per 10,000 MMT enrollees, 95%CI, -0.05 to 0.09).

CONCLUSIONS

New Jersey achieved overall stability in MMT treatment prevalence following the pandemic's onset, while some changes in treatment dynamics took place. This outcome may reflect that the extensive flexibilities granted to providers of MMT by the state and federal government successfully maintained access to MMT for Medicaid beneficiaries through the pandemic without increasing risk of medically-treated overdose. These findings should inform policy makers developing the post-COVID-19 legal and regulatory landscape.

Patient and navigator experiences with the opioid use disorder treatment system in Philadelphia, PA

BACKGROUND

In 2022, 1413 people in Philadelphia died of an unintentional drug overdose. Addressing the complex challenges within the opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment system requires a comprehensive grasp of multiple system-level siloes from the perspective of patients who are accessing services and certified recovery specialists. Identifying facilitators and barriers to treatment entry and retention are critical.

METHODS

We conducted 13 focus groups with 70 people with a history of opioid use in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The study recruited participants from non-profit organizations, OUD treatment programs, and street intercept. Certified Recovery Specialists (CRS), people with experience in residential, outpatient, methadone, and buprenorphine programs in Philadelphia, identity-specific groups with Black women, Black men, and Latino men, pregnant and parenting people, and people accessing harm reduction services participated in focus groups. Focus group guides varied by group, but the overarching focus remained on understanding participants' experiences in navigating the OUD treatment system. The research team summarized and edited CRS focus groups and coded all other focus groups for thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Most focus group participants (mean age = 45.1 years; 52.9 % men, 40 % Black) had a history with multiple treatment types and reported experiences with different modalities. Salient themes that emerged from analysis included frustrations with the assessment process; reflections on facilitators and barriers by treatment type (residential, methadone, and buprenorphine); and recommendations across treatment modalities. Assessment centers, rather than being easy points of treatment entry, were identified as a major barrier to OUD treatment initiation; issues discussed included length of assessment, limited operating hours, and inadequate withdrawal management.

DISCUSSION

The data from the present study were used to develop recommendations for policymakers and other stakeholders of OUD treatment programs to improve care across the spectrum of services. Expansion of residential programs that can support patients with complex comorbid conditions and wounds is needed to prevent delays for patients deemed ineligible for lower levels of care. Housing and income were identified as significant deterrents to initiating drug treatment and greater resources are needed. Greater investment in the OUD workforce is needed, especially expanding staff with lived experience. Findings can enhance OUD treatment programs elsewhere.

[Increase of overdose and deaths related to methadone during COVID-19 epidemic in 2020]

INTRODUCTION

Due to the risk of overdoses increase especially with methadone, a reinforced monitoring has been set up by the French Addictovigilance Network following the first lockdown related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In this context, we managed a specific study to analyze overdoses related to methadone in 2020 compared to 2019.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We analyzed methadone-related overdoses which occurred in 2019 and 2020 from two sources: DRAMES program (deaths with toxicological analysis) and the French pharmacovigilance database (BNPV) (overdoses that did not lead to death).

RESULTS

Data from DRAMES program in 2020 show methadone as the first drug involved in deaths as well as an increase in deaths: in number (n=230 versus n=178), in proportion (41% versus 35%) and number of deaths per 1000 exposed subjects (3.4 versus 2.8). According to BNPV, the number of overdose increased in 2020 compared to 2019 (98 versus 79; i.e., 1.2-fold increase) particularly during several target periods: first lockdown, end of lockdown/summer period and second lockdown. In 2020, a higher number of cases were observed in April (n=15) and May (n=15). Overdoses and deaths occurred in subjects enrolled in treatment programs or not (naïve subjects/occasional users who obtained methadone from street market or family/friends). Overdoses resulted from different factors: overconsumption, multiple drug use with depressants drugs or cocaine, injection, consumption for sedative, recreational purposes or voluntary drug poisoning.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

All these data show an increase of morbidity and mortality related to methadone during COVID-19 epidemic. This trend has been observed in other countries.

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.

State-level variation in distribution of oxycodone and opioid-related deaths from 2000 to 2021: an ecological study of ARCOS and CDC WONDER data in the USA

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to characterise oxycodone's distribution and opioid-related overdoses in the USA by state from 2000 to 2021.

DESIGN

This is an observational study.

SETTING

More than 80 000 Americans died of an opioid overdose in 2021 as the USA continues to struggle with an opioid crisis. Prescription opioids play a substantial role, introducing patients to opioids and providing a supply of drugs that can be redirected to those seeking to misuse them.

METHODS

The Drug Enforcement Administration annual summary reports from the Automation of Reports and Consolidated Orders System provided weights of oxycodone distributed per state by business type (pharmacies, hospitals and practitioners). Weights were converted to morphine milligram equivalents (MME) per capita and normalised for population. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wide-ranging ONline Data for Epidemiologic Research provided mortality data for heroin, other opioids, methadone, other synthetic narcotics and other/unspecified narcotics.

RESULTS

There was a sharp 280.13% increase in total MME/person of oxycodone from 2000 to 2010, followed by a slower 54.34% decrease from 2010 to 2021. Florida (2007-2011), Delaware (2003-2020) and Tennessee (2012-2021) displayed consistent and substantial elevations in combined MME/person compared with other states. In the peak year (2010), there was a 15-fold difference between the highest and lowest states. MME/person from only pharmacies, which constituted >94% of the total, showed similar results. Hospitals in Alaska (2000-2001, 2008, 2010-2021), Colorado (2008-2021) and DC (2000-2011) distributed substantially more MME/person over many years compared with other states. Florida stood out in practitioner-distributed oxycodone, with an elevation of almost 15-fold the average state from 2006 to 2010. Opioid-related deaths increased +806% from 2000 to 2021, largely driven by heroin, other opioids and other synthetic narcotics.

CONCLUSIONS

Oxycodone distribution across the USA showed marked differences between states and business types over time. Investigation of opioid policies in states of interest may provide insight for future actions to mitigate opioid misuse.

Estimated effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of opioid use disorder treatment under proposed U.S. regulatory relaxations: A model-based analysis

AIM

To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of buprenorphine and methadone treatment in the U.S. if exemptions expanding coverage for substance use disorder services via telehealth and allowing opioid treatment programs to supply a greater number of take-home doses of medications for opioid use disorder (OUD) continue (Notice of Proposed Rule Making, NPRM).

DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Model-based analysis of buprenorphine and methadone treatment for a cohort of 100,000 individuals with OUD, varying treatment retention and overdose risk among individuals receiving and not receiving methadone treatment compared to the status quo (no NPRM).

INTERVENTION

Buprenorphine and methadone treatment under NPRM.

MEASUREMENTS

Fatal and nonfatal overdoses and deaths over five years, discounted lifetime per person QALYs and costs.

FINDINGS

For buprenorphine treatment under the status quo, 1.21 QALYs are gained at a cost of $19,200/QALY gained compared to no treatment; with 20% higher treatment retention, 1.28 QALYs are gained at a cost of $17,900/QALY gained compared to no treatment, and the strategy dominates the status quo. For methadone treatment under the status quo, 1.11 QALYs are gained at a cost of $17,900/QALY gained compared to no treatment. In all scenarios, methadone provision cost less than $20,000/QALY gained compared to no treatment, and less than $50,000/QALY gained compared to status quo methadone treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Buprenorphine and methadone OUD treatment under NPRM are likely to be effective and cost-effective. Increases in overdose risk with take-home methadone would reduce health benefits. Clinical and technological strategies could mitigate this risk.

Methadone Take-Home Policies and Associated Mortality: Permitting versus Non-Permitting States

To mitigate COVID-19 exposure risks in methadone clinics, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) issued a temporary modification of regulations in March 2020 to permit, with state concurrence, extended take-home methadone doses. The modification allowed for up to 28 days of take-home methadone for stable patients and 14 days for those less stable. Using both interrupted time series and difference-in-differences methods, this study examined the association between the policy change and fatal methadone overdoses, comparing states that permitted the expansion of take-home doses with states that did not. The findings suggest the pandemic emergency take-home policy did not increase methadone-involved mortality.

Dynamic changes in methadone utilisation for opioid use disorder treatment: a retrospective observational study during the COVID-19 pandemic

OBJECTIVES

Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a major public health concern in the USA, resulting in high rates of overdose and other negative outcomes. Methadone, an OUD treatment, has been shown to be effective in reducing the risk of overdose and improving overall health and quality of life. This study analysed the distribution of methadone for the treatment of OUD across the USA over the past decade and through the COVID-19 pandemic.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational study using secondary data analysis of the Drug Enforcement Administration and Medicaid Databases.

SETTING

USA.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients who were dispensed methadone at US opioid treatment programmes (OTPs).

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes were the overall pattern in methadone distribution and the number of OTPs in the USA per year. The secondary outcome was Medicaid prescriptions for methadone.

RESULTS

Methadone distribution for OUD has expanded significantly over the past decade, with an average state increase of +96.96% from 2010 to 2020. There was a significant increase in overall distribution of methadone to OTP from 2010 to 2020 (+61.00%, p<0.001) and from 2015 to 2020 (+26.22%, p<0.001). However, the distribution to OTPs did not significantly change from 2019 to 2021 (-5.15%, p=0.491). There was considerable state-level variation in methadone prescribing to Medicaid patients with four states having no prescriptions.

CONCLUSIONS

There have been dynamic changes in methadone distribution for OUD. Furthermore, pronounced variation in methadone distribution among states was observed, with some states having no OTPs or Medicaid coverage. New policies are urgently needed to increase access to methadone treatment, address the opioid epidemic in the USA and reduce overdose deaths.

Variation in adverse drug events of opioids in the United States

Background: The United States (US) ranks high, nationally, in opioid consumption. The ongoing increase in the misuse and mortality amid the opioid epidemic has been contributing to its rising cost. The worsening health and economic impact of opioid use disorder in the US warrants further attention. We, therefore, assessed commonly prescribed opioids to determine the opioids that were over-represented versus under-represented for adverse drug events (ADEs) to better understand their distribution patterns using the Food and Drug Administration's Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) while correcting for distribution using the Drug Enforcement Administration's Automation of Reports and Consolidated Orders System (ARCOS). Comparing the ratio of the percentage of adverse drug events as reported by the FAERS relative to the percentage of distribution as reported by the ARCOS database is a novel approach to evaluate post-marketing safety surveillance and may inform healthcare policies and providers to better regulate the use of these opioids. Methods: We analyzed the adverse events for 11 prescription opioids, when correcting for distribution, and their ratios for three periods, 2006-2010, 2011-2016, and 2017-2021, in the US. The opioids include buprenorphine, codeine, fentanyl, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, meperidine, methadone, morphine, oxycodone, oxymorphone, and tapentadol. Oral morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) were calculated by conversions relative to morphine. The relative ADEs of the selected opioids, opioid distributions, and ADEs relative to distribution ratios were analyzed for the 11 opioids. Results: Oxycodone, fentanyl, and morphine accounted for over half of the total number of ADEs (n = 667,969), while meperidine accounted for less than 1%. Opioid distributions were relatively constant over time, with methadone repeatedly accounting for the largest proportions. Many ADE-to-opioid distribution ratios increased over time, with meperidine (60.6), oxymorphone (11.1), tapentadol (10.3), and hydromorphone (7.9) being the most over-represented for ADEs in the most recent period. Methadone was under-represented (<0.20) in all the three periods. Conclusion: The use of the FAERS with the ARCOS provides insights into dynamic changes in ADEs of the selected opioids in the US. There is further need to monitor and address the ADEs of these drugs.