Interest in using buprenorphine-naloxone among a prospective cohort of street-involved young people in Vancouver, Canada

A scoping review on barriers and facilitators to harm reduction care among youth in British Columbia, Canada

BACKGROUND

Progressive harm reduction policies have been implemented in British Columbia, Canada. However, youth who use drugs face barriers to receiving harm reduction care, resulting in increasing opioid-related hospitalizations and drug toxicity deaths. This scoping review collates peer-reviewed evidence to understand the barriers and facilitators faced by youth who use drugs when accessing harm reduction programming in British Columbia, Canada.

METHODS

This scoping review entailed conducting a systematic search of relevant databases to identify relevant articles. Articles were included if they: (i) contained youth falling between the ages of 12 and 26 years old; (ii) explored accessibility, barriers, and/or facilitators to harm reduction care or related topics; (iii) were empirical research articles using primary data (i.e., reviews, grey literature, theoretical or conceptual papers, books, etc. were excluded); and (iv) were available in the English language, given the geographic focus on British Columbia.

RESULTS

A total of 398 sources were identified and ultimately, data from 13 sources were charted and extracted. When investigating barriers to harm reduction care among youth, four themes emerged: self-stigma, service navigation, service delivery, and negative provider interactions. Furthermore, in exploring factors that facilitate harm reduction care for youth, four themes surfaced: ability to meet basic needs, positive provider interactions, social networks, and risk mitigation guidance.

CONCLUSIONS

The expansion of harm reduction services in 2016 did not fully address accessibility challenges faced by youth who use drugs. Barriers continue to hinder harm reduction engagement, while supportive networks, positive provider interactions, and the ability to meet basic needs facilitated sustained access. Tailored policy interventions rooted in equity are crucial to improving access to harm reduction services for youth who use drugs.

Withdrawal during outpatient low dose buprenorphine initiation in people who use fentanyl: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Buprenorphine is an effective treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD); however, buprenorphine initiation can be complicated by withdrawal symptoms including precipitated withdrawal. There has been increasing interest in using low dose initiation (LDI) strategies to reduce this withdrawal risk. As there are limited data on withdrawal symptoms during LDI, we characterize withdrawal symptoms in people with daily fentanyl use who underwent initiation using these strategies as outpatients.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients with OUD using daily fentanyl who were prescribed 7-day or 4-day LDI at 2 substance use disorder treatment clinics in San Francisco. Two addiction medicine experts assessed extracted chart documentation for withdrawal severity and precipitated withdrawal, defined as acute worsening of withdrawal symptoms immediately after taking buprenorphine. A third expert adjudicated disagreements. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

There were 175 initiations in 126 patients. The mean age was 37 (SD 10 years). 71% were men, 26% women, and 2% non-binary. 21% identified as Black, 16% Latine, and 52% white. 60% were unstably housed and 75% had Medicaid insurance. Substance co-use included 74% who used amphetamines, 29% cocaine, 22% benzodiazepines, and 19% alcohol. Follow up was available for 118 (67%) initiations. There was deviation from protocol instructions in 22% of these initiations with follow up. 31% had any withdrawal, including 21% with mild symptoms, 8% moderate and 2% severe. Precipitated withdrawal occurred in 10 cases, or 8% of initiations with follow up. Of these, 7 had deviation from protocol instructions; thus, there were 3 cases with follow up (3%) in which precipitated withdrawal occurred without protocol deviation.

CONCLUSIONS

Withdrawal was relatively common in our cohort but was mostly mild, and precipitated withdrawal was rare. Deviation from instructions, structural barriers, and varying fentanyl use characteristics may contribute to withdrawal. Clinicians should counsel patients who use fentanyl that mild withdrawal symptoms are likely during LDI, and there is still a low risk for precipitated withdrawal. Future studies should compare withdrawal across initiation types, seek ways to support patients in initiating buprenorphine, and qualitatively elicit patients' withdrawal experiences.