Take-home dosing experiences among persons receiving methadone maintenance treatment during COVID-19

State sequence analysis of daily methadone dispensing trajectories among individuals at United States opioid treatment programs before and following COVID-19 onset

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

US regulatory changes allowed for additional methadone take-home doses following COVID-19 onset. How dispensing practices changed and which factors drove variation remains unexplored. We determined daily methadone dispensing trajectories over six months before and after regulatory changes due to COVID-19 using state sequence analysis and explored correlates.

DESIGN

Retrospective chart review of electronic health records.

SETTINGS

Nine opioid treatment programs (OTPs) across nine US states.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults initiating treatment in 2019 (n = 328) vs. initiating 1 month after the COVID-19 regulatory changes of March 2020 (n = 376).

MEASUREMENTS

Type of daily methadone medication encounter (in-clinic, weekend/holiday take-home, take-home, missed dose, discontinued) based on OTP clinic; cohort (pre vs. post-COVID-19); and patient substance use, clinical and sociodemographic characteristics.

FINDINGS

Following COVID-19 regulatory changes, allotted methadone take-home doses increased from 3.5% to 13.8% of total person-days in treatment within the first 6 months in care. Clinic site accounted for the greatest variation in methadone dispensing (6.2% and 9.5% of the variation of discrepancy between sequences pre- and post-COVID-19, respectively). People who co-use methamphetamine had a greater increase in take-homes than people who did not use methamphetamine (from 3.7% pre-pandemic to 21.2% post-pandemic vs. 3.5% to 12.5%) and higher discontinuation (average 3.6 vs. 4.7 months among people who did not use methamphetamine pre-COVID-19; average 3.3 vs. 4.6 months post-COVID-19). In the post-COVID-19 cohort, females had a higher proportion of missed doses (17.2% vs. 11.9%) than males. People experiencing houselessness had a higher proportion of missed doses (19% vs. 12.3%) and shorter stays (average 3.5 vs. 4.5 months) when compared with those with stable housing.

CONCLUSION

Daily methadone dispensing trajectories in the US both before and following COVID-19 regulatory changes appeared to depend more on the opioid treatment programs' practices than individual patient characteristics or response to treatment.

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.

"I still can feel the sickness": Withdrawal experiences of people on methadone maintenance treatment

INTRODUCTION

Opioid withdrawal is a regular occurrence for many people who use illicit opioids (PWUIO) involving acute physical and psychological pain. Yet, there is very little data on the withdrawal experience of people in methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) and almost none from the patients' experience. Learning more about patients' withdrawal experiences can help to inform policies and practices that are better suited to address withdrawal and may improve patient satisfaction as well as uptake and retention.

METHODS

This article is based on 29 semi-structured interviews with people who use illicit opioids who reported recent withdrawal experience. The study conducted interviews remotely via Zoom between April and August 2022 and later transcribed them professionally. The study team then coded data thematically using Atlas.ti, based on a combination of inductive and deductive coding strategies and informed by the literature and study aims.

RESULTS

Participants described withdrawal as a significant issue that negatively impacts their treatment experience and increases the likelihood of treatment cessation. Their accounts of withdrawal were complex and often involved multiple factors; however, feeling underdosed and missing clinic dosing hours were seen as important vectors that led to their withdrawal experiences. Importantly, participants framed feeling underdosed and missing clinic dosing hours as institutional problems, resulting primarily from clinic policies, practices, and culture rather than from patients' decisions or individual behavior. Specifically, they cited restricted access to take-home doses, limited hours of operation, and a punitive focus on complete abstinence as factors that made withdrawal difficult to avoid.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients' accounts demonstrate a disconnect between providers' focus on promoting complete abstinence and patients, who were often using MMT for more pragmatic reasons that did not include complete abstinence from all drugs. These findings support growing calls for the integration of MMT into the mainstream healthcare system by making it available via prescription from office-based medical settings and dispensed through pharmacies.

State Medicaid Policies Governing Access to Medications for Opioid Use Disorder (MOUD) and MOUD Treatment Use in a Large Sample of People Who Inject Drugs in 20 U.S. States

BACKGROUND

People who inject drugs (PWID) are especially vulnerable to harms from opioid use disorder (OUD). Medications for OUD (MOUD) effectively reduce overdose and infectious disease transmission risks.

OBJECTIVE

We investigate whether state Medicaid coverage for methadone and buprenorphine is related to past-year MOUD use among PWID using cross-sectional, multilevel analyses with individual-level data on PWID from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's 2018 National HIV Behavioral Surveillance. The sample included 8,142 PWID aged 18-64 who reported daily opioid use from 22 U.S. metropolitan areas. Our outcome was any self-reported MOUD use in the past 12 months. Exposures were state Medicaid coverage and prior authorization requirements for methadone and buprenorphine. We interacted these exposures with PWID race/ethnicity, insurance status, and spatial access to treatment and harm reduction resources.

RESULTS

Compared with PWID in states without Medicaid methadone coverage, odds of past-year MOUD use were 73% (p<0.05) higher among PWID in states with methadone coverage requiring prior authorization and 80% (p<0.05) higher among PWID in states with coverage without prior authorization. Insured PWID were twice as likely to report MOUD use than uninsured PWID, with no statistically significant differences between Medicaid versus other insurance. Medicaid prior authorization requirements for buprenorphine were not significantly associated with MOUD use. Non-Hispanic Black PWID were significantly less likely to use MOUD than non-Hispanic White and Hispanic PWID.

CONCLUSIONS

State Medicaid methadone coverage was strongly associated with higher odds that PWID utilized MOUD, suggesting that expanding methadone insurance coverage could improve MOUD treatment in a vulnerable population.

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.

"Tethered to this ball and chain": Women's perspectives on bodily agency within opioid treatment programs

BACKGROUND

Methadone Maintenance Treatment (MMT) reduces the risks associated with opioid use disorder (OUD), including overdose mortality and HIV/HCV transmission, and promotes patient well-being. Nonetheless, MMT is highly underutilized in the United States, with less than 10 % of those with OUD receiving MMT. This study examines how women's feelings of bodily agency while receiving MMT through Opioid Treatment Programs (OTPs) can impact treatment retention.

METHODS

In-depth interviews were conducted with 20 women in Pennsylvania with a lifetime history of criminal legal involvement and use of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), and 12 substance use disorder (SUD) treatment professionals who work with criminal-legal involved women using MOUD. A thematic analysis was conducted using iterative rounds of inductive coding.

RESULTS

While women attested to the profound benefits which methadone treatment can provide, they also described how both formal and informal policies in the OTP system can taper these benefits by diminishing their feelings of bodily agency. Women reported a lost sense of bodily agency due to being unable to provide input in the dosing process, navigating strict requirements that tied medication receipt to compliance, and facing mistreatment or threats of punishment when committing perceived transgressions. Women responded through actions that reclaimed bodily agency, by either leaving treatment or using illicit drugs while in treatment; both of these actions can end women's engagement with treatment. Finally, evidence suggests that these feelings of lost agency may be particularly prevalent among female patients due to gendered judgments about women's histories and capabilities.

CONCLUSION

Findings suggest the need for MMT programs to shift toward patient-centered, trauma-informed care informed by harm-reductionist principles. Concrete policy recommendations include reducing measures of surveillance, prohibiting administrative discharge due to the use of other substances, and expanding access to methadone beyond OTPs.

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.

Patient Challenges in Utilization of Methadone to Treat Opioid Use Disorder and Perspectives on a Solution for Improved Security and Convenience in Take-home Dosing

Background

Methadone is commonly utilized to treat opioid use disorder (OUD). Requirements to visit an opioid treatment provider (OTP) clinic for methadone treatment limits access to treatment, impacts quality of life, and reduces OUD treatment program retention. The Computerized Oral Prescription Administration (COPA) system is a dual-biometric dispensing device for take-home dosing that could reduce the impacts of methadone administration on patients and clinic staff.

Objective

To identify challenges for patients treated with methadone for OUD and gain their perspectives on COPA.

Methods

Adult patients treated with methadone at a single-site OTP clinic were recruited to complete a qualitative interview regarding their experience with methadone and the impact that expansion of take-home doses would have on their life. Participants were provided printed resources describing COPA and handled a COPA device before being asked for their perspectives.

Results

Participants (n=12) were 58.33 percent male and 41.67 percent female, and had no take-home doses (n=5), 2 to 5 days of take-home doses (n=4), or six or more days of take-home doses (n=3). Most (91.67%) participants desired more take-home doses, and 66.7 percent stated more take-home doses would reduce the negative impact of OUD treatment on their ability to work. Average time and cost per trip to obtain their methadone dose at the clinic was 75 minutes and $36.58, respectively. Participants responded positively toward COPA. Participants with no take-home privileges would pay $126.88 per month to obtain take-home privileges by using COPA, and those with take-home privileges would pay $30.31 per month to keep the same level of take-home doses and $117.50 per month to expand their take-home doses using COPA.

Conclusion

Participants endured a monetary and time burden to access their methadone treatment, and wished to have more take-home doses to reduce the frequency of their visits to the OTP clinic. Participants viewed take-home doses as having a positive impact on their ability to care for family members, hold a job, and travel, and they appreciated the key attributes of COPA and were willing to invest their own funds to gain access to the device. COPA is a potential solution to expand take-home methadone access to patients while ensuring safety, adherence, retention, and appropriate use.

Lessons for future pandemics: Temporal evolution and rural-urban variations in the impacts of the COVID-19 on opioid use treatment

The COVID-19 pandemic introduced imminent and lasting impacts on the opioid crisis in the U.S., including a significant increase in opioid overdose and deaths and in use of telehealth in treatment. What lessons can we learn from the treatment transition during the pandemic that could help tackle the opioid crisis when future pandemics strike? In this paper, we conducted a phone survey with opioid treatment facilities in Pennsylvania to examine the COVID-19's impacts on treatment facilities and individuals with opioid use disorder during the first year of the pandemic. We separated the lockdown period (Mid-March through Mid-May, 2020) from the reopening period that followed, and urban areas from rural areas, to explore temporal evolution and rural-urban variations in the COVID-19's impacts. We found rural-urban heterogeneity in facilities' adoption of telehealth in treatment and in challenges and risk factors faced by their clients during the lockdown period. During the reopening, telehealth was adopted by most facilities, and telehealth-related challenges became less salient; however, both rural and urban facilities reported higher relapse risks faced by their clients, citing factors more likely to be at clients' end and related to socioeconomic stressors and mental health. Our results highlight the vitality of addressing socioeconomic and mental health challenges faced by individuals with OUD, via government policies and community interventions, when future pandemics strike. The findings also indicate the importance of maintaining facilities' financial well-being to provide treatment services.

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.

Comparing methadone policy and practice in France and the US: Implications for US policy reform

Despite being among the most effective treatments for opioid use disorder, methadone is largely unavailable in the United States, due primarily to federal and other policies that limit its availability and regulate clinical decisions about doses, visit frequency, and drug testing. There is unprecedented momentum to change decades-old US methadone policies. Yet uncertainty remains as to whether reforms will be adopted and how policies will be implemented. France has among the best methadone access and lowest overdose death rates worldwide. 87 % of French people with opioid use disorder receive methadone or buprenorphine, versus an estimated 13-20 % in the US. France's opioid-related overdose rates are far lower than the US. This article compares French and US systems, including current and proposed US policies, and underscores potential implications for US policymakers. In France, methadone can be initiated in specialty addiction settings and hospitals, with subsequent handoff to primary care. Methadone can be dispensed in community pharmacies and filled like other opioids, without requirements for supervised dosing. Decisions about visit frequency, medication doses, and drug testing are governed by clinical best practices and patient-clinician shared decision-making. In the US, methadone for opioid use disorder is regulated unlike any other medication (including methadone for pain) and is governed by strict federal controls, including from law enforcement and healthcare. With few exceptions, methadone for opioid use disorder is only available in Opioid Treatment Programs. US clinicians cannot prescribe methadone for opioid use disorder. Federal rules determine minimum visit frequency, initial dose limits, and other conditions of treatment, which states may further limit. Policies assert strong influence on patient experience, treatment access, and health outcomes. Despite being less restrictive than the US, the French model includes limits designed to avoid or minimize potential harms. French policies have important implications for potential US reforms.

"If it wasn't for them, I don't think I would be here": experiences of the first year of a safer supply program during the dual public health emergencies of COVID-19 and the drug toxicity crisis

BACKGROUND

In response to the devastating drug toxicity crisis in Canada driven by an unregulated opioid supply predominantly composed of fentanyl and analogues, safer supply programs have been introduced. These programs provide people using street-acquired opioids with prescribed, pharmaceutical opioids. We use six core components of safer supply programs identified by people who use drugs to explore participant perspectives on the first year of operations of a safer supply program in Victoria, BC, during the dual public health emergencies of COVID-19 and the drug toxicity crisis to examine whether the program met drug-user defined elements of an effective safer supply model.

METHODS

This study used a community-based participatory research approach to ensure that the research was reflective of community concerns and priorities, rather than being extractive. We interviewed 16 safer supply program participants between December 2020 and June 2021. Analysis was structured using the six core components of effective safer supply from the perspective of people who use drugs, generated through a prior study.

RESULTS

Ensuring access to the 'right dose and right drugs' of medications was crucial, with many participants reporting success with the available pharmaceutical options. However, others highlighted issues with the strength of the available medications and the lack of options for smokeable medications. Accessing the safer supply program allowed participants to reduce their use of drugs from unregulated markets and manage withdrawal, pain and cravings. On components related to program operations, participants reported receiving compassionate care, and that accessing the safer supply program was a non-stigmatizing experience. They also reported receiving support to find housing, access food, obtain ID, and other needs. However, participants worried about long term program sustainability.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants in the safer supply program overwhelmingly appreciated it and felt it was lifesaving, and unlike other healthcare or treatment services they had previously accessed. Participants raised concerns that unless a wider variety of medications and ability to consume them by multiple routes of administration became available, safer supply programs would remain unable to completely replace substances from unregulated markets.

Critical incidents in Colorado's opioid treatment programs: A comparison of the COVID-19 pandemic to previous years

INTRODUCTION

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) guidance allowed opioid treatment programs (OTPs) greater flexibility to provide take-home medication doses to patients. This study aims to characterize trends in the rates of critical incidents-safety events occurring in OTPs that are reportable to regulatory entities-across all Colorado OTPs during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective review of critical incidents (CIs) for patients enrolled in Colorado OTPs between the years 2017 to 2022, as recorded in Colorado Behavioral Health Administration's (BHA) Opioid Treatment Program Critical Incident Repository Dataset. March 15, 2020 was considered the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in Colorado, so only incidents which occurred from March 15-December 31 of each year were included. CI rate per 100 patients was calculated by dividing CI annual count between March 15-December 31 by the census of enrolled patients at the calendar midpoint of this period, which is August 7. Means comparison tests assessed differences in CI rates.

RESULTS

OTP patient enrollment in Colorado increased from 4377 in 2017 to 7327 in 2022. Overall, Medication Diversion accounted for 70 % of CIs, followed by Death (14 %), and Other (5 %). There was a significant increase in the overall rate of CIs from 2017 to 2022 (1.1 % to 3.4 %). The average post-COVID CI rate was higher than pre-COVID (4.0 % vs. 2.4 %). There was no difference, however, in the post-COVID rate of CIs when exclusively compared to 2019 (4.0 % vs. 4.1 %). Post-pandemic years had significantly more CIs per month than pre-pandemic years (27.6 ± 5.6 vs 15.8 ± 3.5). There was no difference in mean monthly CIs between 2019 and post-pandemic (28.5 ± 5.3 vs 27.6 ± 5.6).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no increase in the rate of reportable CIs in Colorado OTPs following the SAMHSA COVID-19 guidance increasing take-home doses when comparing 2019 to post-pandemic years. The notable increase in CI incidence occurred from 2018 to 2019, predating the pandemic. These data offer a measure of reassurance for the safety of increased take-home methadone doses. There should be further consideration of how a greater number of take-home doses might benefit both patients and OTPs.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on HIV Test Uptake Among People Who Inject Drugs in the Context of an HIV Outbreak

Glasgow, Scotland's largest city, has been experiencing an HIV outbreak among people who inject drugs (PWID) since 2015. A key focus of the public health response has been to increase HIV testing among those at risk of infection. Our aim was to assess the impact of COVID-19 on HIV testing among PWID in Glasgow. HIV test uptake in the last 12 months was quantified among: (1) PWID recruited in six Needle Exchange Surveillance Initiative (NESI) surveys (n = 6110); linked laboratory data for (2) people prescribed opioid agonist therapy (OAT) (n = 14,527) and (3) people hospitalised for an injecting-related hospital admission (IRHA) (n = 12,621) across four time periods: pre-outbreak (2010-2014); early-outbreak (2015-2016); ongoing-outbreak (2017-2019); and COVID-19 (2020-June 21). From the pre to ongoing period, HIV testing increased: the highest among people recruited in NESI (from 28% to 56%) and on OAT (from 17% to 54%) while the lowest was among people with an IRHA (from 15% to 42%). From the ongoing to the COVID-19 period, HIV testing decreased markedly among people prescribed OAT, from 54% to 37% (aOR 0.50, 95% CI 0.48-0.53), but increased marginally among people with an IRHA from 42% to 47% (aOR 1.19, 95% CI 1.08-1.31). In conclusion, progress in increasing testing in response to the HIV outbreak has been eroded by COVID-19. Adoption of a linked data approach could be warranted in other settings to inform efforts to eliminate HIV transmission.

Experience of patients on methadone maintenance treatment receiving take-home methadone doses during COVID-19 pandemic: A multi-site study from India

BACKGROUND

Methadone take-home doses for opioid dependence treatment are strictly regulated due to diversion and overdose concerns, so patients must visit the clinic daily for dispensing. This was also done in India until the COVID-19 pandemic, when lockdown restriction compelled take- home dispensing of methadone. This study examined experience of patients who received take- home methadone during COVID-19 pandemic in India.

METHODS

Observational, cross-sectional design. We contacted all consenting methadone centres in India during the lockdown and selected those that provided take-home doses for the study. Patients who received daily methadone before the lockdown and take-home doses after were interviewed using a study-specific questionnaire.

RESULTS

The study had 210 participants. Take-home methadone was dispensed for 2.5 days on average in each dispensing. When taking methadone at home, 3.3% split their dose 25% took less than the prescribed dose to save it for a rainy days, and 3.3% reported an overdose episode. Adherence improved in 58.6% participants after take-home methadone. Participants perceived many benefits from take-home methadone such as reduced hospital visits and travel time to collect methadone, improvement in work, and financial savings. About 54.3% participants reported storing their take-home doses safely, and 1.9% reported that their family consumed methadone by mistake.

CONCLUSIONS

Take-home methadone was found to be beneficial to most participants in terms of time saved and improved productivity. Preconceived concerns of providing take-home methadone in terms of its overdose, diversion, or accidental ingestion by others are not commonly seen when individuals are provided take-home doses of methadone.

"I'm just searching to get better": Constructions of treatment citizenship on injectable opioid agonist treatment

BACKGROUND

As part of the response to Canada's worsening overdose crisis driven by a toxic, adulterated drug supply, there has been increased attention to and expansion of drug treatment, options, including injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT). iOAT typically involves the, witnessed daily injection of opioids under healthcare provider supervision. There is a robust, evidence base on iOAT; however, there has been less focus on how people engage with this; treatment outside of clinical trials. This paper examines how people engage with iOAT programs, in expanded treatment settings in Canada, focusing on how the broader socio-structural context, shapes patient subjectivities in treatment.

METHODS

This study draws on critical ethnographic and community-based research approaches, conducted with people accessing four iOAT programs in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside; neighbourhood from May 2018 to November 2019. Data included in-depth baseline and followup, interviews and approximately 50 h of observation fieldwork conducted in one iOAT, program and with a subsample of participants in the surrounding neighbourhood. Analysis, leveraged the concepts of biological citizenship and structural vulnerability.

RESULTS

This analysis characterized three narrative frames-regular long-term engagers, pain, patients, and sporadic and short-term engagers-through in-depth case presentations of participants with distinct types of engagement with iOAT programs. Participants within these, narrative frames described a dominant form of iOAT citizenship, an autonomous patient who, regularly engages in treatment and avoids pleasure. However, structural vulnerabilities, including, homelessness and housing instability, entrenched poverty, criminal-legal system engagement, and unmanaged pain, shaped the ability of participants to make claims to this normative model of citizenship.

CONCLUSION

This study examined how structural vulnerabilities impact people's construction and ability to make iOAT citizenship claims. Findings point to the need for changes within and outside of iOAT programs, such as lower threshold treatment models, improved social services (e.g., secure housing), and pain management support.

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.

Insufficient Impact: Limited Implementation of Federal Regulatory Changes to Methadone and Buprenorphine Access in Arizona During COVID-19

Introduction

This study examined the impact of federal regulatory changes on methadone and buprenorphine treatment during COVID-19 in Arizona.

Methods

A cohort study of methadone and buprenorphine providers from September 14, 2021 to April 15, 2022 measured the proportion of 6 treatment accommodations implemented at 3 time periods: before COVID-19, during Arizona's COVID-19 shutdown, and at the time of the survey completion. Accommodations included (1) telehealth, (2) telehealth buprenorphine induction, (3) increased multiday dosing, (4) license reciprocity, (5) home medications delivery, and (6) off-site dispensing. A multilevel model assessed the association of treatment setting, rurality, and treatment with accommodation implementation time.

Results

Over half (62.2%) of the 74-provider sample practiced in healthcare settings not primarily focused on addiction treatment, 19% practiced in methadone clinics, and 19% practiced in treatment clinics not offering methadone. Almost half (43%) were unaware of the regulatory changes allowing treatment accommodation. Telehealth was most frequently reported, increasing from 30% before COVID-19 to 80% at the time of the survey. Multiday dosing was the only accommodation substantially retracted after COVID-19 shutdown: from 41% to 23% at the time of the survey. Providers with higher patient limits were 2.5-3.2 times as likely to implement telehealth services, 4.4 times as likely to implement buprenorphine induction through telehealth, and 15.2-20.9 times as likely to implement license reciprocity as providers with lower patient limits. Providers of methadone implemented 12% more accommodations and maintained a higher average proportion of implemented accommodations during the COVID-19 shutdown period but were more likely to reduce the proportion of implemented accommodations (a 17-percentage point gap by the time of the survey).

Conclusions

Federal regulatory changes are not sufficient to produce a substantive or sustained impact on provider accommodations, especially in methadone medical treatment settings. Practice change interventions specific to treatment settings should be implemented and studied for their impact.

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.

North Carolina Medicaid System Perspectives on Substance Use Disorder Treatment Policy Changes During the COVID-19 Pandemic

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to describe perspectives from stakeholders involved in the Medicaid system in North Carolina regarding substance use disorder (SUD) treatment policy changes during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

METHODS

We conducted semistructured interviews in early 2022 with state agency representatives, Medicaid managed care organizations, and Medicaid providers (n = 22) as well as 3 focus groups of Medicaid beneficiaries with SUD (n = 14). Interviews and focus groups focused on 4 topics: policies, meeting needs during COVID, demand for SUD services, and staffing.

RESULTS

Overall, policy changes, such as telehealth and take-home methadone, were considered beneficial, with participants displaying substantial support for both policies. Shifting demand for services, staffing shortages, and technology barriers presented significant challenges. Innovative benefits and services were used to adapt to these challenges, including the provision of digital devices and data plans to improve access to telehealth.

CONCLUSIONS

Perspectives from Medicaid stakeholders, including state organizations to beneficiaries, support the continuation of SUD policy changes that occurred. Staffing shortages remain a substantial barrier. Based on the participants' positive responses to the SUD policy changes made during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, such as take-home methadone and telehealth initiation of buprenorphine, these changes should be continued. Additional steps are needed to ensure payment parity for telehealth services.

Loss, liberation, and agency: Patient experiences of methadone treatment at opioid treatment programs during the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

Despite its safety and effectiveness, methadone treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) remains highly stigmatized, and stringent opioid treatment program (OTP) attendance requirements create barriers to retention for many patients. The COVID-19 pandemic prompted a shift in federal regulations governing methadone, including a blanket exemption permitting increased take-home doses of methadone. We studied the impact of these changes upon established patients' experiences of OTP care.

METHOD

We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with 18 OTP patients who met our criteria of having established OTP care (i.e., enrolled at the OTP for at least 12 weeks) and were administered methadone three to six days weekly prior to the March 2020 blanket exemption. Interviews centered on how COVID-19 had affected their experiences of receiving treatment at an OTP.

RESULTS

We identified three interconnected themes relevant to transformation of OTP care by the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants described mourning therapeutic OTP relationships and structure (1. loss), yet feeling more satisfaction with fewer in-person OTP visits (2. liberation), and appreciating more opportunities to self-direct their OUD care (3. agency).

DISCUSSION

Structural changes made to OTP care early in the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in loss of community and structure. Increasing the availability of take-home methadone also improved patient experience and sense of agency. Our findings join a diverse body of converging evidence in support of policy changes allowing for more flexible dosing and individualized OTP care.

Benefits and challenges experienced by participants on long-term methadone maintenance treatment in China: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) has been implemented in China for nearly two decades, with a significant decrease in the number of participants in recent years. However, there is a lack of comprehensive research focusing on the long-term effectiveness in the context of this decline, especially from the perspectives of MMT participants themselves. This study aims to address this gap by examining the benefits and challenges experienced by long-term MMT participants in China, to uncover potential causes of the decrease in participant numbers and to improve the effectiveness of the program.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with 21 long-term MMT participants (treatment duration ≥ 5 years) recruited through purposive sampling from 6 MMT clinics in the Guangdong Province, China, between December 2021 and August 2022. Thematic analysis was employed to analyze the transcribed interviews. Two analysts independently coded the data, and a third researcher double-coded 20% of transcripts to ensure intercoder reliability.

RESULTS

Overall, participants corroborated the notable decline in MMT participants during their long-term MMT, citing death, arrest, and self-perceived abstinence from heroin, as their perceived driving factors. They reported positive changes in their health, family relationships, and social functioning. However, they identified economic hardship as their greatest challenge associated with MMT, further exacerbated by other barriers including the conflict of clinic opening hours and working schedules, discrimination from employers, and COVID-19-related restrictions. Additionally, participants identified issues with dose adjustment and emergency treatment continuation.

CONCLUSIONS

This study outlines the overall improvement in the quality of life of long-term MMT participants. However, it highlights the need for official guidelines for dose adjustment and emergency treatment continuation as well as the provision of health education, job referrals, and flexibility of clinic opening times to facilitate the return to society receiving participants. Establishing a follow-up mechanism for those receiving MMT is also recommended to prevent relapses to heroin and other illicit substances.

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.

Retention and critical outcomes among new methadone maintenance patients following extended take-home reforms: a retrospective observational cohort study

Background

Approximately 1800 opioid treatment programs (OTPs) in the US dispense methadone to upwards of 400,000 patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) annually, operating under longstanding highly restrictive guidelines. OTPs were granted novel flexibilities beginning March 15, 2020, allowing for reduced visit frequency and extended take-home doses to minimize COVID exposure with great variation across states and sites. We sought to use electronic health records to compare retention in treatment, opioid use, and adverse events among patients newly entering methadone maintenance in the post-reform period in comparison with year-ago, unexposed, controls.

Methods

Retrospective observational cohort study across 9 OTPs, geographically dispersed, in the National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA) Clinical Trials Network. Newly enrolled patients between April 15 and October 14, 2020 (post-COVID, reform period) v. March 15-September 14, 2019 (pre-COVID, control period) were assessed. The primary outcome was 6-month retention. Secondary outcomes were opioid use and adverse events including emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and overdose.

Findings

821 individuals were newly admitted in the post-COVID and year-ago control periods, average age of 38.3 (SD 11.1), 58.9% male. The only difference across pre- and post-reform groups was the prevalence of psychostimulant use disorder (25.7% vs 32.9%, p = 0.02). Retention was non-inferior (60.0% vs 60.1%) as were hazards of adverse events in the aggregate (X2 (1) = 0.55, p = 0.46) in the post-COVID period. However, rates of month-level opioid use were higher among post-COVID intakes compared to pre-COVID controls (64.8% vs 51.1%, p < 0.001). Moderator analyses accounting for stimulant use and site-level variation in take-home schedules did not change findings.

Interpretation

Policies allowing for extended take-home schedules were not associated with worse retention or adverse events despite slightly elevated rates of measured opioid use while in care. Relaxed guidelines were not associated with measurable increased harms and findings could inform future studies with prospective trials.

Funding

USDHHSNIDACTNUG1DA013035-15.

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.

Experience and insights from the emergency multiday take-home dose methadone dispensing in Ho Chi Minh City in context of COVID-19

Introduction: We aimed to assess the uptake of the pilot multiday take-home dose methadone program during COVID-19 by the patients and document the experience with this novel approach to Methadone Maintenance Treatment (MMT) in Vietnam through this operational research.Materials and methods: A total of 10 clinics were identified randomly using the PPS method. A total of 502 patients were selected from the clinics using a simple randomization technique. The information was collected from the administrative and treatment records and direct face-to-face interview with the patients.Results: None of the clinics reported an incidence of overdose. A large majority of the patients reported that take home methadone program as being convenient (79.6%) and agreed that they shall like to join the multiday take-home dose in future (98.7%).Conclusions: The findings of the current study suggested that the multiday take-home methadone program was feasible and well accepted by the patients in Ho Chi Minh City. It helped ensure continuity of care to patients on MMT during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Opioid use and COVID-19: a secondary analysis of the impact of relaxation of methadone take-home dosing guidelines on use of illicit opioids

Background: An exemption to existing U.S. regulation of methadone maintenance therapy after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic permitted increased take-home doses beginning March 2020.Objectives: We assessed the impact of this exemption on opioid use.Methods: A pre/post study of 187 clients recruited from an OTP who completed a survey and consented to share their urine drug testing (UDT) data. Use of fentanyl, morphine, hydromorphone, codeine, and heroin was assessed via UDT. Receipt of take-home methadone doses was assessed from clinic records for 142 working days pre- and post-COVID exemption. Analysis was conducted using a linear regression model to assess the association between increased take-home doses and use of illicit opioids.Results: In the pre- vs. post-COVID-19 SAMHSA exemption periods, 26.2% vs. 36.3% of UDTs were positive for 6-acetylmorphine respectively, 32.6% vs. 40.6% positive for codeine, 34.2% vs 44.2% positive for hydromorphone, 39.5% vs. 48.1% positive for morphine, 8.0% vs. 14.4% positive for fentanyl (p-value < .001). However, in the unadjusted descriptive data, when grouped by change in substance use, those clients who experienced a decrease in the use of morphine, codeine, and heroin post-COVID-19 were given significantly more take-home doses than the groups that had no change or an increase in the use of these substances. In the adjusted model, there was no significant relationship between change in opioid use and increased receipt of take-home methadone doses.Conclusions: Although take-home doses post-COVID-19 nearly doubled, this increase was not associated with a significant change in use of illicit opioids.

Changes to methadone maintenance therapy in the United States, Canada, and Australia during the COVID-19 pandemic: A narrative review

INTRODUCTION

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, countries across the world made adaptations to policies regulating the provision of methadone maintenance therapy (MMT) to facilitate social distancing for health care providers and people in treatment. Many countries issued guidance about increasing take-home methadone doses after the onset of the pandemic.

METHODS

In this review, we compare the regulation of MMT prior to the pandemic in the United States, Canada, and Australia, analyze changes to treatment policy in the context of COVID-19, and review emerging data on treatment outcomes.

RESULTS

The United States only permits the prescription and disbursement of methadone for MMT treatment at federally designated opioid treatment programs (OTPs). Conversely, Australia and Canada operate on a community pharmacy-based distribution model, where patients can access methadone doses either in participating pharmacies or in some methadone clinics.

CONCLUSION

Given reports of similar treatment outcomes and increased patient satisfaction since the pandemic-related policy changes, some changes including increased receipt of take-home doses should be considered for incorporation into post-pandemic treatment policies and regulations.

Methadone Treatment Gap in Tennessee and How Medication Units Could Bridge the Gap: A Review

The opioid epidemic has been an ongoing public health concern in the United States (US) for the last few decades. The number of overdose deaths involving opioids, hereafter referred to as overdose deaths, has increased yearly since the mid-1990s. One treatment modality for opioid use disorder (OUD) is medication-assisted treatment (MAT). As of 2022, only three pharmacotherapy options have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treating OUD: buprenorphine, methadone, and naltrexone. Unlike buprenorphine and naltrexone, methadone dispensing and administrating are restricted to opioid treatment programs (OTPs). To date, Tennessee has no medication units, and administration and dispensing of methadone is limited to licensed OTPs. This review details the research process used to develop a policy draft for medication units in Tennessee. This review is comprised of three parts: (1) a rapid review aimed at identifying obstacles and facilitators to OTP access in the US, (2) a descriptive analysis of Tennessee's geographic availability of OTPs, pharmacies, and federally qualified health centers (FQHCs), and (3) policy mapping of 21 US states' OTP regulations. In the rapid review, a total of 486 articles were imported into EndNote from PubMed and Embase. After removing 152 duplicates, 357 articles were screened based on their title and abstract. Thus, 34 articles underwent a full-text review to identify articles that addressed the accessibility of methadone treatment for OUD. A total of 18 articles were identified and analyzed. A descriptive analysis of Tennessee's availability of OTP showed that the state has 22 OTPs. All 22 OTPs were matched to a county and a region based on their address resulting in 15 counties (16%) and all three regions having at least one OTP. A total of 260 FQHCs and 2294 pharmacies are in Tennessee. Each facility was matched to a county based on its address resulting in 70 counties (74%) having at least one FQHC and 94 counties (99%) having at least one pharmacy. As of 31 December 2022, 17 states mentioned medication units in their state-level OTP regulations. Utilizing the regulations for the eleven states with medication units and federal guidelines, a policy draft was created for Tennessee's medication units.

Changes in Opioid Agonist Treatment Practice in Germany during the COVID-19 Pandemic: What Have Physicians Done, and What Would They Like to Keep Doing?

INTRODUCTION

Opioid agonist treatment (OAT) is the most common and most effective treatment option for persons with opioid use disorders (OUD). In Germany, the prescription of OAT medications is regulated by the Narcotic Drugs Prescription Ordinance. With the introduction of restrictions to contain the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the German OAT regulations have been amended to ensure a legal continuation of OAT for people with OUD. In this study, we aimed to examine the use of the OAT regulations in practice, the experience made by physicians prescribing OAT medications, and their perspective on OAT regulations.

METHODS

Between September and December 2021, a questionnaire on the current situation and potential changes in the provision of OAT during the COVID-19 pandemic was sent out to 2,416 German physicians prescribing OAT medications. Differences between physicians with and without addiction medicine certification were analyzed.

RESULTS

The response rate of physicians was 22.8%. Their average age was 57.4 (±10.1) years, and 62.3% were male. During the COVID-19 pandemic, take-home periods for stable patients have been extended by 48.2% of physicians, and 52.6% would like to maintain this prescribing practice in the future. Most physicians (71.6%) indicated that patients handled the extended take-home prescriptions predominantly responsibly. A total of 71.8% of the physicians generally did not use video consultation. A corona pandemic-related switch of the OST medication to depot buprenorphine injection did rather not occur, as 71.2% reported no patients treated with depot buprenorphine, and only 2.6% switched first-time or more patients to depot buprenorphine due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

CONCLUSION

The corona situation opened up opportunities for physicians and patients and enabled change processes in OAT. Physicians had positive experiences implementing expanded take-home prescriptions for stable patients. Video contacts rarely took place, suggesting resistance to digital consultation. The number of depot buprenorphine prescriptions has not increased substantially since the pandemic's beginning and has remained at low levels. Further research is needed to assess to what extent the changes in OAT will be maintained over time and whether they will also lead to long-term benefits for OAT patients.

Rethinking urban-rural designations in public health surveillance of the overdose crisis and crafting an agenda for future monitoring

Rurality has served as a key concept in popular and scientific understandings of the US overdose crisis, with White, rural, and low-income areas thought to be most heavily affected. However, we observe that overdose trends have risen nearly uniformly across the urban-rural designations employed in most research, implying that their importance has likely been overstated or incorrectly conceptualized. Nevertheless, urbanicity/rurality does serve as a key axis to understand inequalities in overdose mortality when assessed with more nuanced modalities-employing a more granular analysis of geography at the sub-county level, and intersecting rurality sociodemographic indices such as race/ethnicity. Using national overdose data from 1999-2021, we illustrate the intersectional importance of rurality for overdose surveillance. Finally, we offer recommendations for integrating these insights into drug overdose surveillance moving forward.

Clinics Optimizing MEthadone Take-homes for opioid use disorder (COMET): Protocol for a stepped-wedge randomized trial to facilitate clinic level changes

INTRODUCTION

Regulatory changes made during the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE) that relaxed criteria for take-home dosing (THD) of methadone offer an opportunity to improve quality of care with a lifesaving treatment. There is a pressing need for research to study the long-term effects of the new PHE THD rules and to test data-driven interventions to promote more effective adoption by opioid treatment programs (OTPs). We propose a two-phase project to develop and test a multidimensional intervention for OTPs that leverages information from large State administrative data.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We propose a two-phased project to develop then test a multidimensional OTP intervention to address clinical decision making, regulatory confusion, legal liability concerns, capacity for clinical practice change, and financial barriers to THD. The intervention will include OTP THD specific dashboards drawn from multiple State databases. The approach will be informed by the Health Equity Implementation Framework (HEIF). In phase 1, we will employ an explanatory sequential mixed methods design to combine analysis of large state administrative databases-Medicaid, treatment registry, THD reporting-with qualitative interviews to develop and refine the intervention. In phase 2, we will conduct a stepped-wedge trial over three years with 36 OTPs randomized to 6 cohorts of a six-month clinic-level intervention. The trial will test intervention effects on OTP-level implementation outcomes and patient outcomes (1) THD use; 2) retention in care; and 3) adverse healthcare events). We will specifically examine intervention effects for Black and Latinx clients. A concurrent triangulation mixed methods design will be used: quantitative and qualitative data collection will occur concurrently and results will be integrated after analysis of each. We will employ generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) in the analysis of stepped-wedge trials. The primary outcome will be weekly or greater THD. The semi-structured interviews will be transcribed and analyzed with Dedoose to identify key facilitators, barriers, and experiences according to HEIF constructs using directed content analysis.

DISCUSSION

This multi-phase, embedded mixed methods project addresses a critical need to support long-term practice changes in methadone treatment for opioid use disorder following systemic changes emerging from the PHE-particularly for Black and Latinx individuals with opioid use disorder. By combining findings from analyses of large administrative data with lessons gleaned from qualitative interviews of OTPs that were flexible with THD and those that were not, we will build and test the intervention to coach clinics to increase flexibility with THD. The findings will inform policy at the local and national level.

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.

The impacts of COVID-19 on structural inequities faced by people living with HIV who inject drugs: A qualitative study in St. Petersburg, Russia

BACKGROUND

People who inject drugs (PWID) living with HIV may be disproportionately impacted by pandemic restrictions. This study qualitatively explored the impacts of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on PWID with HIV in St. Petersburg, Russia.

METHODS

In March and April 2021, we conducted remote, semi-structured interviews with PWID with HIV, health care providers, and harm reductionists.

RESULTS

We interviewed 25 PWID with HIV (aged 28-56 years, 46% female) and 11 providers. The pandemic exacerbated economic and psychological challenges experienced by PWID with HIV. Simultaneously, barriers to HIV care access, ART prescription refill and dispensing and police violence, which hindered the health and safety of PWID with HIV, were themselves hindered from normal operations by the pandemic, significantly reducing these burdens.

CONCLUSION

Pandemic responses should account for the unique vulnerabilities of PWID with HIV to avoid worsening the structural violence they already experience. Wherever the pandemic decreased structural barriers, such as institutional, administrative, and bureaucratic challenges and state violence enacted by police and other elements of the criminal justice system, such changes should be protected.

Implications of epidemic-pandemic convergence for routine care adoption of contingency management: A case study

The significant increase in opioid-related drug overdoses during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has put an unprecedented burden on hospital emergency departments, who saw as high as an approximate 150% increase in emergency department (ED) admission rates in the initial months of the pandemic. Although overdose is a clear sign of problem drug use, only a small proportion of nonfatal overdose patients enroll in treatment within 30 days of their overdose. To bridge the gap between opioid overdoses and treatment entry, a smartphone-smart debit card contingency management program was developed to promote entry into medication-assisted treatment by out-of-treatment opioid users who have recently received care in a hospital emergency department. The case study described in this article highlights a successful implementation of this intervention despite numerous disruptions related to COVID-19 that would have made engagement difficult without the remote access to contingency management provided by this technology. Patient status over time is presented in conjunction with contingency management earnings. Technology-based contingency management may provide improved scalability, rigorous outcomes metrics, and lower costs than prior onsite, manual contingency management (CM) approaches. The COVID-19 pandemic, in combination with the opioid epidemic has created a context in which historical obstacles to the adoption of contingency management may be overcome. This case study demonstrates the potential utility of smartphone-based contingency management when in-person care is difficult to access or disrupted. The requirement for further research demonstrating the efficacy of these approaches is discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Patient experiences of methadone treatment changes during the first wave of COVID-19: a national community-driven survey

BACKGROUND

During COVID-19, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) allowed Methadone Maintenance Treatment (MMT) programs to relax in-person MMT requirements to reduce COVID-19 exposure. This study examines patient-reported changes to in-person methadone clinic attendance requirements during COVID-19.

METHODS

From June 7, 2020, to July 15, 2020, a convenience sample of methadone patients (N = 392) were recruited in collaboration with National Survivors Union (NSU) in 43 states and Washington D.C. through social media (Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, and Web site pop-ups). The community-driven research (CDR) online survey collected information on how patient take-home methadone dosing and in-person drug testing, counseling, and clinic visit frequency changed prior to COVID-19 (before March 2020) to during COVID-19 (June and July 2020).

RESULTS

During the study time period, the percentage of respondents receiving at least 14 days of take-home doses increased from 22 to 53%, while the percentage receiving one or no take-home doses decreased from 22.4% before COVID-19 to 10.2% during COVID-19. In-person counseling attendance decreased from 82.9% to 19.4%. While only 3.3% of respondents accessed counseling through telehealth before COVID-19, this percentage increased to 61.7% during COVID-19. Many respondents (41.3%) reported visiting their clinics in person once a week or more during COVID-19.

CONCLUSIONS

During the first wave of COVID-19, methadone patients report decreased in-person clinic attendance and increased take-home doses and use of telehealth for counseling services. However, respondents reported considerable variations, and many were still required to make frequent in-person clinic visits, which put patients at risk of COVID-19 exposure. Relaxations of MMT in-person requirements during COVID-19 should be consistently implemented and made permanent, and patient experiences of these changes should be explored further.

Synthesising evidence of the effects of COVID-19 regulatory changes on methadone treatment for opioid use disorder: implications for policy

As the USA faces a worsening overdose crisis, improving access to evidence-based treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) remains a policy priority. Federal regulatory changes in response to the COVID-19 pandemic substantially expanded flexibilities on take-home doses for methadone treatment for OUD. These changes have fuelled questions about the effect of new regulations on OUD outcomes and the potential effect on health of permanently integrating these flexibilities into treatment policy going forward. To aide US policy makers as they consider implementing permanent methadone regulatory changes, we conducted a review synthesising peer-reviewed research on the effect of the flexibilities of methadone take-home policies introduced during COVID-19 on methadone programme operations, OUD patient and provider experiences, and patient health outcomes. We interpret the findings in the context of the federal rule-making process and discuss avenues by which these findings can be incorporated and implemented into US policies on substance use treatment going forward.

Patient experiences of COVID-19-induced changes to methadone treatment in a large community-based opioid treatment program in Baltimore

INTRODUCTION

Following the March 2020 federal declaration of a COVID-19 public health emergency, in line with recommendations for social distancing and decreased congregation, federal agencies issued sweeping regulation changes to facilitate access to medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) treatment. These changes allowed patients new to treatment to receive multiple days of take-home medications (THM) and to use remote technology for treatment encounters-allowances that previously had been reserved exclusively for "stable" patients who met minimum adherence and time-in-treatment criteria. The impact of these changes on low-income, minoritized patients (frequently the largest recipients of opioid treatment program [OTP]-based addiction care), however, is not well characterized. We aimed to explore the experiences of patients who were enrolled in treatment prior to COVID-19 OTP regulation changes, with the goal of understanding patients' perceptions of the impact of these changes on treatment.

METHODS

This study included semistructured, qualitative interviews with 28 patients. We used a purposeful sampling method to recruit individuals who were active in treatment just before COVID-19-related policy changes went into effect, and who were still in treatment several months later. To ensure a diverse array of perspectives, we interviewed individuals who either had or had not experienced challenges with methadone medication adherence from 3/24/21 to 6/8/21, approximately 12-15 months following the onset of COVID-19. Interviews were transcribed and coded using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Participants were majority male (57 %), Black/African American (57 %), with a mean age of 50.1 (SD = 9.3). Fifty percent received THM prior to COVID-19, which increased to 93 % during the pandemic. COVID-19 program changes had mixed effects on treatment and recovery experiences. Themes identified convenience, safety, and employment as reasons for preferring THM. Challenges included difficulty with managing/storing medications, experiencing isolation, and concern about relapse. Furthermore, some participants reported that telebehavioral health encounters felt less personal.

CONCLUSIONS

Policymakers should consider patients' perspectives to foster a more patient-centered approach to methadone dosing that is safe, flexible, and accommodating to a diverse array of patients' needs. Additionally, technical support should be provided to OTPs to ensure interpersonal connections are maintained in the patient-provider relationship beyond the pandemic.

Ethical Dilemmas Facing Substance Use Counselors During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Introduction

During the COVID-19 pandemic, substance use disorder (SUD) treatment settings experienced several abrupt changes, including decreased admissions, reduction in services, and modified requirements for medication for substance use disorder. While these changes were implemented to facilitate the maintenance of important treatment options, the ethical consequences of such changes remained unknown. The current study aimed to explore ethical issues related to COVID-19-related changes reported by counselors in SUD treatment facilities.

Method

From May to August 2020, we conducted 60 to 90 minutes in-depth interviews with 18 front-line staff in 1 residential and 1 outpatient treatment program, exploring issues drawn from the ethical principles of the national organization representing SUD counselors. Counselors volunteered to participate via phone or email, and participation was confidential. Interviews were conducted via videoconferencing. Topics included day-to-day experiences of ethical dilemmas in the workplace, particularly during the COVID-19 era. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and checked for accuracy and a trained team of analysts then coded transcripts using thematic analysis.

Results

As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, SUD treatment programs quickly modified procedures to adhere to public health mandates while also continuing to offer care to clients. SUD counselors reported several ways their programs adapted new and creative procedures to reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission. SUD counselors also identified several novel ethical dilemmas that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, often resulting from the counselor balancing the needs for responding to public health mandates with providing services to clients. There were several ways that COVID-19 related changes resulted in therapeutic challenges for some clients, and the SUD counselors highlighted ways that changes resulted in more flexible services for other clients.

Conclusions

This study highlights the quick response to COVID-19 that occurred within SUD treatment. While these changes resulted in novel ethical dilemmas, they also offered more flexible and client-centered approaches to treatment.

Nutzen und zukünftige Relevanz der Corona-bedingt befristeten Änderungen in der Substitution in Deutschland

Ziel der Studie Die COVID-19-Pandmie hat die Substitutionsbehandlung vor große Herausforderungen gestellt. An der oft als restriktiv angesehenen Rechtsgrundlage (BtM-VV) wurden befristete Änderungen vorgenommen, um Behandler:innen mehr Spielraum bei der Gestaltung der Therapien zu gewährleisten. Weitreichende Flexibilisierungen wurden in den Bereichen Take-Home-Verschreibungen, konsiliarische Behandlung und Delegation vorgenommen. Zusätzlich wurden neue Vergütungsmöglichkeiten im Einheitlichen Bewertungsmaßstab (EBM) geschaffen. Durch leitfadengestützte Interviews mit substituierenden Ärzt:innen wurde eine Evaluation der befristeten BtM-VV- und EBM- Änderungen vorgenommen.

Methodik Im Jahr 2021 wurden 16 qualitative Interviews mit substituierenden Ärzt:innen aus zehn verschiedenen Bundesländern in Deutschland geführt. Die Interviewten wurden zu ihren Erfahrungen mit den Corona-bedingt befristeten BtM-VV- und EBM-Änderungen befragt. Im Fokus stand dabei, ob die temporären Flexibilitäten dauerhaft in die post-pandemische Praxis übernommen werden sollten. Der Interviewleitfaden enthielt zusätzlich Fragen zu strukturellen Barrieren, Nachwuchsmangel und Stigmatisierung.

Ergebnisse Zur Kontaktreduzierung verlängerte die Mehrheit der Ärzt:innen Take-Home-Rezepte. In Folge machte nur eine befragte Person ausschließlich negative Erfahrungen. Insgesamt berichteten die Ärzt:innen über keine und/oder positive Veränderungen im Therapieverlauf. Behandler:innen nutzten die meisten der befristeten Rechts- und Vergütungsänderungen in der Behandlungsgestaltung. Sie sprachen sich überwiegend für eine Übernahme der befristeten Regelungen in den post-pandemisch Regelbetrieb aus. Kontrovers wurden die Änderungen bezüglich der Aufhebung der Kapazitätsgrenze bei der Konsiliarregelung und der erweiterten Delegation diskutiert.

Schlussfolgerung Die Ergebnisse sprechen für die Übernahme der befristeten BtM-VV- und EBM-Änderungen in den post-pandemischen Regelbetrieb. Die Flexibilisierungen erleichtern die Anpassung der Therapie an individuelle Umstände der Behandler:innen und Patient:innen. Dies könnte dazu beitragen, die derzeitigen Versorgungsengpässe zu entschärfen und mehr Menschen mit Opioid-Abhängigkeit eine qualitativ hochwertige Substitutionstherapie anbieten zu können. Eine Untersuchung und Beseitigung struktureller Barrieren darf bei der Ein- bzw. Fortführung erweiterter Handlungsspielräume nicht vergessen werden. Da gesetzliche Flexibilisierungen zwangsläufig mehr Verantwortung auf die einzelnen Ärzt:innen übertragen, sollte eine verstärkte Unterstützung durch Schulungen und Vernetzung angeboten werden.

Methadone and buprenorphine-related deaths among people prescribed and not prescribed Opioid Agonist Therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic in England

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus pandemic resulted in many changes which had the potential to impact mortality related to opioid agonist therapy (OAT; methadone, buprenorphine), including changes in the prescribing and dispensing of OAT and patterns of drug availability and use. We aimed to assess the impact of the first lockdown (initiated March 23rd 2020) on methadone- and buprenorphine-related deaths in England in people both prescribed and not prescribed OAT using data from the National Programme on Substance Abuse Deaths.

METHODS

This was a retrospective post-mortem toxicology study of OAT-related deaths which occurred in the 3-month period March 23rd to June 22nd in the years 2016-2020. Provisional data regarding numbers accessing treatment for opioid use disorder was provided by the National Drug Treatment Monitoring System.

RESULTS

We found a 64% increase in methadone-related deaths in March to June 2020 compared to March to June 2019 (2019 n = 96; 2020 projected n = 157). There were increases in the mortality rate of both in-treatment decedents (22% increase; 2019 n = 45; an exponential smoothing model of the 2016-19 trend [α=0.5] predicted 44 deaths in 2020, 55 were reported) and decedents not prescribed methadone (74% increase; 2019 n = 46; 2016-19 trend predicted 43 deaths in 2020, 80 were reported). There was no increase in buprenorphine-related deaths (2019 n = 9/529; 2020 n = 11/566). There were no changes in the numbers of deaths where other opioids or multiple substances were detected, or in methadone levels detected. Numbers of people accessing treatment for opioid use disorder in 2020 did not decrease relative to previous years (p >0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Methadone-related deaths in non-prescribed individuals, but not prescribed individuals, increased considerably above the annual trend forecast for 2020 during the first COVID-19 lockdown in England. Further studies are thus needed to understand this difference.

Factors associated with self-reported avoidance of harm reduction services during the COVID-19 pandemic by people who use drugs in five cities in the United States and Canada

BACKGROUND

This study examines individual-level factors associated with avoiding two important health services for people who use drugs-medications for treatment of opioid use disorder and syringe service programs-during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

Data come from two subsamples of people who use drugs who were active participants in one of nine cohort studies in Vancouver, British Columbia; Baltimore, Maryland; Los Angeles, California; Chicago, Illinois; and Miami, Florida. Participants were interviewed remotely about COVID-19-associated disruptions to healthcare. We estimated the association of demographic, social, and health factors with each outcome using logistic regression among 702 participants (medication analysis) and 304 participants (syringe service analysis.) Analyses were repeated, stratified by city of residence, to examine geographic variation in risk.

RESULTS

There were large differences between cities in the prevalence of avoiding picking up medications for opioid use disorder, with almost no avoidance in Vancouver (3%) and nearly universal avoidance in Los Angeles, Chicago, and Miami (>90%). After accounting for between-city differences, no individual factors were associated with avoiding picking up medications. The only factor significantly associated with avoiding syringe service programs was higher levels of self-reported worry about COVID-19.

CONCLUSION

During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, geographic differences in service and policy contexts likely influenced avoidance of health and harm reduction services by people who use drugs in the United States and Canada more than individual differences between people.

Early Career Training in Addiction Medicine: A Qualitative Study with Health Professions Trainees Following a Specialized Training Program in a Canadian Setting

Background: There has been a notable deficiency in the implementation of addiction science in clinical practice and many healthcare providers feel unprepared to treat patients with substance use disorders (SUD) following training. However, the perceptions of addiction medicine training by learners in health professions have not been fully investigated. This qualitative study explored perceptions of prior training in SUD care among early-career trainees enrolled in Addiction Medicine fellowships and electives in Vancouver, Canada. Methods: From April 2015 - August 2018, we interviewed 45 early-career physicians, social workers, nurses, and 17 medical students participating in training in addiction medicine. We coded transcripts inductively using qualitative data analysis software (NVivo 11.4.3). Results: Findings revealed six key themes related to early-career training in addiction medicine: (1) Insufficient time spent on addiction education, (2) A need for more structured addictions training, (3) Insufficient hands-on clinical training and skill development, (4) Lack of patient-centeredness and empathy in the training environment, (5) Insufficient implementation of evidence-based medicine, and (6) Prevailing stigmas toward addiction medicine. Conclusion: Early clinical training in addiction medicine appears insufficient and largely focused on symptoms, rather than etiology or evidence. Early career learners in health professions perceived benefit to expanding access to quality education and reported positive learning outcomes after completing structured training programs.

Nothing really changed: Arizona patient experience of methadone and buprenorphine access during COVID

Objective

To understand patient experience of federal regulatory changes governing methadone and buprenorphine (MOUD) access in Arizona during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

This community-based participatory and action research study involved one-hour, audio-recorded field interviews conducted with 131 people who used methadone and/or buprenorphine to address opioid use disorder at some point during COVID (January 1, 2020- March 31, 2021) in Arizona. Transcribed data were analyzed using a priori codes focused on federally recommended flexibilities governing MOUD access. Data were quantitated to investigate associations with COVID risk and services access.

Results

Telehealth was reported by 71.0% of participants, but the majority were required to come to the clinic to attend video appointments with an offsite provider. Risk for severe COVID outcomes was reported by 40.5% of the sample. Thirty-eight percent of the sample and 39.7% of methadone patients were required to be at the clinic daily to get medication and 47.6% were at high risk for COVID severe outcomes. About half (54.2%) of methadone patients indicated that some form of multi-day take home dosing was offered at their clinic, and 45.8% were offered an extra day or two of multi-day doses; but no participants received the federally allowed 14- or 28-day methadone take-home doses for unstable and stable patients respectively. All participants expressed that daily clinic visits interrupted their work and home lives and desired more take-home dosing and home delivery options.

Conclusions

MOUD patients in Arizona were not offered many of the federally allowed flexibilities for access that were designed to reduce their need to be at the clinic. To understand the impact of these recommended treatment changes in Arizona, and other states where they were not well implemented, federal and state regulators must mandate these changes and support MOUD providers to implement them.

Navigating Opioid Agonist Therapy among Young People who use Illicit Opioids in Vancouver, Canada

BACKGROUND

Opioid agonist therapy (OAT) has been shown to reduce opioid use and related harms. However, many young people are not accessing OAT. This study sought to explore how young people navigated OAT over time, including periods of engagement, disengagement, and avoidance.

METHODS

Semi-structured, in-depth qualitative interviews were conducted between January 2018 and August 2020 with 56 young people in Vancouver, Canada who reported illicit, intensive heroin and/or fentanyl use. Following the verbatim transcription of longitudinal interviews, an iterative thematic analysis was used to extrapolate key themes.

RESULTS

Young people contemplating OAT expressed fears about its addictiveness. Many experienced pressure from providers and family members to initiate buprenorphine-naloxone, despite a desire to explore other treatment options such as methadone. Once young people initiated OAT, staying on it was difficult and complicated by daily witnessed dosing requirements and strict rules around repeated missed doses, especially for those receiving methadone. Most young people envisioned tapering off OAT in the not-too-distant future.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings underscore the importance of working collaboratively with young people to develop treatment plans and timelines, and suggest that OAT engagement and retention among young people could be improved by expanding access to the full range of OAT; updating clinical guidelines to improve access to safer prescription alternatives to the increasingly poisonous, unregulated drug supply; addressing treatment gaps arising from missed doses and take-home dosing; and providing a clear pathway to OAT tapering.

Opioid agonist treatment take-home doses ('carries'): Are current guidelines resulting in low treatment coverage among high-risk populations in Canada and the USA?

Opioid agonist treatment (OAT) is the primary intervention for opioid use disorder (OUD) in Canada and the USA. Yet, a number of barriers contribute to sub-optimal treatment uptake and retention, including daily-supervised medication administration. Thus, clients are eventually granted access to take-home OAT doses (i.e., ‘carries’) to reduce this burden. However, this decision is based on physician discretion and whether patients can demonstrate stability in various life domains, many of which are inextricably linked to the social determinants of health (SDOH). Current Canadian and USA OAT carry guidance documents are not standardized and do not take the SDOH into consideration, resulting in the potential for inequitable access to OAT carries, which may be the case particularly among marginalized populations such as individuals with OUD who have been released from custody. This perspective article posits that current OAT guidelines contribute to inequities in access to OAT carries, and that these inequities likely result in disproportionately low coverage for OUD treatment among some high-risk groups, including individuals on release from incarceration in particular. Relevant impacts of COVID-19 and related policy changes are considered, and suggestions and recommendations to amend current OAT guidance documents are provided.

A Qualitative Exploration of the Functional, Social, and Emotional Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic on People Who Use Drugs

Since 2020, people who use drugs (PWUD) experienced heightened risks related to drug supply disruptions, contamination, overdose, social isolation, and increased stress. This study explored how the lives of PWUD changed in Philadelphia over a one-year period. Using semi-structured interviews with 20 participants in a Housing First, low-barrier medication for opioid use (MOUD) program in Philadelphia, the effects of the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic on the daily lives, resources, functioning, substance use, and treatment of PWUD were explored. Interviews were analyzed using a combination of directed and conventional content analysis. Six overarching themes emerged during data analysis: (1) response to the pandemic; (2) access to MOUD and support services; (3) substance use; (4) impacts on mental health, physical health, and daily functioning; (5) social network impacts; and (6) fulfillment of basic needs. Participants reported disruptions in every domain of life, challenges meeting their basic needs, and elevated risk for adverse events. MOUD service providers offset some risks and provided material supports, treatment, social interaction, and emotional support. These results highlight how there were significant disruptions to the lives of PWUD during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic and identified critical areas for future intervention and policies.