Impact of COVID-19 related policy changes on filling of opioid and benzodiazepine medications

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on antidepressant consumption in the Central region of Portugal: interrupted time series

PURPOSE

To evaluate the impact of the pandemic on the consumption of antidepressive agents in Central Portugal.

METHODS

To estimate the causal effect of the pandemic an interrupted time series analysis was conducted. Data of antidepressant drugs monthly dispensed in community pharmacies between Jan-2010 and Dec-2021 were provided by the regional Health Administration. Anti-Parkinson dopaminergic agents and statins, theoretically not influenced by COVID-19 pandemics, were used as comparator series. The number of packages was converted into defined daily doses and presented as defined daily doses/1000 inhabitants/day. A Bayesian structural time-series model with CausalImpact on R/RStudio was used to predict the counterfactual. Analyses with different geographical granularity (9 sub-regions and 78 municipalities) were performed.

RESULTS

When compared to counterfactual, regional consumption non-significantly increased after the pandemic declaration, with a relative effect of + 1.30% [95%CI -1.6%:4.2%]. When increasing the granularity, differences appeared between sub-region with significant increases in Baixo Mondego + 6.5% [1.4%:11.0%], Guarda + 4.4% [1.1%:7.7%] or Cova da Beira + 4.1% [0.17%:8.3%], but non-significant variation in the remaining 6 sub-regions. Differences are more obvious at municipality level, ranging from increases of + 37.00% [32.00%:42.00%] to decreases of -11.00% [-17.00%:-4.20%]. Relative impact positively correlated with percentage of elderly in the municipality (r = 0.301; p = 0.007), and negatively with population density (r=-0.243; p = 0.032). No other predicting variables were found.

CONCLUSION

Antidepressant consumption suffered very slight variations at regional level after the COVID-19 pandemic declaration. Analysis with higher granularity allowed identifying municipalities with higher impact (increase or decrease). The absence of clear association patterns suggests other causal hypotheses of the differences.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on psychotropic prescribing: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

The global prevalence of mental health disorders has risen significantly since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic has additionally caused disruption to mental health services, leading to a shift from in-person to remote service delivery. Given its long-term impact, it has become critical to evaluate whether changes in health delivery during the pandemic have had an effect on prescribing patterns for commonly prescribed psychotropic drugs. This study aims to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on changes in psychotropic prescribing patterns in adults, as well as differences in prescribing in different healthcare delivery approaches across various geographical contexts.

DESIGN AND ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS

Systematic review of cohort, interrupted time-series and cross-sectional studies examining prescribing trends for at least one commonly prescribed psychotropic drug during and after COVID-19 in accessing care remotely or face to face between 1 January 2020 and 17 June 2022.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, HMIC and PsycINFO databases were searched in addition to citation chaining of relevant reviews.

EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS

Study screening, data extraction and quality assessment were completed by two independent reviewers. The PECO strategy was used to devise the systematic review and findings were synthesised narratively.

RESULTS

16 studies were eligible for inclusion. Studies documenting changes in psychotropic prescribing trends provided very conflicting findings. There were no stark differences in prescribing outcomes between different healthcare delivery methods (ie, face-to-face consultations vs remote consultations). A noteworthy finding was that the prescribing rate of benzodiazepines was higher in women than men. No particular trends were observed for the prescription rates of hypnotics, antidepressants or antipsychotics.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings support mixed trends in the prescription of psychotropic medications in a range of settings, hindering conclusive statements on COVID-19's impact on prescribing. In areas where remote consultations are in use, more comprehensive research is required to assess the safety of prescribing in these settings to inform public health policy and assess if the observed trends in our systematic review persist over time (given the increased consideration of remote and telehealth care in delivering services), particularly the safe and effective deployment of these services.

Opioid prescribing in the Netherlands during the COVID-19 pandemic: a national register-based study

OBJECTIVES

The COVID-19 pandemic and related lockdown measures disrupted global healthcare provision, including opioid prescribing. In North America, opioid sales declined while opioid-related deaths increased. In Europe, the effect of the pandemic on prescribing is not yet known. Given the ongoing increase in opioid-related harm and mortality, it is crucial to analyse the impact of the COVID-19 crisis and lockdown measures on opioid prescribing. Therefore, the objective of this study was to characterise opioid prescribing in the Netherlands during the COVID-19 pandemic.

DESIGN

A nationwide register-based study characterising opioid prescribing using aggregated insurance reimbursement data.

SETTING

Dutch healthcare during the first 2 years of the COVID lockdown.

PARTICIPANTS

The whole Dutch population.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Comparing the number of opioid prescriptions during the pandemic with a prepandemic period using a risk ratio (RR), with separate analysis on the prescription type (first-time or repeat prescription), patients' sex, age and socioeconomic status. We also explored lockdown effects.

RESULTS

During the first lockdown, the total number of new opioid prescriptions and prescriptions to young patients (briefly) decreased (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.89 and RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.75, respectively), but the overall number of opioid prescriptions remained stable throughout the pandemic compared with prepandemic. Women, older patients and patients living in lower socioeconomic areas received more opioids per capita, but the pandemic did not amplify these differences.

CONCLUSIONS

The pandemic appears to have had a limited impact on opioid prescribing in the Netherlands. Yet, chronic use of opioids remains an important public health issue.

Global Health Commodities Supply Chain in the Era of COVID-19 Pandemic: Challenges, Impacts, and Prospects: A Systematic Review

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic led to the most substantial health crisis in the 21st Century. This pandemic interrupted the supply of essential commodities for human beings. Among the essential commodities for human survival, disruption of the supply of essential health commodities has become a global concern.

Objective

The study aimed to systematically analyze published articles on the challenges, impacts, and prospects of the global health commodities' supply chain in the era of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

A standard searching strategy was conducted in seven research databases to retrieve pertinent articles. Finally, 459 articles were retrieved for further screening, and only 13 articles were selected for final synthesis.

Results

Almost 38.5% of the studies targeted the supply chain of health commodities used to treat HIV, TB, and malaria. Lockdown policies, travel restrictions, lack of transportation, low manufacturing capacity, and rising costs were the significant challenges indicated for the supply interruption of essential health commodities and COVID-19 vaccines. Findings indicated that the supply interruption of essential health commodities leads to a devastating impact on global health.

Conclusion

Global medicine shortages due to the pandemic crisis can have a devastatingly harmful impact on patient outcomes and might result in a devastatingly long-lasting effect on the health of the world community. Supply-related challenges of the COVID-19 vaccine affect countries' ambitions for achieving herd immunity quickly. Monitoring the pandemic's effect on the health commodities' supply system and designing a short-term and long-term resilient health supply chain system that can cope with current and future health catastrophes is pivotal.

The trend of poisonings before and after the COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has substantially affected people and healthcare systems. One of the main challenges was the reduction and change in the pattern of non-COVID-19 diseases and conditions. Moreover, due to the mental burden of the pandemic, the trend of poisonings and abuses changed. In this study, we aimed to assess the trends of poisonings from different agents before and during the COVID-19 pandemic using the interrupted time series method. This study was conducted at one of the main Tehran referral centers for poisoning, Baharloo Hospital. Pre-COVID-19 period was defined as April 2018 to January 2020 while the COVID-19 time was from February 2020 to March 2022. The total number of monthly poisoning cases in addition to eight categories of drugs/substances/agents were identified, including drugs (such as psychiatric drugs, cardiovascular drugs, and analgesics), opioids, stimulants, methanol, ethanol, cannabis, pesticides, and carbon monoxide. Interrupted time series analysis was performed to compare the pre-pandemic trend of total monthly cases from each category in addition to the proportion (%) of each one. In total, 13,020 cases were poisoned during the study period, among which 6088 belonged to the pre-pandemic period and 6932 were admitted during the COVID-19 era. There was no significant difference in terms of demographic characteristics of patients before and during the pandemic (p-value > 0.05). At the beginning of the pandemic, there was a sudden fall in the number of poisoning patients (- 77.2 cases/month, p-value = 0.003), however, there was a significant increasing trend during the COVID time (3.9 cases/month, p-value = 0.006). Most of the categories had a sharp decrease at the beginning of the pandemic except for methanol and ethanol which had increases, although not significant. Cannabis also had a significant change in slope (- 0.6 cases/month, p-value = 0.016), in addition to the sudden decrease at the beginning of the pandemic (- 10 cases/month, p-value = 0.007). Regarding the proportion of each category from total monthly poisoning cases, methanol, and ethanol had immediate rises of 4.2% per month and 10.1% per month, respectively (both significant). The pandemic had significant effects on the pattern of poisonings from different agents in Iran, the most important of which were alcohol (ethanol and methanol). These differences had policy implications that can be helpful for policymakers and healthcare systems in combating similar situations in the future.

Regional Variation in Opioid-Related Emergency Medical Services Transfers During the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Interrupted Time Series Analysis

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted public infrastructure and healthcare utilization. However, regional variation in opioid-related harm secondary to COVID-19 remains poorly understood. This study aimed to measure the regional variation in the association between stay-at-home orders (SAHOs) and nonfatal opioid-related emergency medical services (EMS) transfers in the United States.

METHODS

In this interrupted time series design, counts of nonfatal opioid overdoses were identified in each week between July 29, 2019 and December 27, 2020 from the National Emergency Medical Services Information System Dataset. A longitudinal, interrupted time series model was used to compare the change in the number of nonfatal opioid overdose transfers between the pre-pandemic period (July 29, 2019-January 6, 2020) and the pandemic period (June 1, 2020-December 27, 2020). The time period between January 7, 2020 and May 31, 2020 was treated as a washout period to account for state-level variation in the timing of SAHO implementation.

RESULTS

We identified 277 141 adult nonfatal opioid-related overdose EMS transfers in the United States across all census regions. After implementation of the SAHO, EMS transfers significantly increased in all regions, with an increase most notable in the Southern United States (2161, 95% CI: 1699-2623 transfers per week). In the post-SAHO period between June 1 and December 27, 2020, EMS transfers declined from this regional peak in the Southern, Midwestern, and Northeastern United States. No change in trend was observed in the Western United States.

CONCLUSION

These findings underscore the importance of tailoring public health policies regionally. While most regions saw a modest decline in opioid-related EMS transfers after an initial increase, the COVID-19 pandemic led to notable increases in opioid-related EMS transfers nationwide. Future research should focus on identifying public health strategies to counteract the deleterious effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on opioid-related morbidity.

Patterns of Opioid and Non-Opioid Analgesic Consumption in Patients with Post-COVID-19 Conditions

Pain is a major health issue for healthcare systems, and access to pain treatment is a fundamental human right. Pain is a common symptom experienced in the post-COVID phase by a significant percentage of patients. This study describes the prevalence and associated factors associated with the use of opioid and non-opioid analgesics in subjects with post-COVID-19 condition. Sociodemographic data, post-COVID symptoms, health profile, and opioid and non-opioid analgesic consumption were collected in 390 subjects with post-COVID-19 condition. We analyzed the independent effect of all variables on opioid/non-opioid analgesic consumption by using logistic multivariate regressions. The prevalence of opioid and non-opioid analgesic consumption was 24.1% and 82.3%, respectively. Tramadol (17.18%) and codeine (7.95%) were the most commonly used opioid analgesics, and Paracetamol (70%) and ibuprofen (45.4%) were the most commonly used non-opioid analgesics. Females were more likely to consume non-opioid analgesics (aOR2.20, 95%CI 1.15, 4.22) than males. Marital status of married/partner vs. single (aOR2.96; 95% CI 1.43, 6.12), monthly income < EUR 1000 VS. > EUR 2000 (aOR3.81; 95% CI 1.37, 10.61), number of post-COVID symptoms < 5 (aOR2.64, 95%CI 1.18, 5.87), and anxiolytics consumption (aOR 1.85, 95%CI 1.05, 3.25) were associated with a greater likelihood of opioid analgesic consumption. Age > 55 years (aOR3.30, 95%CI 1.34, 8.09) and anxiolytics consumption (aOR2.61, 95%CI 1.36, 4.98) were associated with a greater likelihood of non-opioid analgesic consumption. Opioid analgesic consumption was highly associated (aOR 3.41, 95%CI 1.27, 6.11) with non-opioid analgesic consumption. The prevalence of opioid analgesic and non-opioid analgesic consumption in individuals with post-COVID-19 condition was 24.1% and 82.3%. Females with post-COVID-19 condition showed higher non-opioid analgesic consumption than men. Predictors of opioid consumption were marital status, lower monthly income, number of post-COVID symptoms, and anxiolytic consumption. Older age and anxiolytic consumption were predictors of non-opioid consumption.

Prescribed stimulant medications: Trends in the last decade, pre and post COVID-19 response

Background

Recent studies indicate that COVID-19 has had a significant impact on access and continuity to opioid and benzodiazepine medications; little is known about its effect on access to and utilization of stimulant medications.

Objective

To investigate trends of dispensed stimulant medications in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic response.

Methods

Stimulant prescriptions dispensed during 2011-2021 were analyzed using the Massachusetts Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP), the state's data repository for all controlled substance medications dispensed to residents from retail pharmacies and out of state mail-order pharmacies. Statewide trends were estimated by age group, sex, and stimulant-naïve patients (individuals with no stimulant prescription in the prior one-year period).

Results

Overall, stimulant prescriptions increased 70% from 2011 to 2021. Wide differences by sex and age groups were found pre and post COVID response periods. Between 2019 and 2021, stimulant prescriptions for males 12-18 years old decreased 14.6% compared to 0.9% for females. Female stimulant-naïve patients ages 25-34 increased more than males between 2019 and 2021 (11.6% compared to <1%, respectively) and females ages 35-44 increased 4.1% while males decreased by 2.7%.

Conclusions

Administrators, clinicians, and policy makers should closely monitor stimulant prescribing trends, a critical step in improving access to and quality of care.

The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the prescribing of opioid and opioid use disorder medications within an academic medical center in California

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic impacted healthcare operations affecting many patients with chronic pain and substance use disorder. Our study aimed to evaluate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on opioid and opioid use disorder (OUD) medication prescribing practices within a large academic health system in southern California.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study included patients who received a prescription for chronic opioids or therapy for OUD between November 1, 2019 and September 1, 2020. The date range was divided into five specific time periods during the pandemic: November through December 2019 (pre-COVID and reference period), January through February 2020 (early COVID), March through April 2020 (policy/guidance change period), May through June 2020 (early post-guidance period), and July through August 2020 (late post-guidance period). The primary outcome was change in morphine milligram equivalents (MME) prescribed. Secondary outcomes included encounter type, mode of prescription ordering, naloxone prescriptions, and urine drug screen obtainment.

Results

The cohort included 100 patients divided among the designated time periods. Seventy-percent of patients received opioids for chronic non-malignant pain and 10% received therapy for OUD. Although there were numerical increases in MMEs prescribed, no significant changes were seen in the MMEs prescribed at any timepoint relative to the pre-COVID timeframe despite reduced in-person visits, increased video and telephone encounters and increased electronic prescription utilization. Subgroup analyses of those with chronic pain only or OUD had similar findings.

Conclusion

It appears that, generally, prescribing practices were sustained despite the various phases of the pandemic including transitions to and from telemedicine.

Impacts of the New York State COVID-19 disaster emergency orders on prescription dispensing for opioids and medication for opioid use disorder

AIMS

The aim of this study is to examine whether the March 2020 New York State (NYS) SARS-CoV-2 emergency orders were associated with an initial surge in opioid dispensing and a longer-term reduction in access to medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD).

DESIGN

Time-series analyses of the dispensing of non-MOUD opioid and MOUD prescriptions using IQVIA's longitudinal prescription claims database (n = 16 087 429) in NYS by week, from 1 January 2018 to 31 July 2020. IQVIA is a multi-national company that provides biopharmaceutical development and commercial outsourcing services.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

NYS Zone Improvement Plan (ZIP) codes (n = 1218) in which prescriptions were dispensed.

MEASUREMENT

For each ZIP code, for each week, the following dispensing measures were calculated: total weekly morphine milligram equivalents/day (MME/day), total weekly MME/day dispensed via prescriptions for ≤ 7 days and the count of MOUD prescriptions dispensed. Differences in dispensing metrics, comparing each week in 2020 with corresponding weeks in 2019, were calculated for each ZIP code.

RESULTS

During the study period, weekly MME/day per ZIP code of dispensed non-MOUD opioids steadily declined. Compared with the difference in dispensing between 2019 and 2020 during the first week in 2020, there was a significantly larger drop in dispensed weekly total MME/day beginning 21 March 2020, and lasting until the week of 17 April (P < 0.05 for each week). Mean weekly total MME/day dispensed from 21 March to 17 April 2020 was 17.07% lower [95% confidence interval (CI) = 13.97%, 20.17%] than in the 4 weeks before 21 March almost entirely due to a drop in MME/day dispensed for prescriptions of ≤ 7 days. There was not a discernable drop in MOUD dispensing associated with the period of the emergency orders.

CONCLUSIONS

New York State emergency orders in March 2020 to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission and preserve hospital capacity appeared to be associated with a decline in dispensing of opioids not used as MOUD. Access to MOUD appeared to be unaffected by the orders, probably because of policy initiatives by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

Sex differences among users of NSAIDs and opioids during COVID-19 Pandemic

BACKGROUND

Sex-based inequalities in healthcare have been exposed and amplified during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, few studies have reported sex differences in medication utilization and no studies have examined sex differences in prescribed non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and opioids utilization.

AIM

To compare the utilization patterns of prescribed NSAIDs and opioids between males and females in Manitoba, Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHOD

A cohort of incident and prevalent users of prescribed NSAIDs and opioids was created. Interrupted times series analysis using autoregressive models were used to evaluate the quarterly change in the prevalent and incident users before and after COVID-19 restrictions were applied (first quarter of 2020).

RESULTS

COVID-19 restrictions were associated with a significant decrease in the utilization of prescribed NSAIDs and opioids in all users, followed by a revert to the pre-pandemic trends. Among female prevalent and incident NSAIDs users, there was a significant change in trend after COVID-19 restrictions were introduced (β₃ = 0.087 and 0.078, P = 0.023 and 0.028, respectively). However, there was non-significant change in trend among male prevalent and incident NSAIDs and opioids users during the pandemic.

CONCLUSION

In this study, a significant sharp decline in the use of prescribed NSAIDs and opioids was shown in both sexes at the onset of the pandemic. However, a significant upward trend is observed in female NSAIDs users as restrictions began to be lifted.

Illicit Substance Use and the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States: A Scoping Review and Characterization of Research Evidence in Unprecedented Times

We carried out a scoping review to characterize the primary quantitative evidence addressing changes in key individual/structural determinants of substance use risks and health outcomes over the first two waves of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States (US). We systematically queried the LitCovid database for US-only studies without date restrictions (up to 6 August 2021). We extracted quantitative data from articles addressing changes in: (a) illicit substance use frequency/contexts/behaviors, (b) illicit drug market dynamics, (c) access to treatment and harm reduction services, and (d) illicit substance use-related health outcomes/harms. The majority of 37 selected articles were conducted within metropolitan locations and leveraged historical timeseries medical records data. Limited available evidence supported changes in frequency/behaviors/contexts of substance use. Few studies point to increases in fentanyl and reductions in heroin availability. Policy-driven interventions to lower drug use treatment thresholds conferred increased access within localized settings but did not seem to significantly prevent broader disruptions nationwide. Substance use-related emergency medical services' presentations and fatal overdose data showed a worsening situation. Improved study designs/data sources, backed by enhanced routine monitoring of illicit substance use trends, are needed to characterize substance use-related risks and inform effective responses during public health emergencies.

Psychotropic Medication Use Before and During COVID-19: A Population-Wide Study

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and public health measures that took place have led to concerns regarding mental health and receipt of psychotropic medications. We aimed to study the changes in psychotropic medication dispensation rates before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in the general population.

Methods: Administrative health data from the Canadian province of Manitoba was used to describe the quarterly incidence and prevalence of antipsychotics, antidepressants, and anxiolytic/sedative-hypnotics from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2020. Individuals who received at least one prescription within each quarter were considered exposed to the medication. The denominator was the total population within each quarter. Incidence was defined as no receipt of medication in the 3 years prior to the quarter of interest. Autoregression models for time series data plus indicator variables were used to compare each quarter of 2020 after public health measures were implemented in March 2020 in relation to the expected trend. Analyses were stratified by age and sex.

Results: There were 1,394,885 individuals in the first quarter of 2020, with a mean (SD) age of 38.9 (23.4) years, 50.3% were female, and 36.1% had a psychiatric diagnosis in the previous 5 years. A significant decrease was observed for incident antidepressant use (p < 0.05 for both sexes and all age groups except for those 65 years and older) and anxiolytic use (p < 0.05 for both sexes and all age groups except 80 years and older) in the second quarter (April-June) of 2020 compared to the expected trend. Females and those aged 40 years and older had a significantly higher incidence of antidepressant and antipsychotic use in the final quarter of 2020 compared to the expected trend (p < 0.05).

Conclusion: Our findings indicate a decrease in new prescriptions for antidepressants and anxiolytics in the 3 months after COVID-19 in-person restrictions were first implemented. We then observed an increase in the new use of antidepressants and antipsychotics at the end of 2020, in females and people aged 40 years and older, with the highest rates of use in the population 80 years and older.

Use of anxiolytics and hypnotic drugs during COVID-19 pandemic: The literature review

Anxiolytics and hypnotics are widely used drugs. First-line psychiatric indications for benzodiazepines (BZD) are alcohol/sedative-hypnotic withdrawal and catatonia, while panic disorder, general anxiety disorder, social anxiety disorder and insomnia are indications after failing of first/second-line treatments, and its use is recommended only for a short time. The spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus influenced regular daily living, psychological, social, and economic stability. The COVID-19 pandemic has a multifactorial effect on people's mental health and has directly and indirectly influenced changing trends in the prescription, use and misuse of anxiolytics and hypnotics during the pandemic. This article will show use of anxiolytics and hypnotics in inpatients with SARS-CoV-2 infection with or without delirium, will present recommendation for BZD utilization in the infected individuals and will review interactions between BZD and antiviral drugs. Moreover, it will summarize available data on the frequency and reasons for use and abuse of BZD in the general population during the pandemic.

Substitution of Nonpharmacologic Therapy With Opioid Prescribing for Pain During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Importance

During the pandemic, access to medical care unrelated to COVID-19 was limited because of concerns about viral spread and corresponding policies. It is critical to assess how these conditions affected modes of pain treatment, given the addiction risks of prescription opioids.

Objective

To assess the trends in opioid prescription and nonpharmacologic therapy (ie, physical therapy and complementary medicine) for pain management during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 compared with the patterns in 2019.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective, cross-sectional study used weekly claims data from 24 million US patients in a nationwide commercial insurance database (Optum's deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart Database) from January 1, 2019, to September 31, 2020. Among patients with diagnoses of limb, extremity, or joint pain, back pain, and neck pain for each week, patterns of treatment use were identified and evaluated. Data analysis was performed from April 1, 2021, to September 31, 2021.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcomes of interest were weekly rates of opioid prescriptions, the strength and duration of related opioid prescriptions, and the use of nonpharmacologic therapy. Transition rates between different treatment options before the outbreak and during the early months of the pandemic were also assessed.

Results

A total of 21 430 339 patients (mean [SD] age, 48.6 [24.0] years; 10 960 507 [51.1%] female; 909 061 [4.2%] Asian, 1 688 690 [7.9%] Black, 2 276 075 [10.6%] Hispanic, 11 192 789 [52.2%] White, and 5 363 724 [25.0%] unknown) were enrolled during the first 3 quarters in 2019 and 20 759 788 (mean [SD] age, 47.0 [23.8] years; 10 695 690 [51.5%] female; 798 037 [3.8%] Asian; 1 508 023 [7.3%] Black, 1 976 248 [9.5%] Hispanic, 10 059 597 [48.5%] White, and 6 417 883 [30.9%] unknown) in the first 3 quarters of 2020. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the proportion of patients receiving a pain diagnosis was smaller than that for the same period in 2019 (mean difference, -15.9%; 95% CI, -16.1% to -15.8%). Patients with pain were more likely to receive opioids (mean difference, 3.5%; 95% CI, 3.3%-3.7%) and less likely to receive nonpharmacologic therapy (mean difference, -6.0%; 95% CI, -6.3% to -5.8%), and opioid prescriptions were longer and more potent during the early pandemic in 2020 relative to 2019 (mean difference, 1.07 days; 95% CI, 1.02-1.17 days; mean difference, 0.96 morphine milligram equivalents; 95% CI, 0.76-1.20). Analysis of individuals' transitions between treatment options for pain found that patients were more likely to transition out of nonpharmacologic therapy, replacing it with opioid prescriptions for pain management during the COVID-19 pandemic than in the year before.

Conclusions and Relevance

Nonpharmacologic therapy is a benign treatment for pain often recommended instead of opioid therapy. The decrease in nonpharmacologic therapy and increase in opioid prescription during the COVID-19 pandemic found in this cross-sectional study, especially given longer days of prescription and more potent doses, may exacerbate the US opioid epidemic. These findings suggest that it is imperative to investigate the implications of limited medical access on treatment substitution, which may increase patient risk, and implement policies and guidelines to prevent those substitutions.

Did drug use increase following COVID-19 relaxation of methadone take-out regulations? 2020 was a complicated year

Background

Relaxation of federal regulations for methadone take-out dosing during the COVID-19 pandemic is unprecedented. The impact of this change on drug use is unknown. This study explores the impact of the federal take-out variance on drug use in one urban opioid treatment program as measured by drug testing.

Methods

This study collected drug test results from 613 patients receiving methadone from July 2020, following COVID-19-related take-out dose adjustments, and July 2019 for comparison. Using a generalized linear mixed model, we computed the average estimated probability of a positive drug test for each year for each take-out phase. To isolate the effect of changing take-out, we removed the main effect of year, while retaining the main effect of take-out phase and the interaction between year and phase.

Results

The percent of drug tests positive for opiates, benzodiazepines, and methamphetamine was greater in July 2020 than in July 2019 (p < 0.001 for each), while the percent of tests negative for methadone increased (p < 0.001). Oxycodone, barbiturate, and cocaine positive tests remained stable. In a separate analysis of opioid and non-opioid test results, take-out phase was associated with both opioid and non-opioid positive results (p < 0.001, each outcome). The association of take-out phase with opioid and non-opioid positive results differed in the two years (year-by-phase interaction p < 0.025, each outcome). After removing the year main effect, the rate of positive tests was lower in 2020 for the smallest number of take-out doses, higher for a moderate number of take-out doses, and about the same for the highest number of take-out doses.

Conclusions

Positive opioid and non-opioid drug tests increased following the federal variance allowing more methadone take-out doses, but these findings cannot fully be attributed to alterations in the take-out schedule.

Benzodiazepine Misuse: An Epidemic Within a Pandemic

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) had deleterious effects on patients with mental health problems and several studies have shown a spike in the rates of depression, insomnia, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Anxiety and insomnia rates have also increased among both the general public and health care professionals. Benzodiazepines are some of the most commonly used drugs in the treatment of anxiety and insomnia. However, benzodiazepines are also misused, abused alone, or abused in combination with other drugs. Lockdowns and social distancing have also had negative consequences on patients with mental health problems. We assessed the extent of benzodiazepine use during the pandemic and interpreted its effects in the future. We conducted a literature search using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol and eight articles reviewed specifically reported worrying fluctuations in benzodiazepine use during the pandemic. We observed varied trends in the usage of benzodiazepines in various parts of the world. Some studies showed an increase in the consumption of benzodiazepine while others demonstrated a decrease in the prescription refills of benzodiazepine, which may be a result of gaps in mental health care. At this time, we can conclude that the current trend with benzodiazepine use is fluctuating and mental health professionals must continue to exercise caution before prescribing benzodiazepines. Future research is also warranted to be aware of the changing patterns and to avoid misuse and/or abuse at an epidemic level.

Switching pharmacies leads to gaps in medication possession in individuals treated with buprenorphine

BACKGROUND

Not all pharmacies stock and dispense buprenorphine, potentially complicating continuous access to care for patients with opioid use disorder (OUD). This may become problematic if a patient's primary pharmacy can no longer provide buprenorphine, and the patient cannot locate a new pharmacy.

OBJECTIVES

To identify how often patients treated with buprenorphine for OUD switch pharmacies and to estimate the association between switching pharmacies and a clinically significant gap in therapy of 7 days or longer.

METHODS

A retrospective repeated measures longitudinal cohort design was used. Patients initiating treatment with a buprenorphine product indicated for OUD were identified from the 2016-2018 Texas Prescription Monitoring Program. The predictor of interest-switching pharmacies-was defined by comparing the dispensaries used between subsequent prescriptions. The outcome of interest was defined as a gap in medication possession of 7 days or longer on the basis of the National Quality Forum's definition of continuity of pharmacotherapy for OUD. A generalized estimating equation approach was used to estimate a repeated measures logistic regression measuring the association between switching pharmacies and a gap in therapy.

RESULTS

Of 13,375 eligible patients, 29.6% switched pharmacies at least once during treatment, and 51.6% of these did so more than once. The median time to initial switch was 30 days (interquartile range: 13-66 days). When patients switched pharmacies, they were significantly more likely to have a gap in therapy of between 7 and 29 days (adjusted odds ratio 1.67 [95% CI 1.57-1.78]).

CONCLUSION

Patients receiving buprenorphine switch pharmacies early and frequently in treatment, which leads to clinically significant gaps in therapy. Although qualitative explanatory work is needed to understand why patients switch pharmacies so often, pharmacists and prescribers must ensure that patients have reliable access to a convenient source of buprenorphine to prevent gaps in therapy.

The Early Impact of COVID-19 on Chronic Pain: A Cross-Sectional Investigation of a Large Online Sample of Individuals with Chronic Pain in the United States, April to May, 2020

OBJECTIVE

Individuals with chronic pain are uniquely challenged by the COVID-19 pandemic, as increased stress may exacerbate chronic pain, and there are new barriers to receiving chronic pain treatment. In light of this, using a large online sample in the United States, we examined 1) the early impact of COVID-19 on pain severity, pain interference, and chronic pain management; and 2) variables associated with perceived changes in pain severity and pain interference.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional study.

METHODS

Online survey data for 1,453 adults with chronic pain were collected via Amazon's Mechanical Turk platform.

RESULTS

Although a large proportion of participants reported no perceived changes in their pain severity and pain interference since the outbreak, approximately 25-30% of individuals reported exacerbation in these domains. Individuals identifying as Black and of non-Hispanic origin, who experienced greater disruptions in their mood and sleep quality, were more likely to report worsened pain interference. The majority of participants reported engaging in self-management strategies as usual. However, most appointments for chronic pain treatment were either postponed or canceled, with no future session scheduled. Furthermore, a notable proportion of participants had concerns about or difficulty accessing prescription opioids due to COVID-19.

CONCLUSIONS

We may expect to see a long-term exacerbation of chronic pain and related interference in functioning and chronic pain management among individuals most impacted by the pandemic. These individuals may benefit from remotely delivered intervention to effectively mitigate COVID-19-related exacerbations in chronic pain and interruptions in face-to-face treatment.