Opioid Use Disorder and Incarceration - Hope for Ensuring the Continuity of Treatment

Caring for Hospitalized Adults With Opioid Use Disorder in the Era of Fentanyl: A Review

Importance

The rise of fentanyl and other high-potency synthetic opioids across US and Canada has been associated with increasing hospitalizations and unprecedented overdose deaths. Hospitalization is a critical touchpoint to engage patients and offer life-saving opioid use disorder (OUD) care when admitted for OUD or other medical conditions.

Observations

Clinical best practices include managing acute withdrawal and pain, initiating medication for OUD, integrating harm reduction principles and practices, addressing in-hospital substance use, and supporting hospital-to-community care transitions. Fentanyl complicates hospital OUD care. Fentanyl's high potency intensifies pain, withdrawal, and cravings and increases the risk for overdose and other harms. Fentanyl's unique pharmacology has rendered traditional techniques for managing opioid withdrawal and initiating buprenorphine and methadone inadequate for some patients, necessitating novel strategies. Further, co-use of opioids with stimulants drugs is common, and the opioid supply is unpredictable and can be contaminated with benzodiazepines, xylazine, and other substances. To address these challenges, clinicians are increasingly relying on emerging practices, such as low-dose buprenorphine initiation with opioid continuation, rapid methadone titration, and the use of alternative opioid agonists. Hospitals must also reconsider conventional approaches to in-hospital substance use and expand clinicians' understanding and embrace of harm reduction, which is a philosophy and set of practical strategies that supports people who use drugs to be safer and healthier without judgment, coercion, or discrimination. Hospital-to-community care transitions should ensure uninterrupted access to OUD care after discharge, which requires special consideration and coordination. Finally, improving hospital-based addiction care requires dedicated infrastructure and expertise. Preparing hospitals across the US and Canada to deliver OUD best practices requires investments in clinical champions, staff education, leadership commitment, community partnerships, quality metrics, and financing.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this review indicate that fentanyl creates increased urgency and new challenges for hospital OUD care. Hospital clinicians and systems have a central role in addressing the current drug crisis.

Fatal and nonfatal opioid overdose risk following release from prison: A retrospective cohort study using linked administrative data

INTRODUCTION

Among individuals who are released from prison, opioid overdose is a leading cause of death with a risk more than ten-fold the general population. Although the epidemiology of opioid-related fatalities has been described, few studies have characterized both fatal and nonfatal opioid-related poisonings. The objective of this study was to estimate risk of fatal and nonfatal opioid overdose among adults released from prison.

METHODS

The study estimated fatal and nonfatal opioid overdose rates using linked corrections, Medicaid, hospital discharge, and vital statistics from the state of Oregon from 2014 to 2018. Multivariable proportional hazards models identified demographic and prison-related factors associated with overdose.

RESULTS

Between 2014 and 2017, 18,258 individuals were released from prison. A majority of individuals were male (87 %) and ages 26 to 64 (83 %). Two-thirds had a documented substance use disorder treatment need and 20 % demonstrated mental health treatment need. Following prison release, 579 opioid overdose events occurred; 65 (11 %) were fatal. The rate of opioid overdose was 1085.7 per 100,000 person-years (PY). Rates were highest in the first two weeks (2286.7 per 100,000 PY), among women (1582.9 per 100,000 PY), and those with mental health (1624.3 per 100,000 PY) or substance use disorder treatment needs (1382.6 per 100,100 PY). Only mental health (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.54, 95 % CI 1.24 to 1.90) and substance use need (aHR 2.59; 95 % CI 2.01 to 3.34) remained significant in multivariable models.

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of opioid overdose is markedly elevated after prison release, particularly in the first two weeks. In women, the higher rate of opioid overdose is mediated by a greater mental health burden.

Accuracy of Ophthalmology Clinic Follow-Up in the Incarcerated Patient Population

Purpose Incarcerated patients represent a uniquely vulnerable population in the outpatient ophthalmology setting, and the reliability of follow-up in this group is undetermined.

Methods This was a retrospective, observational chart review of consecutive incarcerated patients evaluated at the ophthalmology clinic of a single academic medical center between July 2012 and September 2016. For each encounter the following were recorded: patient age, gender, incarcerated status at the time of encounter (a subset of patients had encounters before/after incarceration), interventions performed, follow-up interval requested, urgency of follow-up, and actual time to subsequent follow-up. Primary outcome measures were no-show rate and timeliness, which was defined as follow-up within 1.5× the requested period.

Results There were 489 patients included during the study period, representing a total of 2,014 clinical encounters. Of the 489 patients, 189 (38.7%) were seen once. Of the remaining 300 patients with more than one encounter, 184 (61.3%) ultimately did not return and only 24 (8%) were always on time for every encounter. Of 1,747 encounters with specific follow-up requested, 1,072 were considered timely (61.3%). Factors significantly associated with subsequent loss to follow-up include whether a procedure was performed (p < 0.0001), urgency of follow-up (p < 0.0001), incarcerated status (p = 0.0408), and whether follow-up was requested (p < 0.0001).

Conclusion Almost two-thirds of incarcerated patients in our population requiring repeat examination were lost to follow-up, particularly those who underwent an intervention or required more urgent follow-up. Patients entering and exiting the penal system were less likely to follow-up while incarcerated. Further work is needed to understand how these gaps compare to those in the general population and to identify means of improving these outcomes.

Opioid agonist treatment (OAT) experiences and release plans among federally incarcerated individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) in Ontario, Canada: a mixed-methods study

Background

Incarcerated populations experience an elevated prevalence of opioid use disorder (OUD). Federal correctional institutions in Canada have increasingly treated OUD among correctional populations via opioid agonist treatment (OAT) – an evidence based pharmacotherapy that works to reduce drug use and related health harms. However, there is limited evidence regarding incarcerated individuals’ experiences with institutional-based OAT, as well potential OAT-related community release prospects. This information is important for optimal treatment retention and improved health. To address this knowledge gap, we conducted a longitudinal follow-up study examining OAT-related experiences among federally incarcerated individuals before and after community release. This article focuses on the baseline (pre-release) data.

Methods

This mixed-methods study examined OAT-related experiences and release prospects among n = 46 individuals scheduled for community release, recruited from seven federal prisons located in Ontario, Canada. Participants underwent a comprehensive interviewer-administered on-site assessment, including quantitative and qualitative items. Assessment data was furthermore linked to administrative correctional data. Data were analyzed using thematic qualitative and descriptive quantitative approaches.

Results

Participants had complex histories with opioid use including related negative health outcomes. Experiences with institutional OAT were divergent and provision was not standardized; those with OAT engagement pre-admission did not experience many challenges, whereas those initiating OAT during incarceration experienced barriers such as treatment waitlists and adverse process experiences. Most participants expressed a preference for buprenorphine-naloxone over methadone, but described difficulties accessing it. Participants were keen to transition into community-based treatment, yet envisaged prospective barriers and facilitators concerning successful reintegration and treatment continuity.

Conclusions

Major barriers towards the current administration of OAT in federal correctional systems in Canada exist, including extensive waitlists, non-standardized practices, and challenges accessing preferred OAT formulations; this contributes to sub-optimal treatment. Eliminating waitlists, standardizing OAT provision, providing additional OAT options, and more comprehensive release planning may be essential for treatment retention and positive outcomes.

Comparing characteristics and outcomes of different opioid agonist treatment modalities among opioid-dependent federal men correctional populations in Canada

BACKGROUND

Limited evidence exists in Canada on outcomes related to Opioid Agonist Treatment (OAT) and/or differences between OAT modalities among persons in correctional institutions. This study addresses this knowledge gap by examining key characteristics and outcomes of men in Canadian federal correctional institutions across treatment modalities.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort of men incarcerated in federal correctional institutions (N = 2833) were classified into four groups - three OAT participant groups: prescribed methadone (M-OAT), prescribed buprenorphine/naloxone (Suboxone®; S-OAT) and those who switched between the two OAT modalities at least once (X-OAT). The fourth group was a non-treatment comparison group (Non-OAT). Two-thirds of study participants were released and examined for post-release outcomes. Descriptive statistics and multi-variate Cox proportional hazards regression were used.

RESULTS

The X-OAT group was more likely than the other study groups to have positive urinalysis tests, disciplinary charges, or institutional security or behavioral incidents. Survival analysis indicated that the X-OAT had an adjusted hazard of a return to custody that was 57% greater than the other groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicates that individuals switching OAT modalities are a more complex group needing additional supports, especially for community reintegration. Although few of the returns to custody were due to new offences, a third of participants in the OAT groups had their release revoked, indicating a high need population mostly due to their substance use.

The state of harm reduction in prisons in 30 European countries with a focus on people who inject drugs and infectious diseases

BACKGROUND

People who inject drugs are often imprisoned, which is associated with increased levels of health risks including overdose and infectious diseases transmission, affecting not only people in prison but also the communities to which they return. This paper aims to give an up-to-date overview on availability, coverage and policy framework of prison-based harm reduction interventions in Europe.

METHODS

Available data on selected harm reduction responses in prisons were compiled from international standardised data sources and combined with a questionnaire survey among 30 National Focal Points of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction to determine the level of availability, estimated coverage and policy framework of the interventions.

RESULTS

Information about responses to health harms in prisons is limited and heterogeneous. Cross-country comparability is hampered by diverging national data collection methods. Opioid substitution treatment (OST) is available in 29 countries, but coverage remains low (below 30% of people in need) in half of the responding countries. Needle and syringe programmes, lubricant distribution, counselling on safer injecting and tattooing/piercing are scarcely available. Testing for infectious diseases is offered but mostly upon prison entry, and uptake remains low in about half of the countries. While treatment of infections is mostly available and coverage is high for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and tuberculosis, hepatitis B and C treatment are less often provided. Health education as well as condom distribution is usually available, but provision remains low in nearly half of the countries. Post-release linkage to addiction care as well as to treatment of infections is available in a majority of countries, but implementation is often partial. Interventions recommended to be provided upon release, such as OST initiation, take-home naloxone and testing of infections, are rarely provided. While 21 countries address harm reduction in prison in national strategic documents, upon-release interventions appear only in 12.

CONCLUSIONS

Availability and coverage of harm reduction interventions in European prisons are limited, compared to the community. There is a gap between international recommendations and 'on-paper' availability of interventions and their actual implementation. Scaling up harm reduction in prison and throughcare can achieve important individual and public-health benefits.

Differences in triage and medical confidentiality between prisons of Belgium and the Netherlands

Objectives: The aim of this study is to describe the opinions of prison doctors, and to compare the primary health care in prisons between Belgium and the Netherlands.Methods: Structured interviews, audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim, were conducted with prison doctors in Dutch-speaking prisons in Flanders/Belgium and in the Netherlands. Two investigators analysed the content of the interviews and discussed each individual interview.Results: In total 37 interviews were conducted in 28 prisons (14 in each country). In Belgium, 14 of 17 prison doctors, compared to 1 of 12 in the Netherlands, experienced higher time pressure during their consultations in prison, compared to their private medical work (P < 0.001). In the Netherlands, compared to Belgium, there is more access to psychiatric support (14/14 vs 11/22, P = 0.002), psychological care (13/13 vs 7/22, P < 0.001), and interpreter facilities (15/22 vs 0/14, P < 0.001). Prison doctors in both countries agree that the possibility for a strictly personal encounter with the patient - without the presence of other medical staff - can be very useful (21/22 in Belgium vs 15/15 in the Netherlands). In Belgium, individual consultations with the detainee are not possible.Conclusions: Compared to the situation in the Netherlands, the medical work of prison doctors in Belgium is characterized by time pressure and lack of psychiatric and psychological support. The absence of interpreter facilities in Belgium handicaps the quality of the primary health care in prisons. In addition, the lack of private encounters with a doctor in Belgian prisons violates the patient rights of the detainee.

Opioid Use and Chronic Infections: The Value of Addressing the Syndemic in Correctional Settings Via Telemedicine Guidance and Broader Use of Long-Acting Medications

In the United States, we are experiencing linked epidemics (a syndemic) of substance use disorders (SUDs) and infections associated with drug use, including unsafe injecting and unsafe sex in exchange for drugs or money. Current drug laws, together with risk-taking behavior among persons with SUDs, contribute to disproportionately high prevalences of these conditions in correctional settings. Detection and treatment of diseases with a high impact on public health are best addressed in the settings where such conditions are most prevalent (ie, jails and prisons for SUDs and chronic infections). The effectiveness, safety, cost of care. and public health impact of these conditions can be improved by means of broader screening and expanded access to specialty consultations through telemedicine/telehealth, along with broader use of long-acting medications for the treatment of human immunodeficiency virus and SUDs. Expanding telemedicine/telehealth, first for specialties which do not require advanced technology (eg, infectious diseases, addictions), can eventually lead to further advancements in correctional healthcare.

The Opioid-overdose Reduction Continuum of Care Approach (ORCCA): Evidence-based practices in the HEALing Communities Study

BACKGROUND

The number of opioid-involved overdose deaths in the United States remains a national crisis. The HEALing Communities Study (HCS) will test whether Communities That HEAL (CTH), a community-engaged intervention, can decrease opioid-involved deaths in intervention communities (n = 33), relative to wait-list communities (n = 34), from four states. The CTH intervention seeks to facilitate widespread implementation of three evidence-based practices (EBPs) with the potential to reduce opioid-involved overdose fatalities: overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND), effective delivery of medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD), and safer opioid analgesic prescribing. A key challenge was delineating an EBP implementation approach useful for all HCS communities.

METHODS

A workgroup composed of EBP experts from HCS research sites used literature reviews and expert consensus to: 1) compile strategies and associated resources for implementing EBPs primarily targeting individuals 18 and older; and 2) determine allowable community flexibility in EBP implementation. The workgroup developed the Opioid-overdose Reduction Continuum of Care Approach (ORCCA) to organize EBP strategies and resources to facilitate EBP implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

The ORCCA includes required and recommended EBP strategies, priority populations, and community settings. Each EBP has a "menu" of strategies from which communities can select and implement with a minimum of five strategies required: one for OEND, three for MOUD, and one for prescription opioid safety. Identification and engagement of high-risk populations in OEND and MOUD is an ORCCArequirement. To ensure CTH has community-wide impact, implementation of at least one EBP strategy is required in healthcare, behavioral health, and criminal justice settings, with communities identifying particular organizations to engage in HCS-facilitated EBP implementation.

Improving Access to Evidence-Based Medical Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder: Strategies to Address Key Barriers within the Treatment System

Even though evidence-based treatment for opioid use disorders (OUD) is effective, almost four in five Americans with OUD do not receive any form of treatment. The gap in access to evidence-based care, including treatment with medications for OUD, stems in part from barriers to change within the health care system. This paper includes nine key barriers that prevent access to evidence-based care, including stigma; inadequate clinical training; a dearth of addiction specialists; lack of integration of MOUD provision in practice; regulatory, statutory, and data sharing restrictions; and financial barriers. Action from a number of actors is urgently needed to address this crisis.

Routes of non-traditional entry into buprenorphine treatment programs

Background

Excessive prescribing, increased potency of opioids, and increased availability of illicit heroin and synthetic analogs such as fentanyl has resulted in an increase of overdose fatalities. Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) significantly reduces the risk of overdose when compared with no treatment. Although the use of buprenorphine as an agonist treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) is growing significantly, barriers remain which can prevent or delay treatment. In this study we examine non-traditional routes which could facilitate entry into buprenorphine treatment programs.

Methods

Relevant, original research publications addressing entry into buprenorphine treatment published during the years 1989–2019 were identified through PubMed, PsychInfo, PsychArticles, and Medline databases. We operationalized key terms based on three non-traditional paths: persons that entered treatment via the criminal justice system, following emergencies, and through community outreach.

Results

Of 462 screened articles, twenty studies met the inclusion criteria for full review. Most studies were from the last several years, and most (65%) were from the Northeastern region of the United States. Twelve (60%) were studies suggesting that the criminal justice system could be a potentially viable entry route, both pre-release or post-incarceration. The emergency department was also found to be a cost-effective and viable route for screening and identifying individuals with OUD and linking them to buprenorphine treatment. Fewer studies have documented community outreach initiatives involving buprenorphine. Most studies were small sample size (mean = < 200) and 40% were randomized trials.

Conclusions

Despite research suggesting that increasing the number of Drug Addiction Treatment Act (DATA) waived physicians who prescribe buprenorphine would help with the opioid treatment gap, little research has been conducted on routes to increase utilization of treatment. In this study, we found evidence that engaging individuals through criminal justice, emergency departments, and community outreach can serve as non-traditional treatment entry points for certain populations. Alternative routes could engage a greater number of people to initiate MOUD treatment.

Opioid Overdoses for Recently Incarcerated Individuals: Toxicology Results and Risk Evaluations

Background: The opioid epidemic continues to challenge the United States, fueled by illicitly manufactured fentanyl. All stakeholders involved in fighting the opioid epidemic, from medical providers to policy makers, will benefit from understanding what contributes to overdoses. Recently incarcerated individuals represent a particularly vulnerable population. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of Jefferson County Coroner data for overdose deaths by postmortem toxicology between January 2017 and December 2018. Patients were cross-referenced with Jefferson County Department of Corrections (DOC) records, with inclusion of individuals with violations after January 2016 to focus on recently incarcerated individuals. We analyzed substances found in toxicology reports and substance risk level assigned based on screening by the DOC. Results: A total of 575 opioid overdose deaths occurred in Jefferson County from 2017-2018, with 55 of these individuals having interaction with the DOC after January 1, 2016. DOC population individuals had statistically significant higher findings of amphetamines/methamphetamines. Individuals from the DOC population had higher frequencies of fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, and cannabinoid/THC; however, these differences were not statistically significant. Prisoners with substance risk assessment scores of high or very high had fewer days from release to overdose death. Conclusion: Fentanyl remains a major contributor to overdose death, including those recently incarcerated. Substance risk assessment tools should drive referral for treatment while in prison and at time of release. These results provide better insight into the opioid epidemic and may help guide medical care, specifically for recently incarcerated individuals.

Opioid-related deaths in Europe: Strategies for a comprehensive approach to address a major public health concern

Use of illicit opioids and misuse of prescription opioids are the main causes of drug-related deaths across the world, and the continuing rise in opioid-related mortality, especially affecting North America, Australia and Europe, is a public health challenge. Strategies that may help to decrease the high levels of opioid-related mortality and morbidity and improve care across Europe include risk assessment and interventions to improve the use of opioid analgesics, e.g. prescription drug-monitoring programmes, education on pain management to reduce opioid prescribing, and the implementation of evidence-based primary prevention programmes to reduce the demand for opioids. For patients who develop opioid use disorder (a chronic and relapsing problematic use of opioids that causes clinical impairment or distress), treatment combining opiate receptor full or partial agonist medications for opioid-use disorder (MOUD) with psychosocial interventions is essential. However, in Europe a substantial proportion of the 1.3 million high-risk opioid users (defined as injecting drug use or regular use of opioids, mainly heroin) remain outside of dedicated treatment programmes. More widespread and easier access to MOUD could reduce mortality levels; via approaches such as primary care-led treatment models, and efforts to improve patient retention and adherence to treatment programmes. Other harm-reduction strategies, such as the use of MOUD at optimal doses, the provision of take-home naloxone, the introduction of supervised drug-consumption facilities, and patient education to reduce the risk of overdose may also be beneficial.

Opioid-related treatment, interventions, and outcomes among incarcerated persons: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Worldwide opioid-related overdose has become a major public health crisis. People with opioid use disorder (OUD) are overrepresented in the criminal justice system and at higher risk for opioid-related mortality. However, correctional facilities frequently adopt an abstinence-only approach, seldom offering the gold standard opioid agonist treatment (OAT) to incarcerated persons with OUD. In an attempt to inform adequate management of OUD among incarcerated persons, we conducted a systematic review of opioid-related interventions delivered before, during, and after incarceration.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We systematically reviewed 8 electronic databases for original, peer-reviewed literature published between January 2008 and October 2019. Our review included studies conducted among adult participants with OUD who were incarcerated or recently released into the community (≤90 days post-incarceration). The search identified 2,356 articles, 46 of which met the inclusion criteria based on assessments by 2 independent reviewers. Thirty studies were conducted in North America, 9 in Europe, and 7 in Asia/Oceania. The systematic review included 22 randomized control trials (RCTs), 3 non-randomized clinical trials, and 21 observational studies. Eight observational studies utilized administrative data and included large sample sizes (median of 10,419 [range 2273-131,472] participants), and 13 observational studies utilized primary data, with a median of 140 (range 27-960) participants. RCTs and non-randomized clinical trials included a median of 198 (range 15-1,557) and 44 (range 27-382) participants, respectively. Twelve studies included only men, 1 study included only women, and in the remaining 33 studies, the percentage of women was below 30%. The majority of study participants were middle-aged adults (36-55 years). Participants treated at a correctional facility with methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) or buprenorphine (BPN)/naloxone (NLX) had lower rates of illicit opioid use, had higher adherence to OUD treatment, were less likely to be re-incarcerated, and were more likely to be working 1 year post-incarceration. Participants who received MMT or BPN/NLX while incarcerated had fewer nonfatal overdoses and lower mortality. The main limitation of our systematic review is the high heterogeneity of studies (different designs, settings, populations, treatments, and outcomes), precluding a meta-analysis. Other study limitations include the insufficient data about incarcerated women with OUD, and the lack of information about incarcerated populations with OUD who are not included in published research.

CONCLUSIONS

In this carefully conducted systematic review, we found that correctional facilities should scale up OAT among incarcerated persons with OUD. The strategy is likely to decrease opioid-related overdose and mortality, reduce opioid use and other risky behaviors during and after incarceration, and improve retention in addiction treatment after prison release. Immediate OAT after prison release and additional preventive strategies such as the distribution of NLX kits to at-risk individuals upon release greatly decrease the occurrence of opioid-related overdose and mortality. In an effort to mitigate the impact of the opioid-related overdose crisis, it is crucial to scale up OAT and opioid-related overdose prevention strategies (e.g., NLX) within a continuum of treatment before, during, and after incarceration.