The State of the Research on Opioid Outcomes Among Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Other Sexuality- and Gender-Diverse Populations: A Scoping Review

Informing evidence-based medicine for opioid use disorder using pharmacoeconomic studies

INTRODUCTION

The health and economic consequences of inadequately treated opioid use disorder (OUD) are substantial. Healthcare systems in the United States (US) and other countries are facing a growing healthcare crisis due to opioids. Although effective medications for OUD exist, relying solely on clinical information is insufficient for addressing the opioid crisis.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, the role of pharmacoeconomic studies in informing evidence-based medication treatment for OUD is discussed, with a particular emphasis on the US healthcare system, where the economic burden is significantly higher than the global average. The scope/objective of pharmacoeconomics as a distinct scientific research program is briefly defined, followed by a discussion of existing evidence informed by data from systematic reviews, in addition to a convenience sample of recently published pharmacoeconomic studies and protocols. The review also explores the need for methodological advancements in the field.

EXPERT OPINION

Despite the potential of pharmacoeconomic research in shaping evidence-based medicine for OUD, significant challenges limiting its real-world application remain. How to address these challenges are explored, including how to combine cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses to address the needs of the healthcare system as a whole and specific stakeholders interested in adopting new OUD treatment strategies.

Opioid use, prescribing and fatal overdose patterns among racial/ethnic minorities in the United States: A scoping review and conceptual risk environment model

ISSUES

To date, there has been no synthesis of research addressing the scale and nuances of the opioid epidemic in racial/ethnic minority populations in the United States that considers the independent and joint impacts of dynamics such as structural disadvantage, provider bias, health literacy, cultural norms and various other risk factors.

APPROACH

Using the "risk environment" framework, we conducted a scoping review on PubMed, Embase and Google Scholar of peer-reviewed literature and governmental reports published between January 2000 and February 2024 on the nature and scale of opioid use, opioid prescribing patterns, and fatal overdoses among racial/ethnic minorities in the United States, while also examining macro, meso and individual-level risk factors.

KEY FINDINGS

Results from this review illuminate a growing, but fragmented, literature lacking standardisation in racial/ethnic classification and case reporting, specifically in regards to Indigenous and Asian subpopulations. This literature broadly illustrates racial/ethnic minorities' increasing nonmedical use of opioids, heightened burdens of fatal overdoses, specifically in relation to polydrug use and synthetic opioids, with notable elevations among Black/Latino subgroups, in addition uneven opioid prescribing patterns. Moreover, the literature implicates a variety of unique risk environments corresponding to dynamics such as residential segregation, provider bias, overpolicing, acculturative stress, patient distrust, and limited access to mental health care services and drug treatment resources, including medications for opioid use disorder.

IMPLICATIONS

There has been a lack of rigorous, targeted study on racial/ethnic minorities who use opioids, but evidence highlights burgeoning increases in usage, especially polydrug/synthetic opioid use, and disparities in prescriptions and fatal overdose risk-phenomena tied to multi-level forms of entrenched disenfranchisement.

CONCLUSION

There is a need for further research on the complex, overlapping risk environments of racial/ethnic minorities who use opioids, including deeper inclusion of Indigenous and Asian individuals, and efforts to generate greater methodological synergies in population classification and reporting guidelines.

Gender identity, stimulant drug use, and criminal justice history on internalized stigma among a nationally representative sample of adults who misuse opioids

PURPOSE

The rise of fatal stimulant use among adults who use opioids is a public health problem. Internalized stigma is a barrier to substance use treatment, which is greater for women and populations with criminal justice involvement.

METHODS

Using a nationally representative sample of adults in the United States from a probability-based survey on household opinions in 2021, we examined characteristics of women (n = 289) and men (n = 416) who misuse opioids. In gender-stratified multivariable linear regression, we investigated factors associated with internalized stigma, and tested for the interaction of stimulant use and criminal justice involvement.

RESULTS

Compared to men, women reported greater mental health symptom severity (3.2 vs. 2.7 on a 1 to 6 scale, p < 0.001). Internalized stigma was similar between women (2.3 ± 1.1) and men (2.2 ± 0.1). Among women and not men, however, stimulant use was positively associated with internalized stigma (0.36, 95% CI [0.07, 0.65]; p = 0.02). Interaction between stimulant use and criminal justice involvement was negatively associated with internalized stigma among women (- 0.60, 95% CI [- 1.16, -0.04]; p = 0.04); among men, the interaction was not significant. Predictive margins illustrate among women, stimulant use eliminated the gap in internalized stigma such that women with no criminal justice involvement had a similar level of internalized stigma as women with criminal justice involvement.

CONCLUSION

Internalized stigma between women and men who misuse opioids differed based on stimulant use and criminal justice involvement. Future research should assess whether internalized stigma influences treatment utilization among women with criminal justice involvement.

Experiences of and recommendations for LGBTQ+-affirming substance use services: an exploratory qualitative descriptive study with LGBTQ+ people who use opioids and other drugs

BACKGROUND

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and other LGBTQ populations (LGBTQ+; e.g., asexual individuals) have higher rates of substance use (SU) and disorders (SUD) compared to heterosexual and cisgender populations. Such disparities can be attributed to minority stress, including stigma and discrimination in healthcare settings. LGBTQ+-affirming SU treatment and related services remain limited. The purpose of this exploratory qualitative descriptive study was to characterize LGBTQ+ people's experiences in SU services and recommendations for LGBTQ+- affirming care.

METHODS

We conducted demographic surveys (characterized using descriptive statistics) and individual qualitative interviews with N = 23 LGBTQ+ people. We employed flexible coding and a thematic analysis approach to describe participants' experiences with stigma, discrimination, and support within SU services at the patient-, staff-, and organizational-level; and participant recommendations for how to make such services LGBTQ+-affirming. We highlighted components of minority stress and mitigators of adverse stress responses throughout our thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Patient-level experiences included bullying, name-calling, sexual harassment, and physical distancing from peers; and support via community-building with LGBTQ+ peers. Staff-level experiences included name-calling, denial of services, misgendering, lack of intervention in peer bullying, and assumptions about participants' sexuality; and support via staff advocacy for LGBTQ+ patients, holistic treatment models, and openly LGBTQ+ staff. Organizational-level experiences included stigma in binary gendered program structures; and support from programs with gender-affirming groups and housing, and in visual cues (e.g., rainbow flags) of affirming care. Stigma and discrimination led to minority stress processes like identity concealment and stress coping responses like SU relapse; support facilitated SU treatment engagement and retention. Recommendations for LGBTQ+-affirming care included non-discrimination policies, LGBTQ+-specific programming, hiring LGBTQ+ staff, routine staff sensitivity training, and gender-inclusive program structures.

CONCLUSIONS

LGBTQ+ people experience stigma and discrimination within SU services; supportive and affirming care is vital to reducing treatment barriers and promoting positive health outcomes. The current study offers concrete recommendations for how to deliver LGBTQ+-affirming care, which could reduce SU disparities and drug overdose mortality overall.

Overdose mortality rates for opioids and stimulant drugs are substantially higher in men than in women: state-level analysis

Drug overdoses from opioids and stimulants are a major cause of mortality in the United States. It is unclear if there are stable sex differences in overdose mortality for these drugs across states, whether these differ across the lifespan, and if so, whether they can be accounted for by different levels of drug misuse. This was a state-level analysis of epidemiological data on overdose mortality, across 10-year age bins (age range: 15-74), using the CDC WONDER platform for decedents in the United States in 2020-1. The outcome measure was rate of overdose death (per 100,000) for: synthetic opioids (e.g., fentanyl), heroin, psychostimulants with potential for misuse (e.g., methamphetamine), and cocaine. Multiple linear regressions controlled for ethnic-cultural background, household net worth, and sex-specific rate of misuse (from NSDUH, 2018-9). For all these drug categories, males had greater overall overdose mortality than females, after controlling for rates of drug misuse. The mean male/female sex ratio of mortality rate was relatively stable across jurisdictions: synthetic opioids (2.5 [95% CI, 2.4-7]), heroin, (2.9 [95% CI, 2.7-3.1], psychostimulants (2.4 [95% CI, 2.3-5]), and cocaine (2.8 [95% CI, 2.6-9]). With data stratified in 10-year age bins, the sex difference generally survived adjustment (especially in the 25-64 age range). Results indicate that males are significantly more vulnerable than females to overdose deaths caused by opioid and stimulant drugs, taking into account differing state-level environmental conditions and drug misuse levels. These results call for research into diverse biological, behavioral, and social factors that underlie sex differences in human vulnerability to drug overdose.

Experiences of and recommendations for LGBTQ+-affirming substance use services: A qualitative study with LGBTQ+ people who use opioids and other drugs

Background

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and other LGBTQ populations (LGBTQ+; e.g., non-binary individuals) have higher rates of substance use (SU) and disorders (SUD) compared to heterosexual and cisgender populations. Such disparities can be attributed to minority stress, including stigma and discrimination in healthcare settings. LGBTQ+-affirming SU treatment and related services remain limited. The purpose of this qualitative study was to characterize LGBTQ + people's experiences in SU services and recommendations for LGBTQ+-affirming care.

Methods

We conducted demographic surveys (characterized using descriptive statistics) and individual qualitative interviews with N = 23 LGBTQ + people. We employed a flexible coding approach to describe participants' experiences with stigma, discrimination, and support within SU services; and participant recommendations for how to make such services LGBTQ+-affirming at the patient-, staff-, and organizational-level. We highlighted components of minority stress and mitigators of adverse stress responses throughout our thematic analysis.

Results

Patient-level experiences included bullying, name-calling, sexual harassment, and physical distancing from peers; and support via community-building with LGBTQ + peers. Staff-level experiences included name-calling, denial of services, misgendering, lack of intervention in peer bullying, and assumptions about participants' sexuality; and support via staff advocacy for LGBTQ + patients, holistic treatment models, and openly LGBTQ + staff. Organizational-level experiences included stigma in binary gendered program structures; and support from programs with gender-affirming groups and housing, and in visual cues (e.g., rainbow flags) of affirming care. Stigma and discrimination led to minority stress processes like identity concealment and stress coping responses like SU relapse; support facilitated SU treatment engagement and retention. Recommendations for LGBTQ+-affirming care included non-discrimination policies, routine pronoun sharing, LGBTQ+-specific programming, hiring LGBTQ + staff, routine staff sensitivity training, and gender-inclusive program structures.

Conclusions

LGBTQ + people experience stigma and discrimination within SU services; supportive and affirming care is vital to reducing treatment barriers and promoting positive health outcomes. The current study offers concrete recommendations for how to deliver LGBTQ+-affirming care, which could reduce SU disparities and drug overdose mortality overall.