Rural opioid treatment program patient perspectives on take-home methadone policy changes during COVID-19: a qualitative thematic analysis

Methadone's Resurgence in Bridging the Treatment Gap in the Overdose Crisis: Position Statement of AMERSA, Inc (Association for Multidisciplinary Education, Research, Substance Use, and Addiction)

BACKGROUND

The United States is grappling with an unprecedented overdose crisis, exacerbated by the proliferation of potent synthetic opioids like illicitly manufactured fentanyl. Despite the efficacy of methadone treatment in managing opioid use disorder, regulatory barriers hinder its widespread utilization. This article examines the complex landscape of methadone regulation across federal, state, and local levels, highlighting disparities and opportunities for reform.

ISSUE

The COVID-19 public health emergency prompted temporary flexibility in methadone regulations, including expanded take-home doses and telehealth counseling, leading to improved treatment experiences and retention. Permanent revisions to federal guidelines have since been introduced by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, reflecting a progressive shift toward patient-centered care and streamlined access. State regulations, managed by Single State Agencies and State Opioid Treatment Authorities, vary widely, often imposing additional restrictions that impede access to methadone treatment. Local OTP clinics further exacerbate barriers through stringent policies, despite federal and state guidelines advocating for flexibility.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Coordinated efforts among policymakers, healthcare providers, and communities are needed to promote the development of accountability measures, incentives, and community involvement to ensure equitable access and quality of care. To truly meet the demand needed to end the existing overdose crisis and enhance accessibility and comprehensive healthcare services, methadone treatment expansion beyond traditional OTP settings into primary care offices and community pharmacies should take place.

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.

Structural and social changes due to the COVID-19 pandemic and their impact on engagement in substance use disorder treatment services: a qualitative study among people with a recent history of injection drug use in Baltimore, Maryland

BACKGROUND

Substance use disorder treatment and recovery support services are critical for achieving and maintaining recovery. There are limited data on how structural and social changes due to the COVID-19 pandemic impacted individual-level experiences with substance use disorder treatment-related services among community-based samples of people who inject drugs.

METHODS

People with a recent history of injection drug use who were enrolled in the community-based AIDS Linked to the IntraVenous Experience study in Baltimore, Maryland participated in a one-time, semi-structured interview between July 2021 and February 2022 about their experiences living through the COVID-19 pandemic (n = 28). An iterative inductive coding process was used to identify themes describing how structural and social changes due to the COVID-19 pandemic affected participants' experiences with substance use disorder treatment-related services.

RESULTS

The median age of participants was 54 years (range = 24-73); 10 (36%) participants were female, 16 (57%) were non-Hispanic Black, and 8 (29%) were living with HIV. We identified several structural and social changes due the pandemic that acted as barriers and facilitators to individual-level engagement in treatment with medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) and recovery support services (e.g., support group meetings). New take-home methadone flexibility policies temporarily facilitated engagement in MOUD treatment, but other pre-existing rigid policies and practices (e.g., zero-tolerance) were counteracting barriers. Changes in the illicit drug market were both a facilitator and barrier to MOUD treatment. Decreased availability and pandemic-related adaptations to in-person services were a barrier to recovery support services. While telehealth expansion facilitated engagement in recovery support group meetings for some participants, other participants faced digital and technological barriers. These changes in service provision also led to diminished perceived quality of both virtual and in-person recovery support group meetings. However, a facilitator of recovery support was increased accessibility of individual service providers (e.g., counselors and Sponsors).

CONCLUSIONS

Structural and social changes across several socioecological levels created new barriers and facilitators of individual-level engagement in substance use disorder treatment-related services. Multilevel interventions are needed to improve access to and engagement in high-quality substance use disorder treatment and recovery support services among people who inject drugs.

COVID-19-related flexibility in methadone take-home doses associated with decreased attrition: Report from an opioid treatment program in central Pennsylvania

INTRODUCTION

Pennsylvania saw a dramatic increase in take-home doses of methadone after the COVID-19 pandemic-related relaxation in regulations. We evaluated whether pandemic-initiated relaxation in take-home methadone dose regulations was associated with changes in attrition and urine drug test (UDT) results at one outpatient opioid treatment program (OTP) among adult patients treated with methadone for opioid use disorder (OUD).

METHODS

We analyzed aggregated, retrospective clinical practice data, using data abstracted from the OTP's electronic health record (EHR) on the number of patients treated with methadone, those allowed take-home doses, the number of take-home methadone doses dispensed, and the number and type of patient discharge ("attrition") from treatments for 12 months before (March 2019-February 2020; "pre-pandemic") and 12 months after (March 2020-February 2021; "pandemic") the regulatory changes took place. We also examined monthly aggregate data on the number of urine samples testing positive for amphetamines, cocaine, benzodiazepines or illicit opioids, and compared these findings between the pre-pandemic and pandemic periods.

RESULTS

Pre-pandemic, 229 patients were treated with methadone, compared to 278 patients during the pandemic period. They received 11,047 and 28,563 take-home daily-doses of methadone (p < 0.0001) during each assessment period, respectively. All-cause treatment attrition (discharge from the program for any reason) decreased from 27.1 % in the pre-pandemic to 15.5 % in the pandemic period (p < 0.001). Compared to pre-pandemic, during the pandemic period the urine toxicology testing showed reduced positivity rates for cocaine (26.4 % vs 18.9 %, p < 0.001), and oxycodone and morphine (1.8 % vs 1.1 %, p < 0.019), and increased for fentanyl (24.0 % vs 30.5 %, p < 0.007), without statistically significant changes for benzodiazepines or amphetamines.

CONCLUSIONS

The relaxation of regulations guiding take-home methadone doses accompanied reduced treatment attrition and favorable changes in urine toxicology results in one OTP. Allowing OTPs to apply flexible decisions regarding take-home methadone doses could improve treatment retention, outcomes, and, in turn, save lives.

Understanding and learning from rural drug service adaptations to opioid substitution therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic: the What C-OST? study

Introduction

In April 2020, in response to government COVID-19 advice, changes were made to the way English drug services operated. Methadone and buprenorphine were typically dispensed in 1- to 2-week supplies, and key working was conducted by phone/online. Previous studies have examined the impact of these changes on people from urban settings. This study adds the experiences and perspectives of people receiving care from drug services in rural areas and makes suggestions for future emergency planning.

Methods

Telephone semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 people receiving care in Somerset, Wiltshire, and Suffolk, rural counties in England. Reflexive thematic analysis was used.

Results

Three overarching themes were found. "Challenges of rural lockdown" (theme 1) describes how rural community challenges, especially reduced or no rural public transport, were experienced. This hampered some OST collections, with consequential drug use. It also impeded connections to loved ones, worsening isolation. For participants who were struggling pre-pandemic, the intersection between this and their experience of revised drug service operations is embodied in "Amplification of Social Disconnection: Cut off and unheard" (theme 2). They felt a lack of support, particularly from remote provision key working. Participants who had supportive relationships and time in the pandemic occupied in ways they found meaningful, and others who struggled with anxiety or depression, found pandemic changes "Fits better with my life" (theme 3). They experienced more freedom for other things, gained support by other means, such as family, or felt more comfortable with remote engagement. A cross-cutting sub-theme "Understandable Interruptions" showed acceptance of pandemic disruptions.

Conclusion

National guidance and organizational policy impacted participants in different ways. Those who had supportive relationships and occupied time were better able to make positive use of newfound freedoms and engage with community-level support. In contrast, those who had less stability, including mental health struggles and social isolation, felt cut off and unheard, particularly from key workers. Reduced rural transport was a significant community-level issue, which impeded OST collection and social support. We suggest emergency response plans be created for individuals taking account of their pre-existing personal situations.

COVID-19 preparedness and response in rural and remote areas: A scoping review

This scoping review used the Arksey and O'Malley approach to explore COVID-19 preparedness and response in rural and remote areas to identify lessons to inform future health preparedness and response planning. A search of scientific and grey literature for rural COVID-19 preparedness and responses identified 5 668 articles published between 2019 and early 2022. A total of 293 articles were included, of which 160 (54.5%) were from high income countries and 106 (36.2%) from middle income countries. Studies focused mostly on the Maintenance of Essential Health Services (63; 21.5%), Surveillance, epidemiological investigation, contact tracing and adjustment of public health and social measures (60; 20.5%), Coordination and Planning (32; 10.9%); Case Management (30; 10.2%), Social Determinants of Health (29; 10%) and Risk Communication (22; 7.5%). Rural health systems were less prepared and national COVID-19 responses were often not adequately tailored to rural areas. Promising COVID-19 responses involved local leaders and communities, were collaborative and multisectoral, and engaged local cultures. Non-pharmaceutical interventions were applied less, support for access to water and sanitation at scale was weak, and more targeted approaches to the isolation of cases and quarantine of contacts were preferable to blanket lockdowns. Rural pharmacists, community health workers and agricultural extension workers assisted in overcoming shortages of health professionals. Vaccination coverage was hindered by weaker rural health systems. Digital technology enabled better coordination, communication, and access to health services, yet for some was inaccessible. Rural livelihoods and food security were affected through disruptions to local labour markets, farm produce markets and input supply chains. Important lessons include the need for rural proofing national health preparedness and response and optimizing synergies between top-down planning with localised planning and coordination. Equity-oriented rural health systems strengthening and action on rural social determinants is essential to better prepare for and respond to future outbreaks.

"Get in and get out, get on with life": Patient and provider perspectives on methadone van implementation for opioid use disorder treatment

BACKGROUND

Expanding access to opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment, including methadone, is imperative to address the US overdose crisis. In June 2021, the Drug Enforcement Administration announced new regulations allowing all opioid treatment programs (OTPs) to deploy mobile medication units, or methadone vans, to dispense OUD medication treatment outside of clinic walls, ending a 13-year moratorium. We conducted a qualitative study evaluating one opioid treatment program's experience, including benefits and challenges with implementing a methadone van, to inform future policy and clinical practice.

METHODS

We recruited staff and patients receiving OUD medication treatment from an OTP in San Francisco, CA. The OTP had one operating van before March 2020 and began operating an additional van in response to COVID-19-related efforts to de-populate clinic settings. We interviewed 10 providers and 20 patients from August to November 2020. We transcribed, coded, and analyzed all interviews using modified grounded theory methodologies.

RESULTS

Both patients and providers perceived significant benefits with receiving OUD medications using methadone vans. Patients preferred dosing at the van over the clinic because they were able to "get in and out" faster. Both staff and patients appreciated being able to use phone counseling to connect with counselors which helped reduce in-person visits and streamline workflows. Providers also noted van implementation challenges, including daily van set up, urine drug testing, and delivering counseling to patients who lacked phones.

CONCLUSIONS

Eased restrictions on methadone van implementation represent a new strategy for expanding OUD treatment access. In our qualitative study, patients and staff were satisfied with methadone van implementation, though the OTP still faced implementation challenges. Audio-only counseling and other workflow solutions helped facilitate implementation, and several policy considerations like maintaining audio-only counseling flexibilities are key to ensuring future van success. Methadone vans offer the potential to expand treatment uptake, while prioritizing patient-centered care.

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.

The impact of relaxing restrictions on take-home doses during the COVID-19 pandemic on program effectiveness and client experiences in opioid agonist treatment: a mixed methods systematic review

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic led to an unprecedented relaxation of restrictions on take-home doses in opioid agonist treatment (OAT). We conducted a mixed methods systematic review to explore the impact of these changes on program effectiveness and client experiences in OAT.

METHODS

The protocol for this review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022352310). From Aug.-Nov. 2022, we searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Web of Science, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and the grey literature. We included studies reporting quantitative measures of retention in treatment, illicit substance use, overdose, client health, quality of life, or treatment satisfaction or using qualitative methods to examine client experiences with take-home doses during the pandemic. We critically appraised studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. We synthesized quantitative data using vote-counting by direction of effect and presented the results in harvest plots. Qualitative data were analyzed using thematic synthesis. We used a convergent segregated approach to integrate quantitative and qualitative findings.

RESULTS

Forty studies were included. Most were from North America (23/40) or the United Kingdom (9/40). The quantitative synthesis was limited by potential for confounding, but suggested an association between take-home doses and increased retention in treatment. There was no evidence of an association between take-home doses and illicit substance use or overdose. Qualitative findings indicated that take-home doses reduced clients' exposure to unregulated substances and stigma and minimized work/treatment conflicts. Though some clients reported challenges with managing their medication, the dominant narrative was one of appreciation, reduced anxiety, and a renewed sense of agency and identity. The integrated analysis suggested reduced treatment burden as an explanation for improved retention and revealed variation in individual relationships between take-home doses and illicit substance use. We identified a critical gap in quantitative measures of patient-important outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The relaxation of restrictions on take-home doses was associated with improved client experience and retention in OAT. We found no evidence of an association with illicit substance use or overdose, despite the expansion of take-home doses to previously ineligible groups. Including patient-important outcome measures in policy, program development, and treatment planning is essential to ensuring that decisions around take-home doses accurately reflect their value to clients.

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.

Transitioning off methadone: A qualitative study exploring why patients discontinue methadone treatment for opioid use disorder

INTRODUCTION

Patients who discontinue methadone for opioid use disorder are at increased risk of overdose and death. We know little about how patients make the decision to stop treatment. This study explored reasons why patients discontinue methadone treatment.

METHODS

We conducted 20 individual semi-structured patient interviews and two staff focus groups, each with five participants, at two opioid treatment programs in Baltimore, MD, in the United States from June 2021 to May 2022. Patient interviews and staff focus groups covered three domains: 1) reasons why patients may want to discontinue methadone; 2) perspectives about the ideal length of methadone treatment; and 3) changes that could improve retention. We used a modified grounded theory approach to code interviews, identify emergent themes, and develop a conceptual model.

RESULTS

We identified three themes related to patients' internal relationships to methadone: patients (1) viewed methadone as a bridge to opioid-free recovery, (2) believed that long-term methadone damages the body, and (3) felt that methadone increases craving for cocaine; and three themes related to their external relationships with opioid treatment programs and society at large: patients (4) viewed daily dosing as burdensome, (5) feared methadone inaccessibility could trigger relapse, and (6) experienced stigma from friends, family, and peers. Patients with internal reasons planned to stop as soon as possible and asked for education about perceived side effects and treatment for cocaine craving to promote retention. Patients with external reasons were willing to continue for longer and asked for adaptive take-home policies and reduced societal stigma around methadone.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients want to discontinue methadone either because of their internal relationship to methadone and its real or perceived side effects, or because of their external experiences with opioid treatment programs and societal stigma of methadone. To improve retention, clinical and policy changes should consider responses to both of these categories of reasons.

Deimplementation in the provision of opioid agonist treatment to achieve equity of care for people engaged in treatment: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Deimplementation, the removal or reduction of potentially hazardous approaches to care, is key to progressing social equity in health. While the benefits of opioid agonist treatment (OAT) are well-evidenced, wide variability in the provision of treatment attenuates positive outcomes. During the COVID-19 pandemic, OAT services deimplemented aspects of provision which had long been central to treatment in Australia; supervised dosing, urine drug screening, and frequent in-person attendance for review. This analysis explored how providers considered social inequity in health of patients in the deimplementation of restrictive OAT provision during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

Between August and December 2020, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 29 OAT providers in Australia. Codes relating to the social determinants of client retention in OAT were clustered according to how providers considered deimplementation in relation to social inequities. Normalisation Process Theory was then used to analyse the clusters in relation to how providers understood their work during the COVID-19 pandemic as responding to systemic issues that condition OAT access.

RESULTS

We explored four overarching themes based on constructs from Normalisation Process Theory: adaptive execution, cognitive participation, normative restructuring, and sustainment. Accounts of adaptive execution demonstrated tensions between providers' conceptions of equity and patient autonomy. Cognitive participation and normative restructuring were integral to the workability of rapid and drastic changes within the OAT services. Key transformative actors included communities of practice and "thought leaders" who had long supported deimplementation for more humane care. At this early stage of the pandemic, providers had already begun to consider how this period could inform sustainment of deimplementation. When considering a future, post-pandemic period, several providers expressed discomfort at operating with "evidence-enough" and called for narrowly defined types of data on adverse events (e.g. overdose) and expert consensus on takeaway doses.

CONCLUSIONS

The possibilities for achieving social equity in health are limited by the divergent treatment goals of providers and people receiving OAT. Sustained and equitable deimplementation of obtrusive aspects of OAT provision require co-created treatment goals, patient-centred monitoring and evaluation, and access to a supportive community of practice for providers.

Patients' perceptions of self-administered dosing to opioid agonist treatment and other changes during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

During the COVID-19 pandemic, addiction treatment services received official guidance asking them to limit face-to-face contact with patients and to prescribe opioid agonist treatment (OAT) medication flexibly. With the aim for most patients to receive take-home supplies for self-administration rather than attendance for observed daily dosing.

DESIGN

This was a theory-driven, clinically applied qualitative study, with data for thematic analysis collected by semi-structured, audio-recorded, telephone interviews.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-seven adults (aged ≥18 years) enrolled in sublingual (tablet) buprenorphine and oral (liquid) methadone OAT.

SETTING

Community addictions centre in the London Borough of Lambeth operated by South London and Maudsley NHS Trust.

RESULTS

Three major themes were identified: (1) dissatisfaction and perceived stigma with OAT medication dispensing arrangements before the pandemic; (2) positive adaptations in response to COVID-19 by services; (3) participants recommended that, according to preference and evidence of adherence, OAT should be personalised to offer increasing medication supplies for self-administration from as early as 7 days after commencement of maintenance prescribing.

CONCLUSIONS

In an applied qualitative study of patients enrolled in OAT during the COVID-19 pandemic, participants endorsed their opportunity to take medication themselves at home and with virtual addiction support. Most patients described a preference for self-administration with increased dispensing supplies, from as early as 7 days into maintenance treatment, if they could demonstrate adherence to their prescription.

"You'll come in and dose even in a global pandemic": A qualitative study of adaptive opioid agonist treatment provision during the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

Opioid agonist treatment (OAT) improves multiple health and social outcomes, yet requirements to attend for supervised dosing can be burdensome and stigmatising. The COVID-19 pandemic and associated restrictions threatened continuity of care and the wellbeing of people receiving OAT, risking a parallel health crisis. This study sought to understand how adaptations in the complex system of OAT provision impacted and responded to risk environments of people receiving OAT during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

The analysis draws on semi-structured interviews with 40 people receiving and 29 people providing OAT located across Australia. The study considered the risk environments that produce COVID-19 transmission, treatment (non-)adherence, and adverse events for people receiving OAT. Drawing on theories of risk environments and complex adaptive systems, data were coded and analysed to understand how adaptations to the typically rigid system of OAT provision impacted and responded to risk environments during the COVID-19 pandemic.

RESULTS

During COVID-19, the complex system of OAT provision demonstrated possibilities for responsive adaptation to the entangled features of risk environments of people receiving OAT. Structural stigma was evident in the services which stayed rigid during the pandemic, requiring people to attend for daily supervised dosing and risking fracturing therapeutic relationships. In parallel, there were several examples of services developing enabling environments by offering flexible care through increased takeaways, treatment subsidies, and home delivery.

CONCLUSIONS

Rigidity in the delivery of OAT has been an impediment to achieving health and wellbeing over past decades. To sustain health-promoting environments for people receiving OAT, the wider impacts of the complex system should be acknowledged beyond narrowly defined outcomes relating solely to the medication. Centring people receiving OAT in their own care plans will ensure adaptations in the complex system of OAT provision are responsive to the individual's risk environment.

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.

Examination of methadone involved overdoses during the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

The US opioid overdose epidemic continues to escalate. The restrictions on methadone availability including take-home dosing were loosened during the COVID-19 pandemic although there have been concerns about the high street value of diverted methadone. This report examined how fatal overdoses involving methadone have changed over the past two-decades including during the pandemic.

METHODS

The CDC's Wide-ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research (WONDER) was used to find the unintentional methadone related overdose death rate from 1999 to 2020. Unintentional methadone deaths were defined using the ICD X40-44 codes with only data for methadone (T40.3). Data from the DEA's Automation of Reports and Consolidated Orders System (ARCOS) on methadone overall use, opioid treatment programs use, and pain management use was gathered for all states for 2020 and corrected for population.

RESULTS

There have been dynamic changes over the past two-decades in methadone overdoses. Overdoses increased from 1999 (0.9/million) to 2007 (15.9) and declined until 2019 (6.5). Overdoses in 2020 (9.6) were 48.1% higher than in 2019 (t(50) = 3.05, p < .005). The state level correlations between overall methadone use (r(49) = +0.75, p < .001), and opioid treatment program use (r(49) = +0.77, p < .001) with overdoses were positive, strong, and statistically significant. However, methadone use for pain treatment was not associated with methadone overdoses (r(49) = -0.08).

CONCLUSIONS

Overdoses involving methadone significantly increased by 48.1% in 2020 relative to 2019. Policy changes that were implemented following the COVID-19 pandemic involving methadone take-homes may warrant further study before they are made permanent.

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.

Envisioning Minimally Disruptive Opioid Use Disorder Care

Most people who need and want treatment for opioid addiction cannot access it. Among those who do get treatment, only a fraction receive evidence-based, life-saving medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD). MOUD access is not simply a matter of needing more clinicians or expanding existing treatment capacity. Instead, many facets of our health systems and policies create unwarranted, inflexible, and punitive practices that create life-threatening barriers to care. In the USA, opioid use disorder care is maximally disruptive. Minimally disruptive medicine (MDM) is a framework that focuses on achieving patient goals while imposing the smallest possible burden on patients' lives. Using MDM framing, we highlight how current medical practices and policies worsen the burden of treatment and illness, compound life demands, and strain resources. We then offer suggestions for programmatic and policy changes that would reduce disruption to the lives of those seeking care, improve health care quality and delivery, begin to address disparities and inequities, and save lives.

Implementing syringe services programs within the Veterans Health Administration: facility experiences and next steps

Syringe services programs are community-based prevention programs that provide evidence-based, lifesaving services for people who use illicit drugs, including access to syringes, naloxone, fentanyl test strips, infection screening, and linkage to treatment. Historically, syringe services programs did not exist within the Veterans Health Administration owing to many factors, including lack of clarity regarding legality for federal agency-purchased syringes. Three champions at Veterans Affairs facilities in Danville, IL, Orlando, FL, and San Francisco, CA, worked to clarify legal considerations, address barriers, and implement syringe services programs that are integrated in the health care systems. Since 2017, these 3 programs have engaged approximately 400 Veterans and distributed nearly 10,000 syringes, 2500 fentanyl test strips, 50 wound care kits, and 45 safer sex kits. These programs, both led by and in collaboration with clinical pharmacist practitioners, paved the way for nationwide implementation within the Veterans Health Administration. This commentary describes successes, challenges, and proposed next steps to increase Veteran access to syringe services programs, written from the perspective of 3 facility-based champions.

Advancing virtual primary care for people with opioid use disorder (VPC OUD): a mixed-methods study protocol

INTRODUCTION

The emergence of COVID-19 introduced a dual public health emergency in British Columbia, which was already in the fourth year of its opioid-related overdose crisis. The public health response to COVID-19 must explicitly consider the unique needs of, and impacts on, communities experiencing marginalisation including people with opioid use disorder (PWOUD). The broad move to virtual forms of primary care, for example, may result in changes to healthcare access, delivery of opioid agonist therapies or fluctuations in co-occurring health problems that are prevalent in this population. The goal of this mixed-methods study is to characterise changes to primary care access and patient outcomes following the rapid introduction of virtual care for PWOUD.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will use a fully integrated mixed-methods design comprised of three components: (a) qualitative interviews with family physicians and PWOUD to document experiences with delivering and accessing virtual visits, respectively; (b) quantitative analysis of linked, population-based administrative data to describe the uptake of virtual care, its impact on access to services and downstream outcomes for PWOUD; and (c) facilitated deliberative dialogues to co-create educational resources for family physicians, PWOUD and policymakers that promote equitable access to high-quality virtual primary care for this population.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Approval for this study has been granted by Research Ethics British Columbia. We will convene PWOUD and family physicians for deliberative dialogues to co-create educational materials and policy recommendations based on our findings. We will also disseminate findings via traditional academic outputs such as conferences and peer-reviewed publications.

Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic on a Rural Opioid Support Services Program

During 2020, Kentucky saw the third highest increase in overdose deaths in the U.S. Employment issues, inadequate housing, transportation problems, and childcare needs present barriers to accessing treatment in rural areas. These barriers and others (e.g., technology) arose during the pandemic negatively affecting individuals in recovery and service providers as they adjusted services to provide primarily telehealth and remote services. This study examines the impact of COVID-19 in its early stages on an opioid use disorder (OUD) support services program in a nonprofit located in rural eastern Kentucky, part of the central Appalachia region. A qualitative design was applied, employing semi-structured interviews in early fall 2020. Participants were associated with one OUD support services program, including service recipients, program coordinators, and business vendors. Guided by the Social Determinants of Health framework, two-cycle coding-descriptive coding and pattern coding-was utilized. Codes were sorted into three patterns: changes to daily life; financial impacts; and service access and provision. Overall, early stages of COVID-19 brought increased stress for individuals in recovery, as they were taking on more responsibility and navigating a changing environment. Coordinators were under pressure to provide services in a safe, timely manner. Vendors vocalized their struggles and successes related to finances. These findings can help organizations make realistic adjustments and policymakers set reasonable expectations and consider additional financial support.

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.

Impact of COVID-19 among people who use drugs: A qualitative study with harm reduction workers and people who use drugs

Background

Fatal drug overdoses in the USA hit historical records during the COVID-19 pandemic. Throughout the pandemic, people who used drugs had greater odds of contracting COVID-19, increased drug use due to COVID-related stress, and heightened levels of anxiety and depression. This qualitative study examined the specific ways the pandemic negatively impacted people who use drugs.

Methods

Qualitative interviews with 24 people who use drugs and 20 substance use harm reduction workers were conducted. Data from the qualitative interviews were analyzed using applied thematic analysis to identify emergent themes based on the a priori research goals.

Results

Thematic analysis identified several common experiences during the pandemic among people who use drugs. These included mental distress due to financial strain and social isolation; increased drug use; increased risky drug-seeking and use behaviors due to changes in the drug markets; and reduced access to harm reduction, treatment, and recovery support services.

Conclusions

Our study highlighted critical systemic failures that contributed to the rise in overdose deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic. Addressing these challenges through policy reform and improved funding models will ensure the sustainability of harm reduction services and increase access to substance use treatment among highly vulnerable people who use drugs.

Treatment retention, return to use, and recovery support following COVID-19 relaxation of methadone take-home dosing in two rural opioid treatment programs: A mixed methods analysis

Objectives

In March 2020, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration permitted Opioid Treatment Programs (OTPs) to relax restrictions on take-home methadone and promoted telehealth to minimize potential exposures to COVID-19. We assessed the effects of COVID-19-related changes on take-home methadone dosing in two OTPs serving five rural Oregon counties.

Methods

We used a mixed-methods convergent design. The OTPs extracted urine drug test (UDT) results, take-home methadone regimens, and treatment retention from the electronic health record (EHR) for patients (n = 377). A mixed-effects negative binomial regression model assessed patient-level differences in take-home doses before and after the COVID-19 policy changes and the associations with treatment discontinuation, and UDT positivity. Semi-structured qualitative interviews (n = 32) explored patient reactions to increased take-home dosing and reduced clinic visits to provide context for quantitative findings.

Results

The number of take-home doses increased in the post-COVID-19 period for patients engaged in treatment for more than 180 days (median: 8 vs 13 take-home doses per month, p = 0.011). Take-homes did not increase for patients with fewer days of treatment. Each percentage point increase in take-home dosing above what would be expected without COVID-19 policy changes was negatively associated with the percent of UDT positive for opioids (B = −0.12, CI [−0.21, −0.04], p = 0.005) and the probability of treatment discontinuation (aOR = 0.97, CI [0.95, 0.99], p = 0.003). Qualitative analysis revealed three themes explaining how increased take-home dosing supported recovery: 1) value of feeling trusted with increased responsibility; 2) reduced travel time permitted increased employment and recreation; and 3) reduced exposure to individuals less stable in recovery and potential triggers.

Conclusions

Take-home methadone dose relaxations were associated with increased methadone take-home doses, improved retention, and decreased UDT opioid positive results among clinically stable patients. Qualitative findings suggest that fewer take-home restrictions are feasible and desirable and do not pose safety or public health harms.

Association Between Increased Dispensing of Opioid Agonist Therapy Take-Home Doses and Opioid Overdose and Treatment Interruption and Discontinuation

IMPORTANCE

During the COVID-19 pandemic, modified guidance for opioid agonist therapy (OAT) allowed prescribers to increase the number of take-home doses to promote treatment retention. Whether this was associated with an increased risk of overdose is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether increased take-home doses of OAT early in the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with treatment retention and opioid-related harm.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A retrospective propensity-weighted cohort study of 21 297 people actively receiving OAT on March 21, 2020, in Ontario, Canada. Changes in OAT take-home dose frequency were assessed between March 22, 2020, and April 21, 2020, and individuals were observed for up to 180 days to assess outcomes (last date of follow-up, October 18, 2020).

EXPOSURES

Exposure was defined as extended take-home doses in the first month of the pandemic within each of 4 cohorts based on OAT type and baseline take-home dose frequency (daily dispensed methadone, 5-6 take-home doses of methadone, daily dispensed buprenorphine/naloxone, and 5-6 take-home doses of buprenorphine/naloxone).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Primary outcomes were opioid overdose, interruption in OAT, and OAT discontinuation.

RESULTS

Among 16 862 methadone and 4435 buprenorphine/naloxone recipients, the median age ranged between 38 and 42 years, and 29.1% to 38.2% were women. Among individuals receiving daily dispensed methadone (n = 5852), initiation of take-home doses was significantly associated with lower risks of opioid overdose (6.9% vs 9.5%/person-year; weighted hazard ratio [HR], 0.73 [95% CI, 0.56-0.96]), treatment discontinuation (51.0% vs 63.6%/person-year; weighted HR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.72-0.90]), and treatment interruption (19.0% vs 23.9%/person-year; weighted HR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.67-0.95]) compared with no change in take-home doses. Among individuals receiving daily dispensed buprenorphine/naloxone (n = 662), there was no significant difference in any outcomes between exposure groups. Among individuals receiving weekly dispensed OAT (n = 11 010 for methadone; n = 3773 for buprenorphine/naloxone), extended take-home methadone doses were significantly associated with lower risks of OAT discontinuation (14.1% vs 19.6%/person-year; weighted HR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.62-0.84]) and interruption in therapy (5.1% vs 7.4%/person-year; weighted HR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.53-0.90]), and extended take-home doses of buprenorphine/naloxone were significantly associated with lower risk of interruption in therapy (9.5% vs 12.9%/person-year; weighted HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.56-0.99]) compared with no change in take-home doses. Other primary outcomes were not significantly different between groups.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In Ontario, Canada, during the COVID-19 pandemic, dispensing of increased take-home doses of opioid agonist therapy was significantly associated with lower rates of treatment interruption and discontinuation among some subsets of patients receiving opioid agonist therapy, and there were no statistically significant increases in opioid-related overdoses over 6 months of follow-up. These findings may be susceptible to residual confounding and should be interpreted cautiously.