Literature Collection

BACKGROUND: Overdose from opioids is a serious public health and clinical concern. Veterans are at increased risk for opioid overdose compared with the civilian population, suggesting the need for enhanced efforts to address overdose prevention in Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care settings, such as primary care clinics. METHODS: Prescribing providers (N = 45) completed surveys on baseline knowledge and concerns about the VA Overdose Education and Naloxone Distribution (OEND) initiative prior to attending an OEND educational training. RESULTS: Survey items were grouped into 4 OEND-related categories, reflecting (1) lack of knowledge/familiarity/comfort; (2) concerns about iatrogenic effects; (3) concerns about impressions of unsafe opioid prescribing; and (4) concerns about risks of naloxone prescribing. Although certain OEND-related categories were associated with each other, concerns related to iatrogenic effects of OEND (e.g., patients will use more opioids and/or be less likely to see treatment) and lack of knowledge/familiarity/comfort with OEND were endorsed more than concerns related to giving impressions of unsafe opioid prescribing. The majority of providers endorsed the belief that those prescribing opioids to patients should be responsible for providing overdose education to those patients. System-wide naloxone prescription rates and sources increased over 320% following initiation of OEND expansion efforts, although these increases cannot be viewed as a direct result of the in-service trainings. CONCLUSIONS: Findings demonstrate that some providers believe they lack knowledge of opioid overdose prevention techniques and hold concerns about OEND implementation. More training of medical providers outside substance use treatment settings is needed, with particular attention to concerns about harmful consequences resulting from the receipt of naloxone.

Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), such as methadone and buprenorphine, are effective strategies for treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) and reducing overdose risk. MOUD treatment rates continue to be low across the US, and currently, some evidence suggests access to evidence-based treatment is becoming increasingly difficult for those with OUD as a result of the 2019 novel corona virus (COVID-19). A major underutilized source to address these serious challenges in the US is community pharmacy given the specialized training of pharmacists, high levels of consumer trust, and general availability for accessing these service settings. Canadian, Australian, and European pharmacists have made important contributions to the treatment and care of those with OUD over the past decades. Unfortunately, US pharmacists are not permitted to prescribe MOUD and are only currently allowed to dispense methadone for the treatment of pain, not OUD. US policymakers, regulators, and practitioners must work to facilitate this advancement of community pharmacy-based through research, education, practice, and industry. Advancing community pharmacy-based MOUD for leading clinical management of OUD and dispensation of treatment medications will afford the US a critical innovation for addressing the opioid epidemic, fallout from COVID-19, and getting individuals the care they need.

Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a cause of significant morbidity and mortality in the United States. Although efforts are being made to limit access to prescription opioids, the use of heroin and synthetic opioids as well as death due to opioid overdose has increased. Medication-assisted treatment (MAT) is the pairing of psychosocial intervention with a Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved medication (methadone, buprenorphine plus naltrexone) to treat OUD. MAT has resulted in reductions in overdose deaths, criminal activity, and infectious disease transmission. Access to MAT in rural areas is limited by shortages of addiction medicine-trained providers, lack of access to comprehensive addiction programs, transportation, and cost-related issues. Rural physicians express concern about lack of mentorship and drug diversion as reasons to avoid MAT. The prescribing of MAT with buprenorphine requires a Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) waiver that can easily be obtained by Family Medicine providers. MAT can be incorporated into the outpatient practice, where patient follow-up rates and number needed to treat to effect change are similar to that of other chronic medical conditions. We describe a case of opioid overdose and a suggested protocol for the induction of MAT with buprenorphine/naloxone (Suboxone) for OUD in a rural family medicine outpatient practice. Treatment access is facilitated by utilizing the protocol, allowing office staff work to the extent allowed by their licensure, promoting teamwork and minimizing physician time commitment. We conclude that improved access to MAT can be accomplished in a rural family medicine outpatient clinic by staff that support and mentor one another through use of a MAT protocol.

Background: Opioid use disorder (OUD) is common among incarcerated persons and risk of overdose and other adverse drug-related consequences is high after release. Recognizing their potential to reduce these risks, some correctional systems are expanding access to medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD). This study explored the experiences and perspectives of formerly incarcerated individuals on MOUD use while incarcerated and after release. Methods: We interviewed 53 individuals with self-reported OUD who were released from New Jersey state prisons. Interviews explored motivations to use MOUD while incarcerated and after release, and experiences with prison-based MOUD and transition to community-based care. We performed cross-case analysis to examine common and divergent perspectives across participants. Results: A common reason for accepting prerelease MOUD was recognition of its effectiveness in preventing drug use, overdose, and other drug-related consequences. Participants who chose not to use MOUD often were focused on being completely medication-free or saw themselves as having relatively low-risk of substance use after a prolonged period without opioid use. A few participants reported challenges related to prison-based MOUD, including logistical barriers, stigma, and once-daily buprenorphine dosing. Most participants effectively transitioned to community-based care, but challenges included insurance lapses and difficulty locating providers. Conclusions: Many formerly incarcerated persons with OUD recognize the value of MOUD in supporting recovery, but some hold negative views of MOUD or underestimate the likelihood that they will return to drug use. Patient education on risks of post-release overdose, the role of MOUD in mitigating risk, and MOUD options available to them could increase engagement. Participants' generally positive experiences with MOUD support the expansion of correctional MOUD programs.

IMPORTANCE: Methadone access may be uniquely vulnerable to disruption during COVID-19, and even short delays in access are associated with decreased medication initiation and increased illicit opioid use and overdose death. Relative to Canada, US methadone provision is more restricted and limited to specialized opioid treatment programs. OBJECTIVE: To compare timely access to methadone initiation in the US and Canada during COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cross-sectional study was conducted from May to June 2020. Participating clinics provided methadone for opioid use disorder in 14 US states and territories and 3 Canadian provinces with the highest opioid overdose death rates. Statistical analysis was performed from July 2020 to January 2021. EXPOSURES: Nation and type of health insurance (US Medicaid and US self-pay vs Canadian provincial). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Proportion of clinics accepting new patients and days to first appointment. RESULTS: Among 268 of 298 US clinics contacted as a patient with Medicaid (90%), 271 of 301 US clinics contacted as a self-pay patient (90%), and 237 of 288 Canadian clinics contacted as a patient with provincial insurance (82%), new patients were accepted for methadone at 231 clinics (86%) during US Medicaid contacts, 230 clinics (85%) during US self-pay contacts, and at 210 clinics (89%) during Canadian contacts. Among clinics not accepting new patients, at least 44% of 27 clinics reported that the COVID-19 pandemic was the reason. The mean wait for first appointment was greater among US Medicaid contacts (3.5 days [95% CI, 2.9-4.2 days]) and US self-pay contacts (4.1 days [95% CI, 3.4-4.8 days]) than Canadian contacts (1.9 days [95% CI, 1.7-2.1 days]) (P < .001). Open-access model (walk-in hours for new patients without an appointment) utilization was reported by 57 Medicaid (30%), 57 self-pay (30%), and 115 Canadian (59%) contacts offering an appointment. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this cross-sectional study of 2 nations, more than 1 in 10 methadone clinics were not accepting new patients. Canadian clinics offered more timely methadone access than US opioid treatment programs. These results suggest that the methadone access shortage was exacerbated by COVID-19 and that changes to the US opioid treatment program model are needed to improve the timeliness of access. Increased open-access model adoption may increase timely access.

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.

BACKGROUND: In Baltimore, MD, as in many cities throughout the USA, overdose rates are on the rise due to both the increase of prescription opioid abuse and that of fentanyl and other synthetic opioids in the drug market. Supervised injection facilities (SIFs) are a widely implemented public health intervention throughout the world, with 97 existing in 11 countries worldwide. Research has documented the public health, social, and economic benefits of SIFs, yet none exist in the USA. The purpose of this study is to model the health and financial costs and benefits of a hypothetical SIF in Baltimore. METHODS: We estimate the benefits by utilizing local health data and data on the impact of existing SIFs in models for six outcomes: prevented human immunodeficiency virus transmission, Hepatitis C virus transmission, skin and soft-tissue infection, overdose mortality, and overdose-related medical care and increased medication-assisted treatment for opioid dependence. RESULTS: We predict that for an annual cost of $1.8 million, a single SIF would generate $7.8 million in savings, preventing 3.7 HIV infections, 21 Hepatitis C infections, 374 days in the hospital for skin and soft-tissue infection, 5.9 overdose deaths, 108 overdose-related ambulance calls, 78 emergency room visits, and 27 hospitalizations, while bringing 121 additional people into treatment. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that a SIF would be both extremely cost-effective and a significant public health and economic benefit to Baltimore City.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Despite advances in our knowledge of effective services for people who use drugs over the last decades globally, coverage remains poor in most countries, while quality is often unknown. This paper aims to discuss the historical development of successful epidemiological indicators and to present a framework for extending them with additional indicators of coverage and quality of harm reduction services, for monitoring and evaluation at international, national or subnational levels. The ultimate aim is to improve these services in order to reduce health and social problems among people who use drugs, such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, crime and legal problems, overdose (death) and other morbidity and mortality. METHODS AND RESULTS: The framework was developed collaboratively using consensus methods involving nominal group meetings, review of existing quality standards, repeated email commenting rounds and qualitative analysis of opinions/experiences from a broad range of professionals/experts, including members of civil society and organisations representing people who use drugs. Twelve priority candidate indicators are proposed for opioid agonist therapy (OAT), needle and syringe programmes (NSP) and generic cross-cutting aspects of harm reduction (and potentially other drug) services. Under the specific OAT indicators, priority indicators included 'coverage', 'waiting list time', 'dosage' and 'availability in prisons'. For the specific NSP indicators, the priority indicators included 'coverage', 'number of needles/syringes distributed/collected', 'provision of other drug use paraphernalia' and 'availability in prisons'. Among the generic or cross-cutting indicators the priority indicators were 'infectious diseases counselling and care', 'take away naloxone', 'information on safe use/sex' and 'condoms'. We discuss conditions for the successful development of the suggested indicators and constraints (e.g. funding, ideology). We propose conducting a pilot study to test the feasibility and applicability of the proposed indicators before their scaling up and routine implementation, to evaluate their effectiveness in comparing service coverage and quality across countries. CONCLUSIONS: The establishment of an improved set of validated and internationally agreed upon best practice indicators for monitoring harm reduction service will provide a structural basis for public health and epidemiological studies and support evidence and human rights-based health policies, services and interventions.

BACKGROUND: The majority of drug overdose deaths in the United States involve opioids, and synthetic opioid-involved overdose death rates are increasing. Naloxone is a key prevention strategy yet estimates of its administration are limited. METHODS: We analyzed 2019 data from 37 states and the District of Columbia in CDC's State Unintentional Drug Overdose Reporting System to estimate the percentage of decedents, by sociodemographic subgroup, who experienced a fatal opioid-involved overdose and had no evidence of naloxone administration. RESULTS: A total of 77.3% of 33,084 opioid-involved overdose deaths had no evidence of naloxone administration. Statistically significant subgroup differences were observed for all sociodemographic groups examined except housing status. The highest percentages of decedents lacking evidence of naloxone administration were those with highest educational attainment (doctorate or professional degree, 87.0%), oldest (55-64 years, 83.4%; ≥65 years, 87.3%) and youngest ages (<15 years, 87.5%), and single marital status (84.5%). The lowest percentages of no evidence of naloxone administration were observed for non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaskan Native persons (66.2%) and those ages 15-24 years (70.8%). CONCLUSIONS: More than three-quarters of opioid-involved overdose deaths had no evidence of naloxone administration, underscoring the need to ensure sufficient naloxone access and capacity for utilization. While fatal overdose data cannot fully characterize sociodemographic disparities in naloxone administration, naloxone education and access efforts can be informed by apparent inequities. Public health partners can assist persons who use drugs (PWUD) by maintaining naloxone supply and amplifying messages about the high risk of using drugs alone among PWUD and their social networks.