Literature Collection

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: Risk of fatal drug overdose is higher in pregnant and postpartum people with substance use disorder (SUD) than for nonpregnant women of reproductive age. It is recommended that naloxone is prescribed for pregnancies complicated by opioid or stimulant use disorder. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the rates of naloxone coprescribing with buprenorphine in a perinatal SUD (PSUD) specialty clinic and identify opportunities for pharmacist-led interventions to improve communication and documentation surrounding naloxone access to achieve a rate of 100% coprescribing of naloxone with buprenorphine. PRACTICE DESCRIPTION: A clinical pharmacist practitioner is embedded on the Project CARA (Care that Advocates Respect/Resilience/Recovery for All) team, which provides outpatient SUD care integrated with perinatal care in Western North Carolina. PRACTICE INNOVATION: The clinical pharmacist practitioner assessed baseline rates of naloxone coprescribing with medications for opioid use disorder. Interventions to improve rates of coprescribing include provider education, electronic health record (EHR) documentation templates, and direct patient outreach. EVALUATION METHODS: Baseline rates of naloxone coprescribing were assessed and then re-evaluated after different interventions to measure pharmacist impact. RESULTS: Each intervention improved rates of naloxone coprescribing in a PSUD clinic. EHR documentation templates had the largest impact on baseline efforts, although the long-term benefits derived from these efforts have not yet been demonstrated. Substantial time investment from the pharmacist was required to address patients' barriers to obtaining naloxone after their visits. CONCLUSION: Further process improvement should address barriers to naloxone access for both patients and providers. This may include proactive identification of patients in need of naloxone and a "meds-to-beds" pilot to assist patients in navigating logistical challenges.

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.

Over the past two decades, opioid use and overdose have increased substantially. Naloxone, an opioid overdose reversal agent, has been one of many risk mitigation strategies for preventing mortality due to overdose. Most literature describing naloxone utilization has been about populations of illicit drug users and patients in hospitals, primary care, and pharmacies. There is limited information regarding naloxone prescribing and training for opioid users in specialty pain management clinics. Furthermore, there are no known publications concerning patients receiving palliative care services and overdose prevention. Pain and palliative care patients are commonly at risk of opioid overdose. In an interdisciplinary outpatient pain and palliative care clinic, pharmacists implemented naloxone prescribing and education. Eleven patients at increased risk for overdose were prescribed naloxone and educated on overdose risk factors, recognition, and management. Seven patients reported picking up their naloxone prescription from the pharmacy, and none reported using it within two weeks of the initial education. This intervention was deemed successful within the clinic, but small sample size and the pharmacist role may not be replicable within other pain and palliative care settings. It encourages further research of overdose risk and prevention in pain management and palliative care.