Literature Collection

To mitigate morbidity and mortality of the drug-related overdose crisis, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) can increase access to treatments that save lives-medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD). Despite an increasing need, MOUD continues to be underutilized due to multifaceted barriers that exist within broader macro- and microenvironments. To promote MOUD utilization, policymakers and healthcare leaders should (1) identify and implement person-centered MOUD delivery systems (e.g., the Medication First Model, community-informed design); (2) recognize and address MOUD delivery gaps (e.g., the Best-Practice in Oral Opioid Agonist Collaborative); (3) broaden the definition of the MOUD delivery system (e.g., access to MOUD in non-clinical settings); and (4) expand MOUD options (e.g., injectable opioid agonist therapy). Increasing access to MOUD is not a singular fix to the overdose-related crisis. It is, however, a possible first step to mitigate harm, and save lives.

Introduction: The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), in partnership with the Opioid Overdose Education and Naloxone Distribution (OEND) Program, implemented the National Academic Detailing Service to deliver naloxone education to providers with patients at-risk for opioid-related overdose. Methods: We administered a 26-item online survey to VA providers to explore their perceptions about prescribing naloxone for opioid overdose emergencies and their experience with academic detailing between August 2017 and April 2018. Responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics to (1) explore their current perceptions of naloxone prescribing and their experience with academic detailing, (2) identify differences across provider types [primary care providers (PCP), specialists, and others], and (3) assess perceived naloxone prescribing behavior change after an academic detailing visit. Results: Providers (N = 137) indicated that they were practicing at a level that was consistent with VA goals to promote take-home naloxone to reverse opioid-related overdose events. Average domain scores were similar across PCP, specialist, and other provider types. Specialists reported a higher average attitude domain score (+.56, P = .011) and perceived barriers domain score (+.82, P = .009) than PCPs. Most providers agreed that they prescribed naloxone more frequently due to academic detailing (53%) and indicated that they synthesized information from the academic detailer to change their naloxone prescribing practice (60%). Discussion: VA providers' perceptions of take-home naloxone were aligned with current evidence-based practice. Moreover, providers reported increasing their naloxone prescribing and synthesizing OEND-related information after an academic detailing interaction. Understanding providers' perceptions can be used to improve and enhance the academic detailing program's effectiveness.

Background: Opioid-related overdose deaths recently accelerated. In response, overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND) has been implemented widely, though access remains sparse in rural Appalachia. Despite increasing OEND, risk factors for non-evidence-based overdose responses among the training-naïve remain unknown. Methods: We enrolled 169 adults who use prescription opioids non-medically and reside in rural West Virginia (August 2014-March 2015). Participants were interviewed about witnessing overdose (lifetime and prior-year), characteristics of the most recent overdose, responses to the overdose, and OEND acceptability. Logistic regression was used to assess factors associated with non-evidence-based responses to overdose. Results: Among the 73 participants who witnessed an opioid-related overdose, the majority (n = 53, 73%) reported any non-evidence-based responses. Participants were significantly more likely to report a non-evidence-based response when victims were unresponsive (OR = 3.36; 95% CI = 1.07, 10.58). Common evidence-based responses included staying with the victim until help arrived (n = 66, 90%) and calling 911 (n = 63, 86%), while the most common non-evidence-based responses were hitting or slapping the victim (n = 37, 51%) and rubbing the victim with ice or placing them in a cold shower or bath (n = 14, 19%). While most (n = 60, 82%) had never heard of OEND, the majority (n = 69, 95%) were willing to train, particularly those reporting non-evidence-based responses (n = 52, 98%). Conclusions: These findings underscore the need to expand access to OEND in rural communities and indicate OEND is acceptable to training-naïve individuals who use opioids in rural Appalachia. Given the "harm reduction deserts" in the region, approaches to expand OEND should be pursued.

Objective: Opioid prescribing for chronic pain significantly contributes to opioid overdose deaths in the United States. Naloxone as a take-home antidote to opioid overdose is underutilized and has not been evaluated in the high-risk chronic pain population. The objective was to increase overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND) to high-risk patients on long-term opioid therapy for pain by utilizing group visits in primary care. Design: Quality improvement intervention among two primary care clinics. Setting: A large, academic facility within the Veterans Health Administration. Subjects: Patients prescribed >/=100 mg morphine-equivalent daily dose or coprescribed opioids and benzodiazepines. Methods: One clinic provided usual care with respect to OEND; another clinic encouraged attendance at an OEND group visit to all of its high-risk patients. Results: We used attendance at group visits, prescriptions of naloxone issued, and patient satisfaction scores to evaluate this format of OEND. Key Results: Group OEND visits resulted in significantly more naloxone prescriptions than usual care. At these group visits, patients were engaged, valued the experience, and all requested a prescription for the naloxone kit. Conclusion: This quality improvement pilot study suggests that OEND group visits are a promising model of care.

The use of fentanyl and its analogs is the primary driver of deaths related to the opioid overdose crisis. In fall 2021, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration issued its first public safety alert in 6 years to raise awareness of the escalating prevalence of fentanyl in counterfeit pills and in other opioids, such as heroin, and nonopioids, such as methamphetamine. In addition to increased public awareness, specific actions are needed to remediate the risk for fentanyl overdose. The authors endorse four principles to address the opioid overdose crisis and provide guidance for remediating its impacts: an incremental approach to behavior change or harm reduction; engagement strategies for individuals with substance use disorder; an integrated care approach to ensure better access to treatment programs and effective interventions; and vigilance among clinicians, program staff, and patients to the threat of fentanyl-adulterated drugs. The authors offer specific recommendations on how to apply these principles effectively within health care systems, communities, and law enforcement agencies across the United States.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has challenged the ability of harm reduction programs to provide vital services to adolescents, young adults, and people who use drugs, thereby increasing the risk of overdose, infection, withdrawal, and other complications of drug use. To evaluate the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on harm reduction services for adolescents and young adults in Boston, we conducted a quantitative assessment of the Community Care in Reach (CCIR) youth pilot program to determine gaps in services created by its closure during the peak of the pandemic (March 19-June 21, 2020). We also conducted semistructured interviews with staff members at 6 harm reduction programs in Boston from April 27 through May 4, 2020, to identify gaps in harm reduction services, changes in substance use practices and patterns of engagement with people who use drugs, and how harm reduction programs adapted to pandemic conditions. During the pandemic, harm reduction programs struggled to maintain staffing, supplies, infection control measures, and regular connection with their participants. During the 3-month suspension of CCIR mobile van services, CCIR missed an estimated 363 contacts, 169 units of naloxone distributed, and 402 syringes distributed. Based on our findings, we propose the following recommendations for sustaining harm reduction services during times of crisis: pursuing high-level policy changes to eliminate political barriers to care and fund harm reduction efforts; enabling and empowering harm reduction programs to innovatively and safely distribute vital resources and build community during a crisis; and providing comprehensive support to people to minimize drug-related harms.