Literature Collection

OBJECTIVES: Healthcare professionals (HCPs) with opioid dependence are at risk for relapse and death, particularly in the first year of recovery; however, maintenance treatment with opioid agonists is controversial in this safety-sensitive group. We evaluated long-term safety, tolerability, and treatment outcomes of injectable, intramuscular, extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX) in opioid-dependent HCPs. METHODS: This single-arm, multisite, open-label study was conducted in opioid-dependent HCPs who had been detoxified from opioids for at least 2 weeks. Subjects received monthly XR-NTX injections for up to 24 months, combined with counseling via intensive outpatient substance abuse treatment programs. Assessments included monthly urine opioid drug tests and routine safety assessments, along with a trimonthly short form (36) Health Survey, opioid craving questionnaire, and Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication. RESULTS: Of 49 opioid-dependent HCPs screened, 38 enrolled and received at least 1 XR-NTX injection. Most were female (n = 31) and nurses or nursing assistants (n = 30). More than half (n = 21; 55.3%) received at least 12 injections. Seven discontinued due to adverse events (3 anxiety, 2 headache, 1 injection-site mass, 1 derealization). None experienced relapses to opioid dependence necessitating detoxification, overdose, or death during treatment. At 24 months, mean opioid craving fell by 45.2%, and short form (36) mental component scores improved by 31.1% from baseline and approached normal levels. Of 22 unemployed subjects at baseline, 45.5% improved employment status at 24 months. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term (2 years) XR-NTX was associated with no new safety concerns, and, compared with shorter-term studies in the general population, similar or better rates of retention, opioid-negative urines, opioid craving reduction, mental health functional quality of life improvement, and re-employment.

IMPORTANCE: Addiction treatment rapidly transitioned to a primarily telehealth modality (telephone and video) during the COVID-19 pandemic, raising concerns about disparities in utilization. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether there were differences in overall and telehealth addiction treatment utilization after telehealth policy changes during the COVID-19 pandemic by age, race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cohort study examined electronic health record and claims data from Kaiser Permanente Northern California for adults (age ≥18 years) with drug use problems before the COVID-19 pandemic (from March 1, 2019, to December 31, 2019) and during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic (March 1, 2020, to December 31, 2020; hereafter referred to as COVID-19 onset). Analyses were conducted between March 2021 and March 2023. EXPOSURE: The expansion of telehealth services during COVID-19 onset. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Generalized estimating equation models were fit to compare addiction treatment utilization during COVID-19 onset with that before the COVID-19 pandemic. Utilization measures included the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set of treatment initiation and engagement (including inpatient, outpatient, and telehealth encounters or receipt of medication for opioid use disorder [OUD]), 12-week retention (days in treatment), and OUD pharmacotherapy retention. Telehealth treatment initiation and engagement were also examined. Differences in changes in utilization by age group, race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status (SES) were examined. RESULTS: Among the 19 648 participants in the pre-COVID-19 cohort (58.5% male; mean [SD] age, 41.0 [17.5] years), 1.6% were American Indian or Alaska Native; 7.5%, Asian or Pacific Islander; 14.3%, Black; 20.8%, Latino or Hispanic; 53.4%, White; and 2.5%, unknown race. Among the 16 959 participants in the COVID-19 onset cohort (56.5% male; mean [SD] age, 38.9 [16.3] years), 1.6% were American Indian or Alaska Native; 7.4%, Asian or Pacific Islander; 14.6%, Black; 22.2%, Latino or Hispanic; 51.0%, White; and 3.2%, unknown race. Odds of overall treatment initiation increased from before the COVID-19 pandemic to COVID-19 onset for all age, race, ethnicity, and SES subgroups except for patients aged 50 years or older; patients aged 18 to 34 years had the greatest increases (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.31; 95% CI, 1.22-1.40). Odds of telehealth treatment initiation increased for all patient subgroups without variation by race, ethnicity, or SES, although increases were greater for patients aged 18 to 34 years (aOR, 7.17; 95% CI, 6.24-8.24). Odds of overall treatment engagement increased (aOR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.03-1.24) without variation by patient subgroups. Retention increased by 1.4 days (95% CI, 0.6-2.2 days), and OUD pharmacotherapy retention did not change (adjusted mean difference, -5.2 days; 95% CI, -12.7 to 2.4 days). CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort study of insured adults with drug use problems, there were increases in overall and telehealth addiction treatment utilization after telehealth policies changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. There was no evidence that disparities were exacerbated, and younger adults may have particularly benefited from the transition to telehealth.

CONTEXT: The United States is in the midst of an opioid overdose epidemic. Opioids killed more than 28 000 people in 2014, more than any year on record. One approach to addressing this growing epidemic is Opioid Overdose Education and Naloxone Distribution (OEND) training. Little is known about these programs' participants and their effectiveness across different demographic groups. OBJECTIVES: To examine (1) whether knowledge and attitudes improved over the course of the training programs; (2) whether training outcomes differ by demographics; and (3) what overdose experiences do attendees have, and whether those experiences influence their knowledge and attitudes. DESIGN: A pre- and posttest survey was used to collect data on participants' demographics, overdose experiences, and opioid overdose knowledge and attitudes. SETTING: Surveys that took place at community-wide OEND programs were offered throughout Erie County, New York, during October and November 2015. PARTICIPANTS: Community members who elected to attend the training programs, were at least 18 years of age, spoke English, and were willing and able to participate were included in the sample (N = 198). INTERVENTION: N/A. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The Opioid Overdose Knowledge and Attitudes Scale. RESULTS: Knowledge and attitude scores significantly improved from pre- to posttest assessments, increasing by 23.1% and 15.4%, respectively (Ps < .001). There were significant demographic differences in knowledge and attitudes at the pretest assessment, but these differences were ameliorated by the OEND program and did not persist at posttest assessment. In addition, 62.9% of participants had never experienced, witnessed, or known someone who had overdosed. CONCLUSION: Results indicate that OEND programs are effective at improving knowledge and attitudes toward opioid overdose. These results indicate that OEND programs are not reaching the highest risk individuals but are instead attracting concerned family and significant others. Future programs should focus on reaching current opioid users, overdose victims, and their families to ensure OEND programs are reaching the target audiences.

In order to investigate the patient experience of integrated behavioral health care in primary care settings, we implemented a patient cohort model from a combined site sample (N = 727) consisting of a family practice clinic and a Federally Qualified Health Center. Patient experience was measured using 12 questions from a validated measure, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Consumer Assessment of Health Care Providers and Systems (CAHPS®), Home and Community Based Services version, and six additional questions about interactions with an integrated behavioral health care team. We assessed bivariate relationships between satisfaction with integration and the clinic practice and self-reported physical health or self-reported mental/emotional health. We also utilized multiple regression to evaluate this relationship. Our analyses showed a statistically significant and small to moderate direct correlation between patients' self-reported health (both physical and mental/emotional health) and their ratings of the practice as a whole (p = .0003), such that patients who rated their physical and/or mental/emotional health as better were more likely to rate their overall satisfaction with the practice higher. The results of this study suggest that primary care patients with only mild to moderate health conditions (physical and/or mental/emotional) may experience greater satisfaction with integrated behavioral health care than patients with multiple and/or severe health conditions. In contrast, patients with multiple and/or severe health conditions may experience lower satisfaction with integrated behavioral health care and may be better served through higher levels of care.