Literature Collection

: Opioid use disorder (OUD) is an unprecedented medical and public health issue both in Puerto Rico (PR) and the greater US with an increase incidence of opioid use every year. Unprecedented and compounded emergencies in PR such as those caused by hurricanes, earthquakes, and the COVID-19 pandemic coupled with limited national and local governmental support, has forced most clinics in PR to take action to be able to continue providing care. This commentary summarizes the leadership and clinical initiatives of 3 community organizations in PR to maintain services for people with OUD during the COVID-19 pandemic. Local legislation that supported the continuity of OUD care is summarized, along with unique experiences specific to each organization. In addition, the vulnerability of economically disadvantaged people or experiencing homelessness as well as those affected by these compounded events in PR is discussed, with an emphasis on how some challenges were addressed and future directions for continuity of care as our country adjusts to new demands caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Opioid use disorder (OUD) in pregnancy disproportionately impacts rural and American Indian (AI) communities. With limited data available about access to care for these populations, this study's objective was to assess clinic knowledge and new patient access for OUD treatment in three rural U.S. counties. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The research team used unannounced standardized patients (USPs) to request new patient appointments by phone for white and AI pregnant individuals with OUD at primary care and OB/GYN clinics that provide prenatal care in three rural Utah counties. We assessed a) clinic familiarity with buprenorphine for OUD; b) appointment availability for buprenorphine treatment; c) appointment wait times; d) referral provision when care was unavailable; and e) availability of OUD care at referral locations. We compared outcomes for AI and white USP profiles using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: The USPs made 34 calls to 17 clinics, including 4 with publicly listed buprenorphine prescribers on the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration website. Among clinical staff answering calls, 16 (47%) were unfamiliar with buprenorphine. OUD treatment was offered when requested in 6 calls (17.6%), with a median appointment wait time of 2.5 days (IQR 1-5). Among clinics with a listed buprenorphine prescriber, 2 of 4 (50%) offered OUD treatment. Most clinics (n = 24/28, 85.7%) not offering OUD treatment provided a referral; however, a buprenorphine provider was unavailable/unreachable 67% of the time. The study observed no differences in appointment availability between AI and white individuals. CONCLUSIONS: Rural-dwelling AI and white pregnant individuals with OUD experience significant barriers to accessing care. Improving OUD knowledge and referral practices among rural clinics may increase access to care for this high-risk population.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate if brief treatment for alcohol dependence in primary care with the 15-method was as effective as specialist addiction care. In addition, we sought to investigate trajectories for change of alcohol consumption. METHOD: This study was a randomized controlled noninferiority trial, between-groups parallel design, with a noninferiority limit of 50 g of alcohol per week. A total of 288 adults fulfilling ICD-10 criteria for alcohol dependence were randomized to treatment in primary care or specialist outpatient care at a university addiction clinic. The primary outcome was change in weekly alcohol consumption at the 12-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes were heavy drinking days, severity of dependence, consequences of drinking, psychological health, quality of life, satisfaction with treatment, and biomarkers. Trajectories were investigated using change in World Health Organization drinking risk levels. RESULTS: The intention-to-treat analysis (n = 231) showed that the estimated weekly alcohol consumption in primary care was 18.2 g (95% CI [14.9, 51.3]) higher compared with specialist care (p = .28). Noninferiority was not demonstrated as the confidence interval exceeded the noninferiority limit. The secondary outcomes showed no differences between primary care and specialist care except that patients randomized to specialist care were more satisfied with treatment. The analyses of trajectories showed the main part of change in consumption occurred from baseline to the 6-month follow-up and was maintained to the 12-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Although noninferiority could not be demonstrated, based on similar trajectories and sustained reduction of alcohol use, this study indicates brief treatment of alcohol dependence in primary care with the 15-method is a feasible and promising approach.