Clinical outcomes and health care costs among people entering a safer opioid supply program in Ontario.

BACKGROUND: London InterCommunity Health Centre (LIHC) launched a safer opioid supply (SOS) program in 2016, where clients are prescribed pharmaceutical opioids and provided with comprehensive health and social supports. We sought to evaluate the impact of this program on health services utilization and health care costs. METHODS: We conducted an interrupted time series analysis of London, Ontario, residents who received a diagnosis of opioid use disorder (OUD) and who entered the SOS program between January 2016 and March 2019, and a comparison group of individuals matched on demographic and clinical characteristics who were not exposed to the program. Primary outcomes were emergency department (ED) visits, hospital admissions, admissions for infections and health care costs. We used autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) models to evaluate the impact of SOS initiation and compared outcome rates in the year before and after cohort entry. RESULTS: In the time series analysis, rates of ED visits (-14 visits/100, 95% confidence interval [CI] -26 to -2; p = 0.02), hospital admissions (-5 admissions/100, 95% CI -9 to -2; p = 0.005) and health care costs not related to primary care or outpatient medications (-$922/person, 95% CI -$1577 to -$268; p = 0.008) declined significantly after entry into the SOS program (n = 82), with no significant change in rates of infections (-1.6 infections/100, 95% CI -4.0 to 0.8; p = 0.2). In the year after cohort entry, the rate of ED visits (rate ratio [RR] 0.69, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.90), hospital admissions (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.74), admissions for incident infections (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.96) and total health care costs not related to primary care or outpatient medications ($15 635 v. $7310/person-year; p = 0.002) declined significantly among SOS clients compared with the year before. We observed no significant change in any of the primary outcomes among unexposed individuals (n = 303). INTERPRETATION: Although additional research is needed, this preliminary evidence indicates that SOS programs can play an important role in the expansion of treatment and harm-reduction options available to assist people who use drugs and who are at high risk of drug poisoning.

Impact of the COVID-19 Controlled Drugs and Substances Act exemption on pharmacist prescribing of opioids, benzodiazepines and stimulants in Ontario: A cross-sectional time-series analysis.

Background: Due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, Health Canada issued an exemption to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) on March 19, 2020, enabling pharmacists to act as prescribers of controlled substances to support continuity of care. Our study investigates utilization of the CDSA exemption by Ontario pharmacists with the intent to inform policy on pharmacist scope of practice and to improve future patient outcomes. Methods: We conducted a time-series analysis of pharmacist-prescribed opioid, benzodiazepine and stimulant claims data using Ontario Narcotics Monitoring System (NMS) data between January 2019 and December 2021. We used ARIMA modelling to measure the change to these classes of claims and to opioid claims containing quantities greater than a 30-day supply. Results: Postexemption, the average weekly number of pharmacist-prescribed opioid, benzodiazepine and stimulant claims rose by 146% (160 to 393 claims/week), 960% (49 to 515 claims/week) and 2150% (8 to 177 claims/week), respectively. There was a 2-week lag period between the time of announcement and the statistically significant increase in claims on April 5, 2020(p < 0.0001). The total number of claims for opioid quantities exceeding a 30-day supply decreased by 60%. Cumulative pharmacist-prescribed claims accounted for under 2% of the total NMS claims. Interpretation: Ontario pharmacists used the CDSA exemption but were prescribing at low rates. These findings suggest an effective change to pharmacy practice as the low rates show pharmacists used the exemption as a last line of defense. This may lead to further studies exploring treatment breaks during the COVID-19 pandemic and future changes to pharmacist scope to benefit patients.

Prescribing trends in direct-acting antivirals for the treatment of hepatitis C in Ontario, Canada.

Background: Direct-acting antivirals (DAA) offer an opportunity to cure hepatitis C. Reimbursement for DAAs has changed on two occasions since their inclusion on the Ontario public formulary. Whether these changes have appreciably modified prescribing patterns and increased access to DAAs is unknown. Methods: We conducted a repeated cross-sectional study of DAA reimbursement by the Ontario Public Drug Programs from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2018, to summarize the use of DAAs in Ontario and describe changes in DAA prescribing physician specialties over this period. We measured the total number of users quarterly. Results are reported overall and by prescriber type. Results: A total of 27,116 individuals received a publicly funded prescription for a DAA from the first quarter (Q1) of 2012 to the fourth quarter (Q4) of 2018. Nearly two-thirds (n = 17,813; 65.7%) of all DAAs were prescribed by gastroenterologists, hepatologists, or infectious disease specialists. Use of DAAs over time appears to have had three major phases in uptake: (1) the introduction of DAA treatments on the Ontario public drug formulary as a prior authorization benefit in Q1 2015, (2) expanded listing of all DAAs as limited-use products on the formulary in Q1 2017, and (3) the introduction of newer DAAs in Q2 2018. Conclusions: Changes in listing of these agents had a direct impact on the use of DAAs overall. Generally, broader listing expanded access but did not appear to shift utilization patterns to primary care prescribers. Further understanding of who is not receiving treatment is needed.