Examining buprenorphine diversion through a harm reduction lens: an agent-based modeling study.

BACKGROUND: Recent policies have lessened restrictions around prescribing buprenorphine-naloxone (buprenorphine) for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD). The primary concern expressed by critics of these policies is the potential for buprenorphine diversion. However, the population-level effects of increased buprenorphine diversion are unclear. If replacing the use of heroin or fentanyl, use of diverted buprenorphine could be protective. METHODS: Our study aim was to estimate the impact of buprenorphine diversion on opioid overdose using an agent-based model calibrated to North Carolina. We simulated the progression of opioid misuse and opioid-related outcomes over a 5-year period. Our status quo scenario assumed that 50% of those prescribed buprenorphine diverted at least one dose per week to other individuals with OUD and 10% of individuals with OUD used diverted buprenorphine at least once per week. A controlled prescription only scenario assumed that no buprenorphine would be diverted, while an increased diversion scenario assumed that 95% of those prescribed buprenorphine diverted and 50% of individuals with OUD used diverted buprenorphine. We assumed that use of diverted buprenorphine replaced the use of other opioids for that day. Sensitivity analyses increased the risk of overdose when using diverted buprenorphine, increased the frequency of diverted buprenorphine use, and simulated use of diverted buprenorphine by opioid-naïve individuals. Scenarios were compared on opioid overdose-related outcomes over the 5-year period. RESULTS: Our status quo scenario predicted 10,658 (credible interval [CI]: 9699-11,679) fatal opioid overdoses. A scenario simulating controlled prescription only of buprenorphine (i.e., no diversion) resulted in 10,741 (9895-11,650) fatal opioid overdoses versus 10,301 (9439-11,244) within a scenario simulating increased diversion. Compared to the status quo, the controlled prescription only scenario resulted in a similar number of fatal overdoses, while the scenario with increased diversion of buprenorphine resulted in 357 (3.35%) fewer fatal overdoses. Even when increasing overdose risk while using diverted buprenorphine and incorporating use by opioid naïve individuals, increased diversion did not increase overdoses compared to a scenario with no buprenorphine diversion. CONCLUSIONS: A similar number of opioid overdoses occurred under modeling conditions with increased rates of buprenorphine diversion among persons with OUD, with non-statistical trends toward lower opioid overdoses. These results support existing calls for low- to no-barrier access to buprenorphine for persons with OUD.

Estimate of undetected severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in acute-care hospital settings using an individual-based microsimulation model.

OBJECTIVE: Current guidance states that asymptomatic screening for severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) prior to admission to an acute-care setting is at the facility's discretion. This study's objective was to estimate the number of undetected cases of SARS-CoV-2 admitted as inpatients under 4 testing approaches and varying assumptions. DESIGN AND SETTING: Individual-based microsimulation of 104 North Carolina acute-care hospitals. PATIENTS: All simulated inpatient admissions to acute-care hospitals from December 15, 2021, to January 13, 2022 [ie, during the SARS-COV-2 ο (omicron) variant surge]. INTERVENTIONS: We simulated (1) only testing symptomatic patients, (2) 1-stage antigen testing with no confirmatory polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test, (3) 1-stage antigen testing with a confirmatory PCR for negative results, and (4) serial antigen screening (ie, repeat antigen test 2 days after a negative result). RESULTS: Over 1 month, there were 77,980 admissions: 13.7% for COVID-19, 4.3% with but not for COVID-19, and 82.0% for non-COVID-19 indications without current infection. Without asymptomatic screening, 1,089 (credible interval [CI], 946-1,253) total SARS-CoV-2 infections (7.72%) went undetected. With 1-stage antigen screening, 734 (CI, 638-845) asymptomatic infections (67.4%) were detected, with 1,277 false positives. With combined antigen and PCR screening, 1,007 (CI, 875-1,159) asymptomatic infections (92.5%) were detected, with 5,578 false positives. A serial antigen testing policy detected 973 (CI, 845-1,120) asymptomatic infections (89.4%), with 2,529 false positives. CONCLUSIONS: Serial antigen testing identified >85% of asymptomatic infections and resulted in fewer false positives with less cost per identified infection compared to combined antigen plus PCR testing.

Timing of treatment initiation of direct-acting antivirals for HIV/HCV coinfected and HCV monoinfected patients.

Direct-acting antiviral therapy is safe and cost-effective for the treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. However, variability in drug payment rules represents a barrier to treatment that may disproportionately affect certain populations. We conducted a retrospective cohort study among HIV/HCV coinfected and HCV monoinfected patients using Kaplan-Meier and Fisher's exact test to analyze the time from the prescription of a direct-acting antiviral agent to delivery to the patient. Variables with significance p < .20 in univariate analysis were included in a Cox regression model. Factors associated with faster treatment were Infectious Diseases office setting (p = .01), public insurance payer (p = .01), and initial approval of requested regimen (p = .01). The presence of other liver disease was associated with delay in treatment (p = .05). Unrestrictive Medicare and Medicaid regulations resulted in more rapid delivery of medication compared to private payers. Fibrosis level, Child-Pugh class and HIV status did not significantly change time to treatment.

HIV/HCV Antiviral Drug Interactions in the Era of Direct-acting Antivirals.

Therapy for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and chronic hepatitis C has evolved over the past decade, resulting in better control of infection and clinical outcomes; however, drug-drug interactions remain a significant hazard. Joint recommendations from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the Infectious Diseases Society of America regarding drug-drug interactions between HIV antiretroviral agents and direct-acting antiviral agents for treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection are reviewed here. This review is oriented to facilitate appropriate selection of an antiviral therapy regimen for HCV infection based on the choice of antiretroviral therapy being administered and, if necessary, switching antiretroviral regimens.