Engaging the Great Circle: a qualitative study of the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde's mobile medication unit

BACKGROUND: The Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon began a Mobile Medication Unit (MMU) as part of their Great Circle Recovery Opioid Treatment Program (OTP) to address elevated rates of opioid use disorder (OUD) among American Indians and Alaska Natives in Oregon. The MMU provides methadone or buprenorphine for individuals with OUD, enrolled in the OTP, who are living either on the reservation or in surrounding rural communities. An implementation study describes the service through document review and qualitatively assesses patient and staff experiences and the perceived barriers and facilitators to mobile services. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews with patients (n = 11), MMU staff (n = 5), and the state opioid treatment authority (n = 1) gathered details on the initiative's development and operations. Provider interviews probed implementation experiences. Patient interviews focused on their experiences with the MMU and staff, changes in quality of life and recommendations for enhancing treatment. Interviews were transcribed and analysed using a Thematic Analysis approach. RESULTS: Staff themes identified two driving forces (i.e. staff desire for an inclusive approach to wellness that is accessible to all community members; the catalysts for the MMU), two steps toward MMU development (i.e. Tribal approvals and support; the construction and maintenance of community relationships) and two perspectives on MMU implementation and impact (i.e. initial implementation barriers; facilitators and observations of how the MMU reduced stigma associated with agonist therapy). Patients' themes noted the MMU's professional and 'caring' environment, accessible rural locations and general suggestions including culturally responsive ancillary services. CONCLUSION: The Great Circle MMU enhanced access to opioid agonist therapy for people with OUD (i.e. American Indians/Alaska Natives, and non-natives) living in rural communities. The Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde operates the first Tribally owned OTP MMU, grounded in cultural humility and committed to Tribal members and the great circle of the larger community.

Usability and feasibility of a take-home methadone web-application for opioid treatment program patients: A Small Business Innovation Research mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Most patients in opioid treatment programs (OTPs) attend daily for observed dosing. A Stage IA (create and adapt) and a Stage IB (feasibility and pilot) mixed method studies tested a web-application (app) designed to facilitate access to take-home methadone. METHODS: A Stage IA, intervention development study, used qualitative interviews to assess the usability (ease of use) and feasibility (ability to implement) of a take-home methadone app. The Stage IA market research was a two-week test with 96 patient participants from four OTPs. Qualitative interviews were completed with 20 systematically selected individuals who used the take-home app and 20 OTP clinicians (five each from the four OTPs). The Stage IB Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) study (24 patients and 8 clinicians in a single OTP) included quantitative assessments of the app's usability, acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility. Thematic analysis coded participant and staff assessments of the take-home app. RESULTS: Stage IA patients (mean age = 41 years; 52 % men, 57 % White) and IB patients (mean age = 38 years, 54 % men, 79 % White) described the app as "easy to use." Compared to unsupervised take-homes, some patients preferred using the take-home app. In Stage IB, patients rated the app highly on standardized measures of usability, acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility. Clinician ratings were more ambivalent. Patients rated in-clinic dosing as more disruptive than unsupervised take-homes and take-homes using the app. DISCUSSION: A Stage IA study informed the development and maturation of a Stage IB feasibility pilot study. Overall, the take-home app's usability, acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility were rated positively. Clinical staff ratings were less positive, but individuals commented that using the app a) enhanced patient quality of life, b) provided new tools for counselors, and c) offered competitive advantages. The SBIR award enhanced market research with more complete and systematic data collection and analysis.

Treatment Initiation, Substance Use Trajectories, and the Social Determinants of Health in Persons Living With HIV Seeking Medication for Opioid Use Disorder.

BACKGROUND: People living with HIV and opioid use disorder (OUD) are disproportionally affected by adverse socio-structural exposures negatively affecting health, which have shown inconsistent associations with uptake of medications for OUD (MOUD). This study aimed to determine whether social determinants of health (SDOH) were associated with MOUD uptake and trajectories of substance use in a clinical trial of people seeking treatment. METHODS: Data are from a 2018 to 2019 randomized trial comparing the effectiveness of different MOUD to achieve viral suppression among people living with HIV and OUD. SDOH were defined by variables mapping to Healthy People 2030 domains: education (Education Access and Quality), income (Economic Stability), homelessness (Neighborhood and Built Environment), criminal justice involvement (Social and Community Context), and recent SUD care (Health Care Access and Quality). Associations between SDOH and MOUD initiation were assessed with Cox proportional hazards models, and SDOH and substance use over time with generalized estimating equation models. RESULTS: Participants (N = 114) averaged 47 years old, 63% were male, 56% were Black, and 12% Hispanic. Participants reported an average of 2.3 out of 5 positive SDOH indicators (SD = 1.2). Stable housing was the most commonly reported SDOH (61%), followed by no recent criminal justice involvement (59%), having a high-school level education or greater (56%), income stability (45%), and recent SUD care (13%). Each additional favorable SDOH was associated with a 25% increase in the likelihood of MOUD initiation during the study period [adjusted HR = 1.25, 95% CI = (1.01, 1.55), P = .044]. Positive SDOH were also associated with a decrease in the odds of baseline opioid use and a greater reduction in opioid use during subsequent weeks of the study (P < .001 for a joint test of baseline and slope differences). CONCLUSIONS: Positive social determinants of health, in aggregate, may increase the likelihood of MOUD treatment initiation among people living with HIV and OUD.

"Just fighting for my life to stay alive": a qualitative investigation of barriers and facilitators to community re-entry among people with opioid use disorder and incarceration histories.

BACKGROUND: During the period of community re-entry immediately following release from jail or prison, individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) face structural barriers to successful re-entry and high risk of overdose. Few published studies investigate experiences in the immediate period (i.e., first 24 h) of re-entry among people with OUD. AIM: To understand the barriers and facilitators to treatment and reintegration of people with OUD during the initial transition from carceral settings back into the community. METHODS: From January-December 2017, we conducted 42 semi-structured qualitative interviews with patients with a history of incarceration who were receiving methadone at a not-for-profit, low-barrier opioid treatment program. Interviews probed participants' community re-entry experiences immediately following incarceration. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using a Thematic Analysis approach. RESULTS: The main themes described the experiences during the 24 h following release, reacclimating and navigating re-entry barriers, and re-entry preparedness and planning. Participants noted the initial 24 h to be a period of risk for returning to substance use or an opportunity to engage with OUD treatment as well as a tenuous period where many lacked basic resources such as shelter or money. When discussing the subsequent re-entry period, participants noted social challenges and persistent barriers to stable housing and employment. Participants overall described feeling unprepared for release and suggested improvements including formal transition programs, improved education, and support to combat the risk of overdose and return to substance use after incarceration. CONCLUSIONS: In this study that qualitatively examines the experiences of people with incarceration histories and OUD enrolled in methadone treatment, we found that participants faced many barriers to community re-entry, particularly surrounding basic resources and treatment engagement. Participants reported feeling unprepared for release but made concrete suggestions for interventions that might improve the barriers they encountered. Future work should examine the incorporation of these perspectives of people with lived experience into the development of transition programs or re-entry classes.

The process and challenges of language translation and cultural adaptation of study instruments: a case study from the NIDA CTN CHOICES-2 trial.

BACKGROUND: As the U.S. grows more diverse, researchers decide how to include non-English speakers. Budget limitations may not allow for translation of all instruments. Study teams must determine which instruments must receive certified translations. This paper describes the procedures utilized in one U.S.-based, multi-site clinical trial to decide which study instruments should undergo certified translation and discusses dialect review procedures. METHODS: The team determined which instruments (n = 31) would be translated using a qualitative evaluation to determine the need to obtain a Spanish-language certified translation: 1) "Could the meaning of these questions change (and potentially elicit a different response) if the translations were not consistent?" and 2) "Is it acceptable to have potential inconsistencies in these data?" Instruments for which question 1 was "yes" and question 2 was "no" (e.g., eligibility, outcomes, safety) were marked for certified translation. A dialect committee reviewed all translated patient-reported outcome measures to ensure that the translations had accounted for different meanings of words based on respondents' countries or regions of origin and recommended changes where necessary. RESULTS: Fourteen interview-based instruments underwent certified forward-only translation into U.S. Spanish. The remaining 2 interview-based instruments were translated via real-time conversation with participants by bilingual staff. Six forms were administrative and not translated. Five out of 9 professionally translated patient-reported outcome measures were amended to better reflect relevant dialects. CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of specific guidance, it is feasible for study team members to 1) determine which instruments should undergo certified translation and 2) incorporate dialect into translations.

Perceived Stress, Resilience, and Wellbeing in Seasoned Isha Yoga Practitioners Compared to Matched Controls During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Background: Yoga practices, including breathing, meditation, and posture protocols (asanas), have been shown to facilitate physical and mental wellbeing. Methods: Seasoned yoga practitioners were recruited from the Isha Foundation. Recruitment of the comparison group was achieved using snowball sampling and were not yoga practitioners. Participants in the non-yoga group were randomized to a 3-min Isha practice or a comparator group asked to perform 15-min of daily reading. Participants completed a series of web-based surveys (REDCap) at baseline, 6, and 12 weeks. These surveys include validated scales and objective questions on COVID-19 infection and medical history. The validated questionnaires assess for: perceived stress (PSS), mood states [anxiety and depression (PHQ-4), joy (DPES-Joy subscale)], mindfulness attention and awareness (MAAS), resilience (BRS), mental wellbeing (WEMWBS) and recovery from traumatic event (PTGI). Weekly activity diaries were employed as a tool for collecting compliance information from study participants. Perceived stress scale scores were identified as primary outcome for this study. Findings: The median Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) score for the yoga practitioners compared to the active and placebo comparators was significantly lower at all time-points: baseline: 11 [IQR 7-15] vs. 16 [IQR 12-21] in both the active and placebo comparators (p < 0.0001); 6 weeks: 9 [IQR 6-13] vs. 12 [IQR 8-17] in the active comparator and 14 [IQR 9-18] in the placebo comparator (p < 0.0001); and 12 weeks: 9 [IQR 5-13] vs. 11.5 [IQR 8-16] in the active comparators and 13 [IQR 8-17] in the placebo comparator (p < 0.0001). Among the randomized participants that were compliant for the full 12 weeks, the active comparators had significantly lower median PSS scores than the placebo comparators 12 weeks [10 (IQR 5-14) vs. 13 (IQR 8-17), p = 0.017]. Further, yoga practitioners had significantly lower anxiety at all three-time points (p < 0.0001), lower depression at baseline and 6 weeks (p < 0.0003), and significantly higher wellbeing (p < 0.0001) and joy (p < 0.0001) at all three-time points, compared to the active and placebo comparator groups. Interpretation: The lower levels of stress, anxiety, depression, and higher level of wellbeing and joy seen in the yoga practitioners compared to the active and placebo comparators illustrate the impact of regular yoga practices on mental health even during the pandemic. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT04498442.

Treatment retention, return to use, and recovery support following COVID-19 relaxation of methadone take-home dosing in two rural opioid treatment programs: A mixed methods analysis.

OBJECTIVES: In March 2020, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration permitted Opioid Treatment Programs (OTPs) to relax restrictions on take-home methadone and promoted telehealth to minimize potential exposures to COVID-19. We assessed the effects of COVID-19-related changes on take-home methadone dosing in two OTPs serving five rural Oregon counties. METHODS: We used a mixed-methods convergent design. The OTPs extracted urine drug test (UDT) results, take-home methadone regimens, and treatment retention from the electronic health record (EHR) for patients (n = 377). A mixed-effects negative binomial regression model assessed patient-level differences in take-home doses before and after the COVID-19 policy changes and the associations with treatment discontinuation, and UDT positivity. Semi-structured qualitative interviews (n = 32) explored patient reactions to increased take-home dosing and reduced clinic visits to provide context for quantitative findings. RESULTS: The number of take-home doses increased in the post-COVID-19 period for patients engaged in treatment for more than 180 days (median: 8 vs 13 take-home doses per month, p = 0.011). Take-homes did not increase for patients with fewer days of treatment. Each percentage point increase in take-home dosing above what would be expected without COVID-19 policy changes was negatively associated with the percent of UDT positive for opioids (B = -0.12, CI [-0.21, -0.04], p = 0.005) and the probability of treatment discontinuation (aOR = 0.97, CI [0.95, 0.99], p = 0.003). Qualitative analysis revealed three themes explaining how increased take-home dosing supported recovery: 1) value of feeling trusted with increased responsibility; 2) reduced travel time permitted increased employment and recreation; and 3) reduced exposure to individuals less stable in recovery and potential triggers. CONCLUSIONS: Take-home methadone dose relaxations were associated with increased methadone take-home doses, improved retention, and decreased UDT opioid positive results among clinically stable patients. Qualitative findings suggest that fewer take-home restrictions are feasible and desirable and do not pose safety or public health harms.

HIV clinic-based extended-release naltrexone versus treatment as usual for people with HIV and opioid use disorder: a non-blinded, randomized non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Opioid agonist medications for treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) can improve human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) outcomes and reduce opioid use. We tested whether outpatient antagonist treatment with naltrexone could achieve similar results. DESIGN: Open-label, non-inferiority randomized trial. SETTING: Six US HIV primary care clinics. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 114 participants with untreated HIV and OUD (62% male; 56% black, 12% Hispanic; positive for fentanyl (62%), other opioids (47%) and cocaine (60%) at baseline). Enrollment halted early due to slow recruitment. INTERVENTION: HIV clinic-based extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX; n = 55) versus treatment as usual (TAU) with buprenorphine or methadone (TAU; n = 59). MEASUREMENTS: Treatment group differences were compared for the primary outcome of viral suppression (HIV RNA ≤ 200 copies/ml) at 24 weeks and secondary outcomes included past 30-day use of opioids at 24 weeks. FINDINGS: Fewer XR-NTX participants initiated medication compared with TAU participants (47 versus 73%). The primary outcome of viral suppression was comparable for XR-NTX (52.7%) and TAU (49.2%) [risk ratio (RR) = 1.064; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.748, 1.514] at 24 weeks. Non-inferiority could not be demonstrated, as the lower confidence limit of the RR did not exceed the pre-specified margin of 0.75 in intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. The main secondary outcome of past 30-day opioid use was comparable for XR-NTX versus TAU (11.7 versus 14.8 days; mean difference = -3.1; 95% CI = -8.7, 1.1) in ITT analysis. Among those initiating medication, XR-NTX resulted in fewer days of opioid use compared with TAU in the past 30 days (6.0 versus 13.6, mean difference = -7.6; 95% CI = -13.8, -0.2). CONCLUSIONS: A randomized controlled trial found supportive, but not conclusive, evidence that human immunodeficiency virus clinic-based extended-release naltrexone is not inferior to treatment as usual for facilitating human immunodeficiency virus viral suppression. Participants who initiated extended-release naltrexone used fewer opioids than those who received treatment as usual.

Recruitment into a Clinical Trial of People Living with Uncontrolled HIV Infection Who Inject Drugs: a Site Case Report from the CTN 67 CHOICES Study.

CHOICES was an open-label, randomized, comparative effectiveness trial of office-based extended-release naltrexone versus treatment as usual in people with untreated opioid use disorder and HIV. This study explored facilitators to recruitment in Miami, a successful recruiting site in the national trial. The mixed-methods study included quantitative surveys of randomized participants, medical record abstraction, and qualitative interviews with study staff. Miami recruited 47 (40.5%) of 116 randomized participants in the six-site national trial. In-depth interviews of study staff (n = 6) revealed that Miami had a recruitment approach consisting of street level outreach and a close relationship with the local syringe services program (SSP). Partnership with a local SSP provided access to people living with HIV who inject drugs in Miami. SSPs' fundamental trust within the community of people who inject drugs can be leveraged in studies aiming to improve health outcomes in this underserved and high-priority population.

Rural opioid treatment program patient perspectives on take-home methadone policy changes during COVID-19: a qualitative thematic analysis.

BACKGROUND: In the United States, methadone for opioid use disorder (OUD) is highly regulated. Federal agencies announced guidelines in March 2020 allowing for relaxation of take-home methadone dispensing at opioid treatment programs (OTPs) to improve treatment access and reduce COVID-19 transmission risk during the public health emergency. We explored patient perspectives at three OTPs serving rural communities on how take-home policy changes were received and implemented and how these changes impacted their addiction treatment and recovery. METHODS: We completed semi-structured individual qualitative interviews in 2 phases: (1) August-October 2020 and (2) November 2020-January 2021 (total n = 46), anticipating possible policy changes as the pandemic progressed. We interviewed patients with OUD enrolled at 3 rural OTPs in Oregon. Participants received varying take-home methadone allowances following the COVID-19-related policy changes. All interviews were conducted via phone, audio-recorded, and transcribed. We conducted a thematic analysis, iteratively coding transcripts, and deductively and inductively generating codes. RESULTS: The 46 participants included 50% women and 89% had Medicaid insurance. Three main themes emerged in the analysis, with no differences between study phases: (1) Adapting to changing OTP policies throughout the pandemic; (2) Recognizing the benefits, and occasional struggles, with increased take-home methadone dosing; and (3) Continuing policies and procedures post-pandemic. Participants described fears and anxieties around ongoing methadone access and safety concerns prior to OTP policy changes, but quickly adapted as protocols soon seemed "natural." The majority of participants acknowledged significant benefits to increased take-homes independent of reducing COVID-19 infection risk including feeling "more like a normal person," improved recovery support, reduced time traveling, and having more time with family and for work. Looking to a post-pandemic future, participants thought some COVID-19-related safety protocols should continue that would reduce risk of other infections, make OTP settings less stressful, and result in more individualized care. CONCLUSIONS: As the pandemic progressed, study participants adapted to rapidly changing OTP policies. Participants noted many unanticipated benefits to increased take-home methadone and other COVID-19 protocols including strengthened self-efficacy and recovery and reduced interpersonal conflict, with limited evidence of diversion. Patient perspectives should inform future policies to better address the ongoing overdose epidemic.

Perspectives on extended-release naltrexone induction among patients living with HIV and opioid use disorder: a qualitative analysis.

BACKGROUND: The CHOICES study randomized participants with HIV and opioid use disorder (OUD) to HIV clinic-based extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX), which requires complete cessation of opioid use, versus treatment-as-usual (i.e., buprenorphine, methadone). Study participants randomized to XR-NTX were interviewed to assess their experiences with successful and unsuccessful XR-NTX induction. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were completed with a convenience sample of study participants with HIV and OUD (n = 37) randomized to XR-NTX in five HIV clinics between 2018 and 2019. All participants approached agreed to be interviewed. Interviews were digitally recorded, professionally transcribed, and analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Participants included women (43%), African Americans (62%) and Hispanics (16%), between 27 to 69 years of age. Individuals who completed XR-NTX induction (n = 20) reported experiencing (1) readiness for change, (2) a supportive environment during withdrawal including comfort medications, and (3) caring interactions with staff. Four contrasting themes emerged among participants (n = 17) who did not complete induction: (1) concern and anxiety about withdrawal including past negative experiences, (2) ambivalence about or reluctance to stop opioids, (3) concerns about XR-NTX effects, and (4) preferences for other medications. CONCLUSIONS: The results highlight opportunities to improve initiation of XR-NTX in high-need groups. Addressing expectations regarding induction may enhance XR-NTX initiation rates. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03275350. Registered September 7, 2017. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03275350?term=extended+release+naltrexone&cond=Opioid+Use .

Use of methamphetamine and alcohol among people with opioid use disorder and HIV in Vietnam: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Heroin use continues to drive HIV transmission in Vietnam, but methamphetamine and alcohol use are growing rapidly and, as in other countries, polysubstance use is widespread. The objective of this study was to understand the interplay between heroin, methamphetamine, and alcohol use among people with opioid use disorder (OUD) and HIV in Vietnam. METHODS: We conducted 44 in-depth, face-to-face qualitative interviews with people with OUD and HIV who participated in the BRAVO trial of buprenorphine versus methadone in five Vietnam HIV clinics. Interviews probed participants' experiences of heroin, methamphetamine, and alcohol use and their interplay with HIV/OUD treatment. Interviews were professionally transcribed and analyzed using a thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: Of 44 participants interviewed 42 were male, on average 38.8 years of age, with 30 reporting a history of methamphetamine use and 33 reporting a history of alcohol use. Several themes emerged: 1) Methamphetamine and alcohol were perceived to have lower addiction potential than heroin 2) Social settings were key facilitators of alcohol and methamphetamine use 3) Some participants, but not all, used methamphetamine to help quit heroin 4) Consuming alcohol blunted the effects of heroin, while paradoxically serving as a catalyst for heroin use 5) Use of methamphetamine was perceived by many participants to be incompatible with treatment for HIV. CONCLUSIONS: Participant experiences reflected a significant impact of polysubstance use on treatment of HIV and OUD. Patterns of polysubstance use are subject to common preconceptions of alcohol and methamphetamine as having a low addictive potential, and these substances are deeply enmeshed in the social life of many people with OUD in Vietnam. Interventions to address complex social norms and potential harms of polysubstance use are urgently needed as the population of people receiving medication for OUD (MOUD) increases in Vietnam and globally. TRIAL REGISTRATION: BRAVO - NCT01936857 , September 2013.

Office-Based Methadone Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder and Pharmacy Dispensing: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVE: The authors conducted a scoping review to survey the evidence landscape for studies that assessed outcomes of treating patients with opioid use disorder with methadone in office-based settings. METHODS: Ovid MEDLINE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched, and reference lists were reviewed to identify additional studies. Studies were eligible if they focused on methadone treatment in office-based settings conducted in the United States or other highly developed countries and reported outcomes (e.g., retention in care). Randomized trials and controlled observational studies were prioritized; uncontrolled and descriptive studies were included when stronger evidence was unavailable. One investigator abstracted key information, and a second verified data. A scoping review approach broadly surveyed the evidence, and therefore study quality was not rated formally. RESULTS: Eighteen studies of patients treated with office-based methadone were identified, including six trials, eight observational studies, and four additional articles discussing use of pharmacies to dispense methadone. Studies on office-based methadone treatment, including primary care-based dispensing, were limited but consistently found that stable methadone patients valued office-based care and remained in care with low rates of drug use; outcomes were similar compared with stable patients in regular care. Office-based methadone treatment was associated with higher treatment satisfaction and quality of life. Limitations included underpowered comparisons and small samples. CONCLUSIONS: Limited research suggests that office-based methadone treatment and pharmacy dispensing could enhance access to methadone treatment for patients with opioid use disorder without adversely affecting patient outcomes and, potentially, inform modifications to federal regulations. Research should assess the feasibility of office-based care for less stable patients.

Mobile methadone medication units: A brief history, scoping review and research opportunity.

BACKGROUND: The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) approved the first mobile medication unit (i.e., a van to administer methadone) in 1988 and approved units on an ad hoc basis until issuing a moratorium in 2007 citing concerns about safety and diversion. In February 2020, the DEA released a notice of proposed rulemaking to permit a resumption of mobile medication units. The Biden Administration plans to release the final rule in 2021. Because a preliminary scan suggested limited evidence, a scoping review examined the research related to methadone vans to identify and assess the extent of mobile methadone research and inform the development and implementation of new mobile services. METHODS: A scoping review, supplemented with key informant interviews, identified and described the most relevant evidence. Ovid MEDLINE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews databases were searched from inception to July 2020. RESULTS: Informant interviews provided perspective on the need for and the use of mobile medication units, the history of methadone vans, and benefits and problems associated with the units. The scoping review found limited evidence: three cohort analyses (one prospective) and one before and after analysis (four studies) of individuals using mobile medication services. Mobile services were associated with enhanced retention in care (relative to patients in fixed site programs) and mobile units appeared to facilitate access for underserved populations with opioid use disorders. DISCUSSION: The key informants addressed the history of methadone vans, the potential use to serve rural communities and correctional facilities and the benefits and problems associated with mobile services. The scoping review found evidence that mobile services increase methadone access among underserved populations and may enhance retention in care. The DEA's proposed regulatory modification creates opportunities to further evaluate the implementation and the effects of mobile medication units.

Associations between Psychiatric Disorders and Cannabis-Related Disorders Documented in Electronic Health Records.

Data from a large network of community health centers connected via a single electronic health record (EHR) system examined associations between psychiatric disorders and documentation of a cannabis-related disorder among patients with reported cannabis use. Participants were adults who had at least one ambulatory visit at a clinic in three states between 1/1/2012 and 12/31/2016 and had either 1) a documented cannabis-related disorder indicated by an ICD-9/10 code on the problem list or encounter list or 2) documentation of cannabis use in the EHR social history section. Clinics included 101,405 patients with either cannabis use recorded in the social history of the EHR (n = 71,660) or a cannabis-related disorder documented in the encounter or problem list (n = 29,745). GEE logistic regression modeling estimated adjusted odds ratios (aOR). Odds of patients having cannabis-related disorder recorded on the encounter or problem list were higher for individuals with depression (aOR = 1.08, 95% CI: 1.04-1.13), anxiety (aOR = 1.16, CI: 1.11-1.21) and bipolar disorder (aOR = 1.16, CI: 1.10-1.23). A diagnosis of schizophrenia increased the odds of a cannabis-related disorder by 62% (aOR = 1.62, CI: 1.48- 1.78). Primary care providers should routinely screen for and document cannabis-related disorders and psychiatric disorders.

Barriers and facilitators to recruitment and enrollment of HIV-infected individuals with opioid use disorder in a clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The CTN-0067 CHOICES trial tests implementation of extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX) versus treatment-as-usual (TAU) for opioid use disorders (OUD) in HIV clinics to improve HIV viral suppression. The study team investigated recruitment strategies to elucidate the barriers and facilitators to recruitment and enrollment in the study. MAIN TEXT: Methods: Semi-structured, in-depth, digitally recorded interviews were completed with study recruitment-related staff and medical providers (n = 26) from six participating HIV clinics in the fall of 2018. Interviews probed 1) factors that might prevent prospective participants from engaging in study recruitment and enrollment procedures and 2) strategies used by study staff that encourage eligible patient participation. Interviews were transcribed and thematically analyzed using a content analysis approach. RESULTS: All respondents reported that barriers to recruitment and enrollment included challenging patient social and structural factors (e.g., homelessness or living environments with high substance use, criminal justice involvement), difficulty locating patients with unsuppressed HIV viral load and OUD within the HIV clinic, time-consuming study enrollment processes, and stigma around HIV and OUD which inhibited treatment seeking. Some respondents observed that distrust of research and researchers impeded recruitment activities in the community. A specific medication-related barrier was patient fear of opioid abstinence required prior to XR-NTX induction. Facilitators of recruitment included use of trusted peer outreach/recruitment workers in the community, hospitalizations that offered windows of opportunities for screening and XR-NTX induction, providing participant transportation, and partnerships with harm reduction organizations for referrals. CONCLUSIONS: Though study personnel encountered barriers to recruitment in the CHOICES study, persons with untreated HIV and OUD can be enrolled in multisite clinical trials by using enhanced recruitment strategies that extend outside of the HIV clinic. Employing peer outreach workers and collaborating with syringe service programs may be especially helpful in facilitating recruitment and merit inclusion in similar study protocols.

Opioid use disorder and treatment: challenges and opportunities.

BACKGROUND: Addiction health service researchers have focused efforts on opioid use disorder (OUD) and strategies to address the emerging public health threats associated with the epidemics of opioid use and opioid overdose. The increase in OUD is associated with widespread access to prescription opioid analgesics, enhanced purity of heroin, the introduction of potent illicit fentanyl compounds, and a rising tide of opioid overdose fatalities. These deaths have become the face of the opioid epidemic. MAIN TEXT: OUD is a chronic disorder that usually requires both medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) and psychosocial treatment and support. Research has found that MOUD with an opioid receptor agonist (methadone), partial agonist (buprenorphine), or opioid antagonist (extended-release naltrexone) can support recovery. Despite compelling evidence that MOUD are effective, they remain underutilized. More research is needed on these therapies to understand the feasibility of implementation in clinic settings. CONCLUSION: This special issue focuses on how health services research has emerged as an important contributor to efforts to control the opioid epidemic in North America and Europe.

Use of single IRBs for multi-site studies: A case report and commentary from a National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network study.

Recent NIH policy stipulates that multi-site studies must use a single or IRB (Institutional Review Board) in order to streamline the review process while maintaining standards for human subjects protection. The Western States Node of the Clinical Trials Network (CTN) used a single IRB for protocol CTN-0067, a clinical trial testing the use of an opioid antagonist (extended-release naltrexone) versus opioid agonists (buprenorphine or methadone) for opioid use disorders among individuals living with HIV. This case study discusses the processes and challenges associated with use of a single IRB. These lessons are also informed by other single IRB experiences within the CTN. The intention of the NIH single IRB policy is to facilitate efficient IRB processes. Advanced planning and transparent communication, however, are critical to avoid stalling IRB approval and protocol implementation. Research teams need to account for local IRB willingness to cede to a single IRB and understand the variations in interpretations of abbreviated reviews. In order to facilitate the effective use of single IRBs, recommendations include assigning staff at each study site for IRB submission coordination and interaction with the lead site IRB staff, training investigators and key regulatory staff on expectations for working with single IRBs, dedicating a regulatory specialist at the lead site to manage the process, developing a communication plan, and supporting the development of strong working relationships with local regulatory staff and the single IRB. The CTN experiences with single IRBs may provide insights for other investigators.