Opioid agonist therapy during residential treatment of opioid use disorder: Cohort study on access and outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To determine access to opioid agonist therapy (OAT) for those entering residential treatment for opioid use disorder; to report on treatment outcomes for those taking OAT and those not taking OAT; and to determine the association between OAT use and residential treatment completion. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with opioid use disorder admitted to publicly funded residential treatment programs in the province of Ontario between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2016. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Access to OAT during residential treatment using descriptive statistics. Treatment outcomes (ie, completed the program, voluntarily left early, involuntary discharged, and other) for the entire cohort and for the OAT and non-OAT groups using descriptive statistics. Association between OAT use at admission and treatment completion (a binary outcome) using bivariate and multivariate models. RESULTS: Among an identified cohort of 1910 patients with opioid use disorder, 52.8% entered programs that permitted access to OAT. Overall, 56.8% of patients completed treatment, 23.3% voluntarily left early (eg, were no-shows, dropped out), 17.0% were involuntarily discharged, and 2.9% were discharged early for other reasons. Those taking OAT were as likely to complete treatment as those not taking OAT (53.9% vs 57.5%, respectively; adjusted odds ratio of 1.07, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.38). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates 2 large gaps in care for patients with opioid use disorder. First, these patients have poor access to OAT-the first-line treatment of opioid use disorder-while in publicly funded residential treatment programs; and second, many are involuntarily discharged from treatment. Additionally, this study indicates that patients taking OAT have similar likelihood of completing residential treatment as those not taking OAT do. Limitations of this study are that it is based on observational data for patients who self-selected before admission to use OAT or not, and it is likely not all confounders were accounted for.

Trends in treatment of problematic cannabis use in Ontario's specialized addiction treatment system from 2010/11 to 2015/16: a repeated cross-sectional study of a health administrative database.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about trends in the treatment of problematic cannabis use in Canada. Trends in treatment utilization for problematic cannabis use were examined, as well as trends in the associated sociodemographic characteristics and frequency of cannabis use. METHODS: This was a repeated cross-sectional study using data from the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Information System, capturing utilization of all community funded addiction treatment services in Ontario, Canada. Clients in treatment for their own problematic cannabis use from 2010/11 to 2015/16 were included. Two distinct groups were formed: clients with problematic cannabis use only (the cannabis-only group) and clients with problematic use of cannabis and other substances (the cannabis-plus group). Estimates of the number of clients in each of these groups and their cannabis use frequency (past 30 days) were characterized over time by new admissions and total caseload (new admissions plus carryovers). RESULTS: There were 152 984 admissions for 83 621 clients over the study period. The number of clients with new admissions in the cannabis-only group decreased from 2954 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2848-3062) in 2010/11 to 2342 (95% CI 2248-2439) in 2015/16. Similar downward trends were observed in the number of clients in the total caseload of this group. The number of clients with new admissions in the cannabis-plus group was stable, but the total caseload increased from 20 139 clients (95% CI 19 862-20 419) in 2011/12 to 21 816 (95% CI 21 527-22 107) in 2015/16. Proportions of daily cannabis use increased among clients in both groups. INTERPRETATION: The number of clients in treatment for problematic cannabis use only decreased over the study period, but the frequency of cannabis use increased among clients in both groups. Given the potential reductions in treatment that is unnecessary from a clinical standpoint, alignment of treatment programming with disorder severity may be warranted.