Real-world hepatitis C prevalence and treatment uptake at opioid agonist therapy clinics in Ontario, Canada.

Widespread screening for hepatitis C virus (HCV) is necessary for Canada to meet its HCV elimination goals by 2030. People who currently or previously injected drugs are at high risk for HCV. Opioid agonist therapy (OAT, such as methadone and buprenorphine) has been shown to help stabilize the lives of people who are opioid-dependent. The distribution of OAT in North America typically requires daily, weekly, or monthly clinic visits and presents an opportunity for engagement, screening and treatment for those at high-risk of HCV. In this study, HCV screening was conducted by staff at OAT clinics in Ontario from 2016 to 2020 and those with chronic infections were treated on-site with direct-acting antivirals. Point-of-care or dried blood spot (DBS) testing was used for antibodies, DBS or serum for HCV RNA and serum for HCV RNA at SVR12 (sustained virological response). Clinics screened 1954 people (mean age 40 years ±12, 63% male). Forty-five percent were antibody positive, of whom 64% were HCV RNA+. Eighty percent of those RNA+ set an appointment in which 99% attended. Ninety-six percent started treatment with 87% completing treatment. Sixty-eight percent of people who completed treatment submitted a sample for SVR12 testing of which 97% achieved a virological cure. Results suggest that HCV screening and treatment at OAT clinics is feasible, effective and warrants expansion. Data suggest strong treatment adherence due to high rates of SVR12 comparable with other OAT-based HCV treatment programs. The lack of SVR12 sampling could be addressed by either on-site phlebotomy or incentivizing SVR12 sampling.

Integrating Buprenorphine for Opioid Use Disorder into Rural, Primary Care Settings.

BACKGROUND: Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) including buprenorphine are effective, but underutilized. Rural patients experience pronounced disparities in access. To reach rural patients, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has sought to expand buprenorphine prescribing beyond specialty settings and into primary care. OBJECTIVE: Although challenges remain, some rural VA health care systems have begun offering opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment with buprenorphine in primary care. We conducted interviews with clinicians, leaders, and staff within these systems to understand how this outcome had been achieved. DESIGN: Using administrative data from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW), we identified rural VA health care systems that had improved their rate of primary care-based buprenorphine prescribing over the period 2015-2020. We conducted qualitative interviews (n = 30) with staff involved in implementing or prescribing buprenorphine in these systems to understand the processes that had facilitated implementation. PARTICIPANTS: Clinicians, staff, and leaders embedded within rural VA health care systems located in the Northwest, West, Midwest (2), South, and Northeast. APPROACH: Qualitative interviews were analyzed using a mixed inductive/deductive approach. KEY RESULTS: Interviews revealed the processes through which buprenorphine was integrated into primary care, as well as processes insufficient to enact change. Implementation was often initially catalyzed through a targeted hire. Champions then engaged clinicians and leaders one-on-one to "pitch" the case, describe concordance between buprenorphine prescribing and existing goals, and delineate the supportive role that they could provide. Sites were prepared for implementation by developing new clinical teams and redesigning clinical processes. Each of these processes was made possible with the active, instrumental support of leadership. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that rural systems seeking to improve buprenorphine accessibility in primary care may need to alter primary care structures to accommodate buprenorphine prescribing, whether through new hires, team development, or clinical redesign.

Buprenorphine deaths confirmed by toxicology reveal a low proportion of opioid agonist treatment before death in Finland.

We studied opioid agonist treatment (OAT) status before buprenorphine-related death in Finland, where buprenorphine is the principal OAT medicine and also the most misused opioid, through a retrospective population-based study using medico-legal cause-of-death investigation and OAT patient records. The study included all death cases (N = 570) between 2018 and 2020 with a buprenorphine or norbuprenorphine finding in post-mortem toxicology and with known drug misuse history or concomitant findings of illicit drugs. Of the deceased, 10% had received OAT in the year before death. Less than 1% of individuals < 25 years had received OAT, whereas the proportion in individuals ≥ 25 years was 13% (p < 0.001). There were significantly more females and more fatal poisonings (p < 0.001) among those < 25 years than among those ≥ 25 years. OAT medication at the time of death was sublingual buprenorphine-naloxone in 74% and subcutaneous buprenorphine in 23%. Except for significantly fewer benzodiazepine findings among those receiving OAT, minimal differences were found in terms of age, gender, cause and manner of death, or concomitant substance use between the deceased in and outside of OAT. Concomitant misuse of benzodiazepines, psychostimulants, alcohol, and gabapentinoids was frequent both in and outside of OAT and likely contributed to the death. These results suggest that access to OAT especially for young people and treatment of multiple addictions should be improved. Comprehensive information from medico-legal cause-of-death investigation as a starting point, combined with subsequent ante-mortem patient records, proved to be a successful approach to shed light on the Finnish scene of buprenorphine mortality.

Exploring Patients' Perceptions on Injectable Opioid Agonist Treatment: Influences on Treatment Initiation and Implications for Practice.

INTRODUCTION: Injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) with diacetylmorphine is an effective option for individuals previously considered non-responsive to opioid substitution treatment. Despite implementation in Canada and several European countries, relatively few eligible people choose to initiate iOAT. To better understand what encourages or deters prospective patients from initiating iOAT, the current study explores patients' perceptions on iOAT and how these influence therapy initiation in practice. METHODS: We conducted 34 semi-structured interviews with individuals currently in or eligible for iOAT in two German outpatient iOAT clinics. Transcripts were analysed following qualitative content analysis, with development of inductive categories and use of consensual coding. For member checking, we consulted individuals with lived experiences prior to data collection and publication. RESULTS: Participants based their choice to initiate iOAT on the perceived implications of the treatment on one's daily life and individual recovery. Participants were encouraged to initiate iOAT due to the therapy's perceived potential in reducing cravings and substance use, its positive health consequences, and due to the image of iOAT as a path towards abstinence. Regarding deterring perceptions, participants feared a profound impairment of daily life due to factors such as the daily visits to the clinic, were concerned about whether iOAT would sufficiently promote or even impede one's recovery, and described negative health effects. CONCLUSION: Perceptions found in this study profoundly influenced participants' decisions on iOAT enrolment and contextualize the previous literature. The study reveals the dynamic coexistence of different perceptions about iOAT and sheds light on the inner-group stigmatization of iOAT. Practitioners and future research should acknowledge the complexities found in the current study in order to exploit the full potential of effective treatment modalities such as iOAT.

Structural and social changes due to the COVID-19 pandemic and their impact on engagement in substance use disorder treatment services: a qualitative study among people with a recent history of injection drug use in Baltimore, Maryland.

BACKGROUND: Substance use disorder treatment and recovery support services are critical for achieving and maintaining recovery. There are limited data on how structural and social changes due to the COVID-19 pandemic impacted individual-level experiences with substance use disorder treatment-related services among community-based samples of people who inject drugs. METHODS: People with a recent history of injection drug use who were enrolled in the community-based AIDS Linked to the IntraVenous Experience study in Baltimore, Maryland participated in a one-time, semi-structured interview between July 2021 and February 2022 about their experiences living through the COVID-19 pandemic (n = 28). An iterative inductive coding process was used to identify themes describing how structural and social changes due to the COVID-19 pandemic affected participants' experiences with substance use disorder treatment-related services. RESULTS: The median age of participants was 54 years (range = 24-73); 10 (36%) participants were female, 16 (57%) were non-Hispanic Black, and 8 (29%) were living with HIV. We identified several structural and social changes due the pandemic that acted as barriers and facilitators to individual-level engagement in treatment with medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) and recovery support services (e.g., support group meetings). New take-home methadone flexibility policies temporarily facilitated engagement in MOUD treatment, but other pre-existing rigid policies and practices (e.g., zero-tolerance) were counteracting barriers. Changes in the illicit drug market were both a facilitator and barrier to MOUD treatment. Decreased availability and pandemic-related adaptations to in-person services were a barrier to recovery support services. While telehealth expansion facilitated engagement in recovery support group meetings for some participants, other participants faced digital and technological barriers. These changes in service provision also led to diminished perceived quality of both virtual and in-person recovery support group meetings. However, a facilitator of recovery support was increased accessibility of individual service providers (e.g., counselors and Sponsors). CONCLUSIONS: Structural and social changes across several socioecological levels created new barriers and facilitators of individual-level engagement in substance use disorder treatment-related services. Multilevel interventions are needed to improve access to and engagement in high-quality substance use disorder treatment and recovery support services among people who inject drugs.

Measuring sustainability of opioid agonist therapy programs in the context of transition from global fund support.

BACKGROUND: Programmatic and financial sustainability of health responses dependent on donor funding has risen as a major concern. In the HIV field in particular, it generated a number of instruments and assessments on sustainability and processes related to donor transition planning. The authors aimed to develop an instrument specific to opioid agonist therapy (OAT) programs as they were addressed only marginally by the HIV-specific assessments. METHODS: The development of the OAT sustainability instrument used desk review of existing HIV sustainability concepts and tools, an International Advisory Board, and piloting to validate the instrument. RESULTS: The new OAT sustainability instrument is comprised of the three parts: the conceptual framework, methodological guidelines and a practical implementation tool for assessing the degree of OAT sustainability at the country level. It measures sustainability in the three broad areas for sustainability measuring-Policy & Governance; Finance & Resources; and Services. The selection of indicators and their composites for the three sustainability areas extensively used the United Nations and World Health Organization's guidance on health system building blocks, on care and HIV and viral hepatitis prevention among people using opioids and for opioid dependence, and the definition of access to health framed by the United Nations Convent on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The instrument's methodological guidelines require the engagement of a national consultant to conduct desk review, key informant interviews and focus groups for measuring discrete milestones and adding qualitative information for interpretation of the data, progress and opportunities. The guidelines advise engaging a country-specific multi-stakeholder advisory group for planning, validation and follow-up of the assessment. The pilot of the instrument in 3 countries in 2020 validated it and required minor adjustments in the instrument. By mid-2023, the instrument has been successfully applied in 5 countries. CONCLUSIONS: The developed instrument enables a comprehensive review of the resilience of OAT programs and their ability to scale up and to inform a roadmap for improved sustainability. While developed in the context of Eastern Europe and Central Asia, it has been reviewed by a global advisory panel and could be easily adapted outside this regional context.

Withdrawal during outpatient low dose buprenorphine initiation in people who use fentanyl: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Buprenorphine is an effective treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD); however, buprenorphine initiation can be complicated by withdrawal symptoms including precipitated withdrawal. There has been increasing interest in using low dose initiation (LDI) strategies to reduce this withdrawal risk. As there are limited data on withdrawal symptoms during LDI, we characterize withdrawal symptoms in people with daily fentanyl use who underwent initiation using these strategies as outpatients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients with OUD using daily fentanyl who were prescribed 7-day or 4-day LDI at 2 substance use disorder treatment clinics in San Francisco. Two addiction medicine experts assessed extracted chart documentation for withdrawal severity and precipitated withdrawal, defined as acute worsening of withdrawal symptoms immediately after taking buprenorphine. A third expert adjudicated disagreements. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: There were 175 initiations in 126 patients. The mean age was 37 (SD 10 years). 71% were men, 26% women, and 2% non-binary. 21% identified as Black, 16% Latine, and 52% white. 60% were unstably housed and 75% had Medicaid insurance. Substance co-use included 74% who used amphetamines, 29% cocaine, 22% benzodiazepines, and 19% alcohol. Follow up was available for 118 (67%) initiations. There was deviation from protocol instructions in 22% of these initiations with follow up. 31% had any withdrawal, including 21% with mild symptoms, 8% moderate and 2% severe. Precipitated withdrawal occurred in 10 cases, or 8% of initiations with follow up. Of these, 7 had deviation from protocol instructions; thus, there were 3 cases with follow up (3%) in which precipitated withdrawal occurred without protocol deviation. CONCLUSIONS: Withdrawal was relatively common in our cohort but was mostly mild, and precipitated withdrawal was rare. Deviation from instructions, structural barriers, and varying fentanyl use characteristics may contribute to withdrawal. Clinicians should counsel patients who use fentanyl that mild withdrawal symptoms are likely during LDI, and there is still a low risk for precipitated withdrawal. Future studies should compare withdrawal across initiation types, seek ways to support patients in initiating buprenorphine, and qualitatively elicit patients' withdrawal experiences.

Direct induction onto high-dose long-acting injectable buprenorphine: A case series.

INTRODUCTION: This case series reports on five patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) who were commenced directly onto high-dose long-acting injectable buprenorphine (LAIB). METHOD: A retrospective audit and manual review of the electronic medical record at cohealth Innerspace was conducted for patients who had been directly inducted onto high-dose LAIB. RESULTS: Five cases were identified on retrospective manual file review. All patients identified were males aged between 33 and 60 years old and were treated with either high-dose Buvidal Weekly and Monthly preparations. No immediate significant adverse effects were noticed and 4 out of 5 remain engaged with treatment. CONCLUSION: This case series shows it is possible to directly induct patients with OUD onto high-dose LAIB preparations without significant side effects or harm to the patient and could be considered a viable option in the treatment of patients with OUD.

Access to Medications for Opioid Use Disorder in Rural Versus Urban Veterans Health Administration Facilities.

BACKGROUND: For patients with opioid use disorder (OUD), medications for OUD (MOUD) reduce morbidity, mortality, and return to use. Nevertheless, a minority of patients receive MOUD, and underutilization is pronounced among rural patients. OBJECTIVE: While Veterans Health Administration (VHA) initiatives have improved MOUD access overall, it is unknown whether access has improved in rural VA health systems specifically. How "Community Care," healthcare paid for by VHA but received from non-VA providers, has affected rural access is also unknown. DESIGN: Data for this observational study were drawn from the VHA Corporate Data Warehouse. Facility rurality was defined by rural-urban commuting area code of the primary medical center. International Classification of Diseases codes identified patients with OUD within each year, 2015-2020. We included MOUD (buprenorphine, methadone, extended-release naltrexone) received from VHA or paid for by VHA but received at non-VA facilities through Community Care. We calculated average yearly MOUD receipt; linear regression of outcomes on study years identified trends; an interaction between year and rural status evaluated trend differences over time. PARTICIPANTS: All 129 VHA Health Systems, a designation that encompasses one or more medical centers and their affiliated community-based outpatient clinics MAIN MEASURES: The average proportion of patients diagnosed with OUD that receive MOUD within rural versus urban VHA health care systems. KEY RESULTS: From 2015 to 2020, MOUD access increased substantially: the average proportion of patients receiving MOUD increased from 34.6 to 48.9%, with a similar proportion of patients treated with MOUD in rural and urban systems in all years. Overall, a small proportion (1.8%) of MOUD was provided via Community Care, and Community Care did not disproportionately benefit rural health systems. CONCLUSIONS: Strategies utilized by VHA could inform other health care systems seeking to ensure that, regardless of geographic location, all patients are able to access MOUD.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Financial Incentives to Achieve Heroin Abstinence in Individuals With Heroin Use Disorder Starting New Treatment Episodes: A Cluster Randomized Trial-Based Economic Evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: Cost-effectiveness analysis of two 12-week contingency management (CM) schedules targeting heroin abstinence or attendance at weekly keyworker appointments for opioid agonist treatment compared with treatment as usual (TAU). METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted alongside a cluster randomized trial of 552 patients from 34 clusters (drug treatment clinics) randomly allocated 1:1:1 to opioid agonist treatment plus weekly keyworker appointments with (1) CM targeted at heroin abstinence (CM abstinence), (2) CM targeted at on-time attendance at weekly appointments (CM attendance), or (3) no CM (TAU). The primary cost-effectiveness analysis at 24 weeks after randomization took a societal cost perspective with effects measured in heroin-negative urine samples. RESULTS: At 24 weeks, mean differences in weekly heroin-negative urine results compared with TAU were 0.252 (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.397 to 0.901) for CM abstinence and 0.089 (95% CI -0.223 to 0.402) for CM attendance. Mean differences in costs were £2562 (95% CI £32-£5092) for CM abstinence and £317 (95% CI -£882 to £1518) for CM attendance. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were £10 167 per additional heroin-free urine for CM abstinence and £3562 for CM attendance with low probabilities of cost-effectiveness of 3.5% and 36%, respectively. Results were sensitive to timing of follow-up for CM attendance, which dominated TAU (better outcomes, lower costs) at 12 weeks, with an 88.4% probability of being cost-effective. Probability of cost-effectiveness remained low for CM abstinence (8.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Financial incentives targeted toward heroin abstinence and treatment attendance were not cost-effective over the 24-week follow-up. Nevertheless, CM attendance was cost-effective over the treatment period (12 weeks), when participants were receiving keyworker appointments and incentives.

A comparison of mortality rates for buprenorphine versus methadone treatments for opioid use disorder.

OBJECTIVE: Mortality from opioid use disorder (OUD) can be reduced for patients who receive opioid agonist treatment (OAT). In the United States (US), OATs have different requirements including nearly daily visits to a dispensing facility for methadone but weekly to monthly prescriptions for buprenorphine. Our objective was to compare mortality rates for buprenorphine and methadone treatments among a large sample of US patients with OUD. METHODS: We measured all-cause mortality, overdose mortality, and suicide mortality among US Department of Veterans Affairs patients with a diagnosis of OUD who received OAT from 2010 through 2019. We leveraged substantial and sustained regional variation in prescribing buprenorphine versus methadone as an instrumental variable (IV) and used inverse propensity of treatment weighting to balance relevant covariates across treatment groups. We compared mortality with true two-stage IV using both probit and linear probability models, as well as a reduced form IV model, adjusting for demographics and health status. RESULTS: Our cohort consisted of 61,997 patients with OUD who received OAT, of whom 92.7% were male with a mean age of 47.9 (SD = 14.1) years. Patients were followed for a median of 2 (IQR = 1,4) calendar years. Across regional terciles, mean methadone prescribing was 4.8%, 19.5%, and 75.1% of OAT patients. All models identified significant reductions in all-cause and suicide mortality for buprenorphine relative to methadone. For example, predicted all-cause mortality from the probit model was 169.7 per 10,000 person years (95% CI, 157.8, 179.6) in the lowest tercile of methadone prescribing compared with 206.1 (95% CI, 196.0, 216.3) in the highest tercile. No difference was identified for overdose mortality. CONCLUSION: We found significantly lower all-cause mortality and suicide mortality rates for buprenorphine compared with methadone. Our results support the less restrictive prescribing practices for buprenorphine as OAT in the US.

Causes and risk factors of death among people who inject drugs in Indonesia, Ukraine and Vietnam: findings from HPTN 074 randomized trial.

INTRODUCTION: The HIV Prevention Trials Network (HPTN) 074 study demonstrated a positive effect of an integrated systems navigation and psychosocial counseling intervention on HIV treatment initiation, viral suppression, medication assisted treatment (MAT) enrollment, and risk of death among people who inject drugs (PWID). In this sub-study, we analyzed the incidence, causes, and predictors of death among HIV-infected and uninfected participants. METHODS: The HPTN 074 randomized clinical trial was conducted in Indonesia, Ukraine, and Vietnam. HIV-infected PWID with unsuppressed viral load (indexes) were recruited together with at least one of their HIV-negative injection partners. Indexes were randomized in a 1:3 ratio to the intervention or standard of care. RESULTS: The trial enrolled 502 index and 806 partner participants. Overall, 13% (66/502) of indexes and 3% (19/806) of partners died during follow-up (crude mortality rates 10.4 [95% CI 8.1-13.3] and 2.1 [1.3-3.3], respectively). These mortality rates were for indexes nearly 30 times and for partners 6 times higher than expected in a population of the same country, age, and gender (standardized mortality ratios 30.7 [23.7-39.0] and 5.8 [3.5-9.1], respectively). HIV-related causes, including a recent CD4 < 200 cells/µL, accounted for 50% of deaths among indexes. Among partners, medical conditions were the most common cause of death (47%). In the multivariable Cox model, the mortality among indexes was associated with sex (male versus female aHR = 4.2 [1.5-17.9]), CD4 count (≥ 200 versus < 200 cells/µL aHR = 0.3 [0.2-0.5]), depression (moderate-to-severe versus no/mild aHR = 2.6 [1.2-5.0]) and study arm (intervention versus control aHR = 0.4 [0.2-0.9]). Among partners, the study arm of the index remained the only significant predictor (intervention versus control aHR = 0.2 [0.0-0.9]) while controlling for the effect of MAT (never versus ever receiving MAT aHR = 2.4 [0.9-7.4]). CONCLUSIONS: The results confirm that both HIV-infected and uninfected PWID remain at a starkly elevated risk of death compared to general population. Mortality related to HIV and other causes can be significantly reduced by scaling-up ART and MAT. Access to these life-saving treatments can be effectively improved by flexible integrated interventions, such as the one developed and tested in HPTN 074.

Rescue Analgesia for Opioid-Dependent Individuals on Opioid Agonist Treatment during Hospitalization: Adherence to Guideline Treatment.

INTRODUCTION: Opioid agonist treatment (OAT) is the first-line treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD). Simultaneously, opioids are essential medicines in acute pain management. The literature is scarce on acute pain management in individuals with OUD, and guidelines are controversial for patients on OAT. We aimed at analyzing rescue analgesia in opioid-dependent individuals on OAT during hospitalization in the University Hospital Basel, Switzerland. METHODS: Patient hospital records were extracted from the database over 6 months (Jan-Jun) in 2015 and 2018. Of the 3,216 extracted patient records, we identified 255 cases on OAT with full datasets. Rescue analgesia was defined according to established principles of acute pain management, e.g., i) the analgesic agent is identical to the OAT medication, and ii) the opioid agent is dosed above 1/6th morphine equivalent dose of the OAT medication. RESULTS: The patients were on average 51.3 ± 10.5 years old (range: 22-79 years), of which 64% were men. The most frequent OAT agents were methadone and morphine (34.9% and 34.5%). Rescue analgesia was not documented in 14 cases. Guideline-concordant rescue analgesia was observed in 186 cases (72.9%) and consisted mostly of NSAIDs, including paracetamol (80 cases), and identical agents such as the OAT opioid (70 cases). Guideline-divergent rescue analgesia was observed in 69 (27.1%) cases, predominantly due to an underdosed opioid agent (32 cases), another agent other than the OAT (18 cases), or contraindicated agents (10 cases). DISCUSSION: Our analysis suggests that rescue analgesia in hospitalized OAT patients was predominantly concordant with guidelines, while divergent prescriptions seemed to follow common principles of pain medicine. Clear guidelines are needed to appropriately treat acute pain in hospitalized OAT patients.

A Case report of a continuous ambulatory drug delivery (CADD) pump to deliver opioid agonist treatment in an acute care setting.

BACKGROUND: People with substance use disorder are at risk of complications of drug use and frequent hospitalization and may continue to use substances during admission to acute care. Acute care harm reduction strategies including oral or injectable prescription opioids may aid in care retention and improve health outcomes in this patient population. CASE PRESENTATION: A 58-year-old woman with refractory opioid use disorder was admitted to hospital for management of dysphagia secondary to esophageal stricture. She received injectable opioid agonist therapy using a continuous ambulatory drug delivery (CADD) pump in order to facilitate completion of her hospital admission. CONCLUSIONS: The patient successfully received acute medical care with the use of a CADD pump for consistent, patient-controlled opioid administration, with the support of an interdisciplinary team and by respecting the patient's own substance use goals.

Peer-led safer supply and opioid agonist treatment medication distribution: a case study from rural British Columbia.

BACKGROUND: British Columbia (BC) has been facing a public health emergency of overdose since 2016, with rural regions of the province facing the highest rates of death. Peers (in this case, people with lived experience of substance use) are known to be effective patient navigators in health systems and can play a role in connecting patients to care and reducing overdose risk. CASE PRESENTATION: We outline a peer-led program focused on opioid agonist treatment and prescribed safe supply medication delivery that began in March 2020 at a clinic in rural BC. The peer takes an Indigenous harm reduction approach and is focused on meeting the needs of the whole person. The peer has regular contact with approximately 50 clients and navigates medication delivery and appointments for approximately 10-15 people each day. Clients have been retained on the medication, and experienced improvement in other outcomes, including securing housing, employment and managing acute and chronic health conditions. The peer has established contact with clients since March 2020 to support engagement with health care and continuity of medication access. This program highlights the importance and value of peer-led work and need for further investments in peer-led programs to respond to the unregulated drug poisoning crisis. CONCLUSIONS: This peer-led intervention is a promising approach to engaging people who remain disconnected from health services in care in a rural community. This model could be adapted to other settings to support patient contact with the health system and medication access and continuity, with the ultimate goal of reducing overdose risk.

"As long as that place stays open, I'll stay alive": Accessing injectable opioid agonist treatment during dual public health crises.

BACKGROUND: Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, overdose rates in North America have continued to rise, with more than 100,000 drug poisoning deaths in the past year. Amidst an increasingly toxic drug supply, the pandemic disrupted essential substance use treatment and harm reduction services that reduce overdose risk for people who use drugs. In British Columbia, one such treatment is injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT), the supervised dispensation of injectable hydromorphone or diacetylmorphine for people with opioid use disorder. While evidence has shown iOAT to be safe and effective, it is intensive and highly regimented, characterized by daily clinic visits and provider-client interaction-treatment components made difficult by the pandemic. METHODS: Between April 2020 and February 2021, we conducted 51 interviews with 18 iOAT clients and two clinic nurses to understand how the pandemic shaped iOAT access and treatment experiences. To analyze interview data, we employed a multi-step, flexible coding strategy, an iterative and abductive approach to analysis, using NVivo software. RESULTS: Qualitative analysis revealed the ways in which the pandemic shaped clients' lives and the provision of iOAT care. First, client narratives illuminated how the pandemic reinforced existing inequities. For example, socioeconomically marginalized clients expressed concerns around their financial stability and economic impacts on their communities. Second, clients with health comorbidities recognized how the pandemic amplified health risks, through potential COVID-19 exposure or by limiting social connection and mental health supports. Third, clients described how the pandemic changed their engagement with the iOAT clinic and medication. For instance, clients noted that physical distancing guidelines and occupancy limits reduced opportunities for social connection with staff and other iOAT clients. However, pandemic policies also created opportunities to adapt treatment in ways that increased patient trust and autonomy, for example through more flexible medication regimens and take-home oral doses. CONCLUSION: Participant narratives underscored the unequal distribution of pandemic impacts for people who use drugs but also highlighted opportunities for more flexible, patient-centered treatment approaches. Across treatment settings, pandemic-era changes that increase client autonomy and ensure equitable access to care are to be continued and expanded, beyond the duration of the pandemic.

A qualitative exploration of barriers and facilitators to drug treatment services among people who inject drugs in west Virginia.

BACKGROUND: The opioid overdose crisis in the USA has called for expanding access to evidence-based substance use treatment programs, yet many barriers limit the ability of people who inject drugs (PWID) to engage in these programs. Predominantly rural states have been disproportionately affected by the opioid overdose crisis while simultaneously facing diminished access to drug treatment services. The purpose of this study is to explore barriers and facilitators to engagement in drug treatment among PWID residing in a rural county in West Virginia. METHODS: From June to July 2018, in-depth interviews (n = 21) that explored drug treatment experiences among PWID were conducted in Cabell County, West Virginia. Participants were recruited from locations frequented by PWID such as local service providers and public parks. An iterative, modified constant comparison approach was used to code and synthesize interview data. RESULTS: Participants reported experiencing a variety of barriers to engaging in drug treatment, including low thresholds for dismissal, a lack of comprehensive support services, financial barriers, and inadequate management of withdrawal symptoms. However, participants also described several facilitators of treatment engagement and sustained recovery. These included the use of medications for opioid use disorder and supportive health care workers/program staff. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that a range of barriers exist that may limit the abilities of rural PWID to successfully access and remain engaged in drug treatment in West Virginia. Improving the public health of rural PWID populations will require expanding access to evidence-based drug treatment programs that are tailored to participants' individual needs.

Safety and feasibility of intranasal heroin-assisted treatment: 4-week preliminary findings from a Swiss multicentre observational study.

BACKGROUND: Heroin-assisted treatment (HAT) is effective for individuals with severe opioid use disorder (OUD) who do not respond sufficiently to other opioid agonist treatments. It is mostly offered with injectable diacetylmorphine (DAM) or DAM tablets creating a barrier for individuals who need the rapid onset of action but are either unable or unwilling to inject, or primarily snort opioids. To explore another route of administration, we evaluated the safety and feasibility of intranasal (IN) DAM. METHODS: This is a multicentre observational cohort study among patients in Swiss HAT. All patients planning to receive IN DAM within the treatment centres were eligible to participate. Participants were either completely switched to IN DAM or received IN DAM in addition to other DAM formulations or opioid agonists. Patients were followed up for four weeks. Sociodemographic characteristics, current HAT regimen, reasons for starting IN DAM, IN DAM doses, number of injection events in the sample, IN DAM continuation rate, and appearance of adverse events and nose-related problems were evaluated. RESULTS: Participants (n = 52) reported vein damage, preference for nasal route of administration, and desire of a stronger effect or for a less harmful route of administration as primary reasons for switching to IN DAM. After four weeks, 90.4% of participants (n = 47) still received IN DAM. Weekly average realised injection events decreased by 44.4% from the month before IN DAM initiation to the month following. No severe adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: After four weeks, IN DAM was a feasible and safe alternative to other routes of administration for patients with severe OUD in HAT. It addressed the needs of individuals with OUD and reduced injection behaviour. More long-term research efforts are needed to systematically assess efficacy of and patient satisfaction with IN DAM.

Supervised on-site dosing in injectable opioid agonist treatment-considering the patient perspective. Findings from a cross-sectional interview study in two German cities.

BACKGROUND: Injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) is an effective option to support people living with opioid use disorder (OUD) who have not sufficiently benefitted from oral OAT. However, iOAT has been criticised based on theoretical and practical grounds for its dosing policies: Current regulations demand supervised, on-site application and require patients to frequently visit their treatment facility. The current study aims to investigate how patients experience on-site application and derive strategies to enhance the acceptability and effectiveness of iOAT-delivery. METHODS: This article is based on semi-structured interviews with 27 individuals currently or previously in iOAT in two German outpatient iOAT-clinics. We undertook an inductive qualitative content analysis, which included blinded, independent coding and the analysis of individual cases. RESULTS: Comments regarding on-site application and daily visits to the clinic were grouped into positive and negative aspects, iOAT as the best alternative option, facilitators of daily visits, and suggestions for improvement. Positive aspects took the factors stability and social support in regard. Negative aspects ranged from general inconveniences to major impediments to individuals' daily lives and towards achieving psychosocial goals. Participants reported rigorous adherence to iOAT's treatment regime, often due to a perceived lack of alternative options. Meeting iOAT's demands was eased by the patients' coping-strategies and through facilitating measures implemented by iOAT-clinics. Despite acknowledgement of the potential detriments from easing regulations, take-home arrangements were frequently suggested by participants to improve iOAT. CONCLUSIONS: Being required to attend the clinic for supervised iOAT-application is not experienced uniformly. While clinics can support their patients to cope with strict regulations, alternative approaches to iOAT-application should be considered to accommodate patients' individual needs. Examples from other treatment modalities (e.g., remote supervision and delivery services) might aid to reconcile individualisation while providing adequate safety measures and improve iOAT in the long term.

Is use of opioid agonist treatment associated with broader primary healthcare use among men with recent injecting drug use histories following release from prison? A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: A precipitous decline in health status among people recently released from prison is common. In Victoria, Australia, opioid agonist treatment (OAT) in the community involves frequent contact with primary care, potentially facilitating broader use of primary healthcare services. Among a cohort of men who injected drugs regularly pre-imprisonment, we estimated differences in rates of primary healthcare use and medication dispensation between people who did and did not receive OAT post-release. METHODS: Data came from the Prison and Transition Health Cohort Study. Three-month post-release follow-up interviews were linked with primary care and medication dispensation records. Generalised linear models were fit with one exposure (OAT: none/partial/complete) for 13 outcomes relating to primary healthcare use, pathology testing, and medication dispensation, adjusted for other covariates. Coefficients were reported as adjusted incidence rate ratios (AIRR). RESULTS: Analyses included 255 participants. Compared to no OAT use, both partial and complete OAT use were associated with increased rates of standard (AIRR: 3.02, 95%CI: 1.88-4.86; AIRR: 3.66, 95%CI: 2.57-5.23), extended (AIRR: 2.56, 95%CI: 1.41-4.67; AIRR: 2.55, 95%CI: 1.60-4.07) and mental health-related (AIRR: 2.71, 95%CI: 1.42-5.20; AIRR: 2.27, 95%CI: 1.33-3.87) general practitioner (GP) consultations, total medication (AIRR: 1.88, 95%CI: 1.19-2.98; AIRR: 2.40, 95%CI: 1.71-3.37), benzodiazepine (AIRR: 4.99, 95%CI: 2.81-8.85; AIRR: 8.30, 95%CI: 5.28-13.04) and gabapentinoid (AIRR: 6.78, 95%CI: 3.34-13.77; AIRR: 4.34, 95%CI: 2.37-7.94) dispensations, respectively. Partial OAT use was also associated with increased after-hours GP consultations (AIRR: 4.61, 95%CI: 2.24-9.48) and complete OAT use? with increased pathology utilisation (e.g. haematological, chemical, microbiological or immunological tissue/sample testing; AIRR: 2.30, 95%CI: 1.52-3.48). CONCLUSION: We observed higher rates of primary healthcare use and medication dispensation among people who reported partial and complete OAT use post-release. Findings suggest that access to OAT post-release may have a collateral benefit in supporting broader health service utilisation, underscoring the importance of retention in OAT after release from prison.