Incremental expenditures attributable to daily dispensation and witnessed ingestion for opioid agonist treatment in British Columbia: 2014-20.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: While daily witnessed opioid agonist treatment (OAT) ingestion is common in British Columbia (BC), Canada, and elsewhere, sparse evidence supports this resource-intensive practice. Many settings across North America relaxed restrictions for take-home dosing during the COVID-19 pandemic and have reported consistent or improved patient outcomes. This study measured excess expenditures attributed to daily witnessed pharmacy dispensing compared with weekly or biweekly dispensation schedules. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: This study was a population-level retrospective analysis. We included all methadone, buprenorphine/naloxone and slow-release oral morphine dispensations in BC from 1 January 2014 to 30 December 2020. A total of 24 357 107 OAT dispensations among 51 195 unique individuals with 122 793 person-years of follow-up were included during the study period. MEASUREMENTS: Total expenditures for each person-week of OAT with an estimated expenditure under two scenarios are as follows: (1) a weekly dispensation scenario and (2) a biweekly dispensation scenario. FINDINGS: We estimated excess expenditures attributable to current dispensing practices of between $38 million (2014) and $47.4 million (2018) compared with a hypothetical weekly dispensing schedule, and $43.9 million (2014) to $54.9 million (2018) compared with biweekly dispensing. The majority of these expenditures (58-64%) were attributed to pharmacy dispensing fees ($23 million in 2014 to $30 million in 2018 compared with weekly dispensing; $26.6 million in 2014 to $34.7 million in 2018 compared with biweekly dispensing). CONCLUSION: Daily witnessed opioid agonist treatment ingestion results in more than $30 million in excess expenditures annually in the province of British Columbia, Canada compared with the costs of weekly or biweekly dispensation schedules.

The introduction of buprenorphine-naloxone film in opioid substitution therapy in Australia: Uptake and issues arising from changing buprenorphine formulations.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Buprenorphine-naloxone (BNX) film for opioid dependence treatment was introduced in Australia in 2011. A key difference in State policy approaches saw transfer from BNX tablets to BNX film mandated in South Australia (SA) with New South Wales (NSW) and Victoria (VIC) having less stringent policies. This study examined (i) how initiations and transfers were implemented, (ii) the profile and predictors of adverse effects as self-reported by BNX film clients, and (iii) dosing issues. DESIGN AND METHODS: Survey of 334 buprenorphine (BPN), BNX tablet and BNX film clients and semi-structured interviews with 39 key experts (KEs) in 2012. Comparisons are made between clients interviewed in SA versus NSW and VIC combined. RESULTS: Among the 180 current BNX film clients, 23% started treatment on BNX film, 18% requested a transfer to BNX film and 59% (n = 106) reported their clinic/prescriber recommended transfer to BNX film. Among clients who were offered but refused a transfer to BNX film (n = 66), the most common reason was 'I am happy with my current treatment and do not see a reason to change' (53%). Some opioid substitution therapy clients and KE viewed transfers as 'forced' (i.e. no choice of buprenorphine formulation). Multivariable regression showed residing in SA (vs. NSW/VIC) and a shorter length of current treatment episode were associated with more BNX film-attributed adverse effects but clinic/prescriber-recommended transfer was not. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of BNX film in Australia varied across States. A perception of restricted choice in medication may have undermined initial acceptance in SA.

A latent class analysis of self-reported clinical indicators of psychosocial stability and adherence among opioid substitution therapy patients: do stable patients receive more unsupervised doses?

AIMS: To develop a stability typology among opioid substitution therapy patients using a range of adherence indicators derived from clinical guidelines, and determine whether stable patients receive more unsupervised doses. METHODS: An interviewer-administered cross-sectional survey was used in opioid substitution therapy programmes in three Australian jurisdictions, totalling 768 patients in their current treatment episode for ≥4 weeks. A structured questionnaire collated data from patients about their demographics, treatment characteristics, past 6-month drug use and medication adherence, psychosocial stability, comorbidity, child welfare concerns and levels of supervised dosing. Latent class analysis (LCA) was used to derive a stability typology. Linear regression models examined predictors of unsupervised dosing in the past month. RESULTS: LCA identified two classes: (i) a higher-adherence group (67%) who had low-moderate probabilities of endorsing the opioid substitution therapy stability indicators and (ii) a lower-adherence group (33%) who had moderate-high probabilities of endorsing the stability indicators. There was no association between adherence profile and the number of unsupervised doses. Significant predictors of receiving larger numbers of unsupervised doses included being older, living in New South Wales or South Australia (vs. Victoria), receiving methadone (vs. mono-buprenorphine), being prescribed in private clinic or general practice (vs. public clinic), reporting a longer current treatment episode, not receiving a urine drug screen in the past month, being currently employed and not having a prison history. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggested that system-level factors and observable indicators of social functioning were more strongly associated with the receipt of less supervised treatment. Future research should examine this issue using prospectively collected data.