"Not doing it justice": Perspectives of Recent Family Medicine Graduates on Mental Health and Addictions Training in Residency.

OBJECTIVES: Family physicians report feeling inadequately prepared to meet the evolving mental health care needs of the population. Little scholarship exists evaluating the effectiveness of curricula designed to teach mental health and addiction (MH&A) care to family medicine (FM) residents. As such, the purpose of this study was to explore the experiences of recent FM residency graduates in providing mental health care, and their perceptions of mental health training gaps during their residencies. METHODS: A qualitative descriptive study design was conducted by 8 recent graduates of the University of Toronto's FM residency program, who participated in semi-structured video interviews. A thematic analysis approach was used to collect and analyze the data. RESULTS: Through thematic analysis, 3 overarching themes were developed: (1) barriers in providing mental health and addiction care, (2) curriculum renewal, and (3) the role of FPs and professional identity. Consistent with the literature, the majority of recent FM graduates expressed discomfort when managing patients with mental health and addiction concerns. Additionally, participants perceived residency program time constraints, rotational site differences, and limited exposure to marginalized populations all impacted learning and mastery of skills. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study underscore current gaps within the FM residency curriculum and highlight the need to address current curricular deficits.

Examining inequities in access to opioid agonist treatment (OAT) take-home doses (THD): A Canadian OAT guideline synthesis and systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Daily supervised Opioid Agonist Treatment (OAT) medication has been identified as a barrier to treatment retention. Canadian OAT guidelines outline take-home dose (THD) criteria, yet, OAT prescribers use their clinical judgement to decide whether an individual is 'clinically stable' to receive THD. There is limited information regarding whether these decisions may result in inequitable access to THD, including in the context of updated COVID-19 guidance. The current Canadian OAT THD guideline synthesis and systematic review aimed to address this knowledge gap. METHODS: This systematic review included a two-pronged approach. First, we searched available academic literature in Embase, Medline, and PsychINFO up until October 12th, 2022, to identify studies that compared characteristics of individuals on OAT who had and had not been granted access to THD to explore potential inequities in access. Next, we identified all Canadian national and provincial OAT guidelines through a semi-structured grey literature search (conducted between September-October 2022) and extracted all THD 'stability' and allowances/timeline criteria to compare against characteristics identified in the literature search. Data from both review arms were synthesized and narratively presented. RESULTS: A total of n = 56 guidelines and n = 7 academic studies were included. The systematic review identified a number of patient characteristics such as age, sex, race/ethnicity, marital status, housing, employment, neighborhood income, drug use, mental health, health service utilization, as well as treatment duration that were associated with differential access to THD. The Canadian OAT THD guideline synthesis identified many of these same characteristics as 'stability' criteria, underscoring the potential for Canadian OAT guidelines to result in inequitable access to THD. CONCLUSIONS: This two-pronged literature review demonstrated that current guidelines likely contribute to inequitable OAT THD access due primarily to inconsistent 'stability' criteria across guidelines. More research is needed to understand differential OAT THD access with a focus on prescriber decision-making and evaluating associated treatment and safety outcomes. The development of a client-centered, equity-focused, and evidence-informed decision making framework that incorporates more clear definitions of 'stability' criteria and indications for prescriber discretion is warranted.

Rethinking Substance Use as Social History: Charting a Way Forward.

Physicians have traditionally asked about substance use within the Social History section of the consultation note. Drawing on social science theory and using the authors' own experiences as generalists and addiction scholars, we consider the possible unintended harms associated with this approach. The inclusion of the substance use history within the Social History reproduces the discourse of substance use disorders as "life-style choices" rather than medical conditions, and reinforces stigma among healthcare workers through the attribution of personal responsibility for complications associated with problematic substance use. The ongoing placement of the substance use history within the Social History may lead to a failure to diagnose and make appropriate management plans for clients with substance use disorders. These missed opportunities may include inadequate withdrawal management leading to discharge before medically advised, insufficient use of evidence-based pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy, polypharmacy, medical complications, and repeated admissions to hospital. We argue instead that the Substance Use History should be a stand-alone section within the consultation note. This new section would reduce the invisibility of substance use disorders within our medical systems and model that these chronic medical conditions are amenable to prevention, treatment and harm reduction through the application of evidence-based practices.

An environmental scan of residential treatment service provision in Ontario.

BACKGROUND: Ontario has one of the highest rates of substance-related harms in Canada. Residential treatment programs in the province provide a variety of in-house treatment services to support the needs of individuals with substance use disorders (SUD). However, these programs are not standardized, often varying in the type, quality, and availability of services offered, including evidence-based interventions such as Opioid Agonist Treatment (OAT). Local treatment systems are also rather fragmented and complex to navigate, creating barriers for potential services users to identify and make informed choices on available treatment options. METHODS: Between May to August 2023, we conducted an environmental scan to capture available information on all publicly-funded residential treatment programs in Ontario using the ConnexOntario service portal, a government-funded, health services information platform. Data were captured on organization name, geographical location, program description, program type (residential addictions treatment or supportive recovery programs), eligibility criteria, target population, the program's OAT policies, number of available beds, minimum and maximum length of stay, projected wait times, funding source, and associated fees for program admission. Data were extracted and organized by geographic region, and findings were presented descriptively. RESULTS: A total of 102 residential addiction treatment programs and 36 residential supportive recovery programs in Ontario were identified. The scan noted substantial regional variations in program availability and wait times, along with a lack of programs tailored to unique populations such as women, youth, and Indigenous peoples. There is also a paucity of publicly-available information on program offerings, including detailed specifics on OAT policies within residential treatment programs that are crucial to ensuring that the services being offered are safe and grounded in evidence-based practice. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from the scan highlight notable gaps in program types, offerings, and availability among residential treatment programs in the province, including a lack of standardization on OAT policies across programs. Efforts should be made to ensure access to treatment-specific program information relevant to potential service users and to enhance coordinated access to residential treatment services in the province.

GABAergic signaling in alcohol use disorder and withdrawal: pathological involvement and therapeutic potential.

Alcohol is one of the most widely used substances. Alcohol use accounts for 5.1% of the global disease burden, contributes substantially to societal and economic costs, and leads to approximately 3 million global deaths yearly. Alcohol use disorder (AUD) includes various drinking behavior patterns that lead to short-term or long-lasting effects on health. Ethanol, the main psychoactive molecule acting in alcoholic beverages, directly impacts the GABAergic system, contributing to GABAergic dysregulations that vary depending on the intensity and duration of alcohol consumption. A small number of interventions have been developed that target the GABAergic system, but there are promising future therapeutic avenues to explore. This review provides an overview of the impact of alcohol on the GABAergic system, the current interventions available for AUD that target the GABAergic system, and the novel interventions being explored that in the future could be included among first-line therapies for the treatment of AUD.

Opioid agonist therapy switching among individuals with prescription-type opioid use disorder: Secondary analysis of a pragmatic randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Engagement and retention in opioid agonist therapy (OAT) remains a challenge. This study evaluated the impact of initial randomized OAT allocation on subsequent switching among people with prescription-type opioid use disorder (POUD). METHODS: Secondary analysis of a 24-week Canadian multicenter, pragmatic, randomized trial conducted between 2017 and 2020 comparing flexible take-home buprenorphine/naloxone versus supervised methadone models of care for POUD. We used Cox Proportional Hazards modeling to assess for impact of treatment assignment on time to OAT switching, adjusting for important confounders. For clinical correlates, we analyzed data from baseline questionnaires on demographic, substance use, and health factors as well as urine drug screen. RESULTS: Of 272 randomized participants, 210 initiated OAT within 14 days per trial protocol, of whom 103 participants were randomized to buprenorphine/naloxone and 107 to methadone. Within 24-week follow-up, 41 (20.5%) of all participants switched OAT with 25 (24.3%, median 27 days, 88.4 per 100 person-years) and 16 participants (15.0%, median 53.5 days, 46.1 per 100 person-years) switching from buprenorphine/naloxone and methadone arms, respectively. In adjusted analysis, allocation to buprenorphine/naloxone was associated with significantly higher risk of switching (aHR = 2.31, 95% CI 1.22 - 4.38). CONCLUSIONS: OAT switching was common in this sample of individuals with POUD, with individuals randomly allocated to buprenorphine/naloxone being more than twice as likely to switch versus methadone. This may reflect a stepped care approach in OUD management. More research is needed to evaluate overall retention and outcomes with the different observed risks of switching between methadone and buprenorphine/naloxone.

Patient Satisfaction With Standard Methadone and Flexible Buprenorphine/Naloxone Models of Care: Results From a Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Patient satisfaction is a critical measure of quality of care across health disciplines because it may affect clinical outcomes. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to examine longitudinal patient satisfaction in individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) randomized to receive either standard methadone or flexible buprenorphine/naloxone models of care, its predictors, and association with dropout/illicit drug use. METHODS: This study assessed patient satisfaction, using the 8-item version of the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ), as a secondary outcome of a large phase IV pragmatic randomized controlled trial (OPTIMA). The effectiveness of standard methadone model of care was compared with flexible take-home buprenorphine/naloxone dispensation model of care in patients with prescription-type OUD. Of 272 participants recruited and followed up for 24 weeks, 183 were eligible for this study. RESULTS: Throughout the study, patients were "satisfied" with their treatment. The average CSQ score was not significantly different between weeks 4, 12, and 24 in the total sample (χ 2 = 0.35; P = 0.84). There was no significant difference in CSQ based on treatment assignment (methadone vs flexible buprenorphine/naloxone) either overall ( z = 0.87; P = 0.38) or over time (χ 2 = 0.65; P = 0.72). High levels of depression at baseline and decreased depressive symptoms over the follow-up period predicted positive changes in patient satisfaction ( P = 0.03 and P = <0.01, respectively). Satisfaction was significantly associated with treatment retention but not illicit drug use. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that patients with OUD on either standard methadone or flexible buprenorphine were generally satisfied with their treatment, with no difference in patient satisfaction based on treatment allocation. Given the ongoing opioid crisis, strategies to improve patient satisfaction should be further explored.

Patterns of use and adverse events reported among persons who regularly inject buprenorphine: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Given the ongoing opioid crisis, novel interventions to treat severe opioid use disorder (OUD) are urgently needed. Injectable opioid agonist therapy (iOAT) with diacetylmorphine or hydromorphone is effective for the treatment of severe, treatment-refractory OUD, however barriers to implementation persist. Intravenous buprenorphine for the treatment of OUD (BUP iOAT) has several possible advantages over traditional iOAT, including a safety profile that might enable take-home dosing. We aimed to characterize injecting practices among real-world populations of persons who regularly inject buprenorphine, as well as associated adverse events reported in order to inform a possible future BUP iOAT intervention. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO from inception through July 2020 and used backwards citation screening to search for publications reporting on dose, frequency among persons who regularly inject the drug, or adverse events associated with intravenous use of buprenorphine. The review was limited to English language publications and there was no limitation on study type. Study quality and risk of bias was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Narrative synthesis was used in reporting the results. RESULTS: Eighty-eight studies were included in our review. Regular injection of buprenorphine was identified across diverse settings world-wide. Daily dose of oral buprenorphine injected was < 1-12 mg. Frequency of injection was 0-10 times daily. Adverse events could be characterized as known side effects of opioids/buprenorphine or injection-related complications. Most studies were deemed to be of low quality. CONCLUSIONS: Extramedical, intravenous use of buprenorphine, continues to be documented. BUP iOAT may be feasible and results may inform the development of a study to test the efficacy and safety of such an intervention. Future work should also examine acceptability among people with severe OUD in North America. Our review was limited by the quality of included studies.

Prescribing Characteristics Associated With Opioid Overdose Following Buprenorphine Taper.

Importance: Retention in buprenorphine therapy is associated with a lower risk of opioid overdose. Nevertheless, many patients discontinue treatment, and there is limited evidence to guide buprenorphine tapering. Objective: To understand what prescribing characteristics are associated with opioid overdose following buprenorphine taper. Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a population-based, retrospective, cohort study of adults who were maintained on buprenorphine for at least 60 days and underwent a buprenorphine taper. The study was conducted in the Canadian province of Ontario, using linked administrative health data. New buprenorphine treatment episodes were accrued between January 1, 2013, and January 1, 2019, and the maximum follow-up was April 30, 2020. Data analysis was performed from December 2020 to August 2022. Exposures: The primary exposure of interest was time to taper initiation (≤1 year vs >1 year). Secondary exposures included mean rate of taper, percentage days during which the dose was decreasing, and taper duration. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome measure was time to fatal or nonfatal opioid overdose within 18 months following treatment discontinuation. Results: Among 5774 individuals, the median (IQR) age at index date was 34 (28-44) years, and 3462 individuals (60.0%) were male. Time to taper initiation longer than 1 year vs 1 year or less (6.73 vs 10.35 overdoses per 100 person-years; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.69; 95% CI, 0.48-0.997), a lower mean rate of taper (≤2 mg per month, 6.95 overdoses per 100 person-years; >2 to ≤4 mg per month, 11.48 overdoses per 100 person-years; >4 mg per month, 17.27 overdoses per 100 person-years; ≤2 mg per month vs >4 mg per month, aHR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.46-0.91; >2 to ≤4 mg per month vs >4 mg per month, aHR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.51-0.93), and dose decreases in 1.75% or less of days vs more than 3.50% of days during the taper period (5.87 vs 13.87 overdoses per 100 person-years; aHR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.43-0.93) were associated with reduced risk of opioid overdose; however, taper duration was not. Conclusions and Relevance: In this retrospective cohort study, buprenorphine tapers undertaken after at least 1 year of therapy, a slower rate of taper, and a lower percentage of days during which the dose was decreasing were associated with a significantly lower risk of opioid overdose, regardless of taper duration. These findings underscore the importance of a carefully planned taper and could contribute to reduction in opioid-related overdose death.

Impact of fentanyl use on initiation and discontinuation of methadone and buprenorphine/naloxone among people with prescription-type opioid use disorder: secondary analysis of a Canadian treatment trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Fentanyl is primarily responsible for the current phase of the overdose epidemic in North America. Despite the benefits of treatment with medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), there are limited data on the association between fentanyl, MOUD type and treatment engagement. The objectives of this analysis were to measure the impact of baseline fentanyl exposure on initiation and discontinuation of MOUD among individuals with prescription-type opioid use disorder (POUD). DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Secondary analysis of a Canadian multi-site randomized pragmatic trial conducted between 2017 and 2020. Of the 269 randomized participants, 65.4% were male, 67.3% self-identified as white and 55.4% had a positive fentanyl urine drug test (UDT) at baseline. Fentanyl-exposed participants were more likely to be younger, to self-identify as non-white, to be unemployed or homeless and to be currently using stimulants than non-fentanyl-exposed participants. INTERVENTIONS: Flexible take-home dosing buprenorphine/naloxone or supervised methadone models of care for 24 weeks. MEASUREMENTS: Outcomes were (1) MOUD initiation and (2) time to (a) assigned and (b) overall MOUD discontinuation. Independent variables were baseline fentanyl UDT (predictor) and assigned MOUD (effect modifier). FINDINGS: Overall, 209 participants (77.7%) initiated MOUD. In unadjusted analyses, fentanyl exposure was associated with reduced likelihood of treatment initiation [odds ratio (OR) = 0.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.08-0.36] and shorter median times in assigned [20 versus 168 days, hazard ratio (HR) = 3.61, 95% CI = 2.52-5.17] and any MOUD (27 versus 168 days, HR = 3.32, 95% CI = 2.30-4.80). The negative effects were no longer statistically significant in adjusted models, and no interaction between fentanyl and MOUD was observed for any of the outcomes (all P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Both buprenorphine/naloxone and methadone may be appropriate treatment options for people with prescription-type opioid use disorder regardless of fentanyl exposure. Other characteristics of fentanyl-exposed individuals appear to be driving the association with poorer treatment outcomes.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the prevalence of opioid agonist therapy discontinuation in Ontario, Canada: A population-based time series analysis.

BACKGROUND: We assessed the impact of COVID-19, which includes the declaration of a state of emergency and subsequent release of pandemic-specific OAT guidance (March 17, 2020 to March 23, 2020) on the prevalence of OAT discontinuation. METHODS: We conducted a population-based time series analysis using interventional autoregressive integrated moving average models among Ontario residents who were stable (>60 days of continuous use) and not yet stable on OAT. Specifically, we examined whether COVID-19 impacted the weekly percentage of individuals who discontinued OAT, overall and stratified by treatment type (methadone vs. buprenorphine/naloxone). Additionally, we compared demographic characteristics and patient outcomes among people stable on OAT who discontinued treatment during (March 17, 2020 to November 30, 2020) and prior (July 3, 2019 to March 16, 2020) to the pandemic. RESULTS: The weekly prevalence of OAT discontinuation across the study period ranged between 0.6% and 1.1%, among those stable on treatment compared to 7.3% and 16.6%, among those not stable on treatment. Following COVID-19, there was no significant change in the percentage of Ontarians who discontinued OAT, regardless of whether they were stabilized on treatment. Among those stable on OAT, a similar proportion of patients restarted therapy and experienced opioid-related harm following an OAT discontinuation. However, mortality following OAT discontinuation must be noted, as approximately 1.4% and 0.8% of people who discontinued methadone and buprenorphine/naloxone respectively, died within 30 days of discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: Trends in the prevalence of OAT discontinuation did not significantly change during the first eight months of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the provision of take-home doses of opioid agonist therapy in Ontario, Canada: A population-based time-series analysis.

BACKGROUND: In March 2020, the Ontario government declared a state of emergency due to the growing risk of COVID-19. In response, new guidance for the management of opioid agonist therapy (OAT) was released, which included the expansion of eligibility for take-home doses. We investigated the impact of these changes on trends in the distribution of take-home doses of OAT. METHODS: We conducted a population-based time series analysis among residents of Ontario, Canada who were dispensed OAT between June 25, 2019 and November 30, 2020. For each week of the study period, we calculated the percentage of people dispensed (a) methadone and (b) buprenorphine/naloxone by the number of take-home doses received. We used interventional autoregressive integrated moving average models to estimate changes in the percentage of people dispensed each category of take-home doses in the weeks following the declaration of the state of emergency and release of the OAT dispensing guidance. RESULTS: Following the state of emergency and release of the OAT dispensing guidance, there was a significant increase in the percentage of Ontarians dispensed 7 to 13 (3.6% increase; p = 0.033) and 14 or more (0.8% increase; p<0.001) take-home doses of methadone, and in the percentage of people dispensed 7 to 13 (4.3% increase; p = 0.001), 14 to 27 (2.8% increase; p<0.001), and 28 or more (0.3% increase; p = 0.008) take-home doses of buprenorphine/naloxone. There were significant decreases in the percentage of Ontarians receiving daily dispensed buprenorphine/naloxone (-3.1%; p = 0.001), as well as the percentage dispensed 1 to 6 take-home doses of methadone (-4.5%; p = 0.001) and buprenorphine/naloxone (-4.9%; p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: The new guidance for dispensing OAT in Ontario resulted in increases in the duration of take-home doses of methadone and buprenorphine/naloxone supplied. However, given that changes were small, strategies to improve retention in OAT and ensure equitable access to take-home dosing should continue.

Duration of use and outcomes among people with opioid use disorder initiating methadone and buprenorphine in Ontario: a population-based propensity-score matched cohort study.

AIMS: To characterize comparative risks and benefits of methadone versus buprenorphine/naloxone in a contemporary cohort where the unregulated drug supply is dominated by fentanyl. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Population-based propensity-score matched cohort study conducted in Ontario, Canada among people aged 18+ initiating opioid agonist therapy (OAT) for an opioid use disorder between October 2016 and December 2018 (n = 18 880). INTERVENTION: Initiation of methadone versus buprenorphine/naloxone. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was opioid overdose (fatal and non-fatal) while on treatment, with secondary outcomes including opioid overdose (first 30 days of treatment), treatment discontinuation, health-care interactions related to treatment of opioid use disorder, receiving a weekly supply of take-home doses and opioid overdose within 30 days of treatment discontinuation. Outcomes were assessed over 1 year. FINDINGS: Overall, 7517 people initiating buprenorphine were matched to an equal number of methadone-treated individuals. Risk of opioid overdose while on treatment [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.50; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.37-0.68] or within the first 30 days of treatment (HR = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.31-0.85) was lower among buprenorphine recipients compared to methadone recipients. In secondary analyses, people initiating buprenorphine had a higher risk of treatment discontinuation within the first year (median time to discontinuation 104 versus 265 days, HR = 1.43, 95% CI = 1.37-1.49), had lower rates of health-care interactions for OUD (186.4 versus 254.3 per person-year; rate ratio = 0.73; 95% CI = 0.72-0.75), and a higher rate of receiving weekly take-home doses (HR = 2.33; 95% CI = 2.20-2.46). Overdose rates in the period following OAT discontinuation were higher than those observed while on treatment, but did not differ significantly by OAT type. CONCLUSIONS: Although treatment retention is higher among methadone recipients, overdose risk is also elevated compared to buprenorphine recipients. These findings demonstrate the benefits of any OAT on avoidance of overdose, particularly following treatment discontinuation and with the increasingly unpredictable drug supply in North America.

Association Between Increased Dispensing of Opioid Agonist Therapy Take-Home Doses and Opioid Overdose and Treatment Interruption and Discontinuation.

Importance: During the COVID-19 pandemic, modified guidance for opioid agonist therapy (OAT) allowed prescribers to increase the number of take-home doses to promote treatment retention. Whether this was associated with an increased risk of overdose is unclear. Objective: To evaluate whether increased take-home doses of OAT early in the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with treatment retention and opioid-related harm. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective propensity-weighted cohort study of 21 297 people actively receiving OAT on March 21, 2020, in Ontario, Canada. Changes in OAT take-home dose frequency were assessed between March 22, 2020, and April 21, 2020, and individuals were observed for up to 180 days to assess outcomes (last date of follow-up, October 18, 2020). Exposures: Exposure was defined as extended take-home doses in the first month of the pandemic within each of 4 cohorts based on OAT type and baseline take-home dose frequency (daily dispensed methadone, 5-6 take-home doses of methadone, daily dispensed buprenorphine/naloxone, and 5-6 take-home doses of buprenorphine/naloxone). Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were opioid overdose, interruption in OAT, and OAT discontinuation. Results: Among 16 862 methadone and 4435 buprenorphine/naloxone recipients, the median age ranged between 38 and 42 years, and 29.1% to 38.2% were women. Among individuals receiving daily dispensed methadone (n = 5852), initiation of take-home doses was significantly associated with lower risks of opioid overdose (6.9% vs 9.5%/person-year; weighted hazard ratio [HR], 0.73 [95% CI, 0.56-0.96]), treatment discontinuation (51.0% vs 63.6%/person-year; weighted HR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.72-0.90]), and treatment interruption (19.0% vs 23.9%/person-year; weighted HR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.67-0.95]) compared with no change in take-home doses. Among individuals receiving daily dispensed buprenorphine/naloxone (n = 662), there was no significant difference in any outcomes between exposure groups. Among individuals receiving weekly dispensed OAT (n = 11 010 for methadone; n = 3773 for buprenorphine/naloxone), extended take-home methadone doses were significantly associated with lower risks of OAT discontinuation (14.1% vs 19.6%/person-year; weighted HR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.62-0.84]) and interruption in therapy (5.1% vs 7.4%/person-year; weighted HR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.53-0.90]), and extended take-home doses of buprenorphine/naloxone were significantly associated with lower risk of interruption in therapy (9.5% vs 12.9%/person-year; weighted HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.56-0.99]) compared with no change in take-home doses. Other primary outcomes were not significantly different between groups. Conclusions and Relevance: In Ontario, Canada, during the COVID-19 pandemic, dispensing of increased take-home doses of opioid agonist therapy was significantly associated with lower rates of treatment interruption and discontinuation among some subsets of patients receiving opioid agonist therapy, and there were no statistically significant increases in opioid-related overdoses over 6 months of follow-up. These findings may be susceptible to residual confounding and should be interpreted cautiously.

Impact of changes in opioid funding and clinical policies on rapid tapering of opioids in Ontario, Canada.

ABSTRACT: Reports have emerged of abrupt tapering among recipients of long-term prescription opioids to conform new prescribing guidelines. We conducted a population-based, repeated cross-sectional time-series study among very high-dose (≥200 MME) opioid recipients in Ontario, Canada, to examine changes in the monthly prevalence of rapid tapering from 2014 to 2018, defined as recipients experiencing either a ≥50% reduction in daily doses or abrupt discontinuation sustained for 30 days. Interventional autoregressive integrated moving average models were used to test for significant changes following key guidelines and drug policies and programs. A sensitivity analysis examined rapid tapering sustained for 90 days. The monthly prevalence of rapid tapering events was stable from January 2014 to September 2016 (average monthly prevalence: 1.4%) but increased from 1.4% in October 2016 to 1.8% in April 2017 (P = 0.001), coincident with Ontario's Fentanyl Patch-for-Patch Return Program implementation. Transient spikes in the prevalence of rapid tapering also occurred 2 months after Ontario's delisting of publicly funded high-strength opioids and the release of updated Canadian Opioid Prescribing Guideline for Chronic Pain, reaching 2.3% in March 2017 and July 2017, respectively. However, this prevalence decreased to 1.2% in December 2018 (P < 0.0001). Although the prevalence of abrupt opioid discontinuation was lower, similar trends were observed. Our sensitivity analysis examining long-lasting rapid tapering found similar trends but lower prevalence, with no changes in complete discontinuation. These temporary increases in rapid tapering events highlight the need for improved communication and evidence-based resources for prescribers to minimize negative consequences of evolving policies and guidelines.

Facilitators of and barriers to buprenorphine initiation for people with opioid use disorder in the emergency department: protocol for a scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Buprenorphine-naloxone is recommended as a first-line agent for the treatment of opioid use disorder. Although initiation of buprenorphine in the emergency department (ED) is evidence based, barriers to implementation persist. A comprehensive review and critical analysis of both facilitators of and barriers to buprenorphine initiation in ED has yet to be published. Our objectives are (1) to map the implementation of buprenorphine induction pathway literature and synthesise what we know about buprenorphine pathways in EDs and (2) to identify gaps in this literature with respect to barriers and facilitators of implementation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a scoping review to comprehensively search the literature, map the evidence and identify gaps in knowledge. The review will adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Protocols Extension for Scoping Reviews and guidance from the Joanna Briggs Institution for conduct of scoping reviews. We will search Medline, APA, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Embase and IBSS from 1995 to present and the search will be restricted to English and French language publications. Citations will be screened in Covidence by two trained reviewers. Discrepancies will be mediated by consensus. Data will be synthesised using a hybrid, inductive-deductive approach, informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research as well as critical theory to guide further interpretation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review does not require ethics approval. A group of primary knowledge users, including clinicians and people with lived experience, will be involved in the dissemination of findings including publication in peer-reviewed journals. Results will inform future research, current quality improvement efforts in affiliated hospitals, and aide the creation of a more robust ED response to the escalating overdose crisis.