Low-Dose Buprenorphine Initiation for Hospitalized Patients With Chronic Pain and Opioid Use Disorder or Opioid Misuse: Protocol for an Open-Label, Parallel-Group, Effectiveness-Implementation Randomized Controlled Trial.

Buprenorphine is an effective medication for both opioid use disorder (OUD) and chronic pain (CP), but transitioning from full opioid agonists to buprenorphine, a partial opioid agonist, can be challenging. Preliminary studies suggest that low-dose buprenorphine initiation can overcome some challenges in starting treatment, but no randomized controlled trials have compared low-dose and standard buprenorphine initiation approaches regarding effectiveness and safety or examined implementation in hospital settings. In a pragmatic open-label hybrid type I effectiveness-implementation trial based in a single urban health system, 270 hospitalized patients with (a) CP and (b) OUD or opioid misuse are being randomized to buprenorphine treatment initiation using 5-day low-dose or standard initiation protocols. Outcomes include buprenorphine treatment uptake (primary), defined as receiving buprenorphine treatment 7 days after enrollment, and other OUD and pain outcomes at 1-, 3-, and 6-month follow-up (secondary). Data collection will also include safety measures, implementation of low-dose initiation protocols, patient acceptability, and cost-effectiveness. Comparing strategies in a randomized clinical trial will provide the most definitive data to date regarding the effectiveness and safety of low-dose buprenorphine initiation. The study will also provide important data on treating CP at a time that clinical guidelines are evolving to center buprenorphine as a preferred opioid for CP.

Posttraumatic stress disorder in people who use drugs: syringe services program utilization, treatment need, and preferences for onsite mental health care.

BACKGROUND: Syringe services programs (SSPs) are critical healthcare access points for people with opioid use disorder (OUD) who face treatment utilization barriers. Co-locating care for common psychiatric comorbidities, like posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), at SSPs may reduce harms and enhance the health of individuals with OUD. To guide the development of onsite psychiatric care at SSPs, we collected quantitative survey data on the prevalence of PTSD, drug use patterns, treatment experiences associated with a probable PTSD diagnosis, and attitudes regarding onsite PTSD care in a convenience sample of registered SSP clients in New York City. METHODS: Study participants were administered the PTSD Checklist for the DSM-5 (PCL-5) and asked about sociodemographic characteristics, current drug use, OUD and PTSD treatment histories, and desire for future SSP services using a structured interview. Probable PTSD diagnosis was defined as a PCL-5 score ≥ 31. RESULTS: Of the 139 participants surveyed, 138 experienced at least one potentially traumatic event and were included in the present analysis. The sample was primarily male (n = 108, 78.3%), of Hispanic or Latinx ethnicity (n = 76, 55.1%), and middle-aged (M = 45.0 years, SD = 10.6). The mean PCL-5 score was 35.2 (SD = 21.0) and 79 participants (57.2%) had a probable PTSD diagnosis. We documented frequent SSP utilization, significant unmet PTSD treatment need, and high interest in onsite PTSD treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Study findings point to the ubiquity of PTSD in people with OUD who visit SSPs, large gaps in PTSD care, and the potential for harm reduction settings like SSPs to reach people underserved by the healthcare system who have co-occurring OUD and PTSD.

Prior incarceration, restrictive housing, and posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms in a community sample of persons who use drugs.

BACKGROUND: Criminalization of drugs in the United States (US) has extensive consequences for people who use drugs (PWUD). Incarceration and substance use overlap with 65% of the US prison population meeting substance use disorder (SUD) criteria. Exposure to the criminal-legal system negatively impacts the health of PWUD. PTSD is commonly comorbid with SUDs, and exposure to restrictive housing (RH) during incarceration may worsen mental health. Because PWUD are disproportionately incarcerated, experiences occurring during incarceration, such as RH, may contribute to the development or exacerbation of PTSD and SUDs. This study of PWUD investigated prior criminal-legal system exposure and its association with PTSD symptoms in community-dwelling PWUD. METHODS: This cross-sectional study recruited PWUD from syringe service programs (SSP). Inclusion criteria were: age 18+, current or past opioid use disorder, and SSP enrollment. Data collected included: sociodemographics; incarceration, substance use, SUD treatment history, and PTSD assessments (Life Events Checklist for DSM-5 and the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5). Bivariate testing and multivariate logistic regression analyses, with probable PTSD as the dependent variable and a three-level variable for criminal legal history as the independent variable, were conducted to determine whether incarceration and RH were associated with probable PTSD. RESULTS: Of 139 participants, 78% had an incarceration history with 57% of these having a history of RH. 57% of participants screened positive for probable PTSD, and physical assault was the most common traumatic exposure. Any history of incarceration was not associated with probable PTSD diagnosis; however, in multivariate testing, adjusting for age, sex, and substance use, a history of RH (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 3.76, 95% CI 1.27-11.11) was significantly associated with probable PTSD. CONCLUSIONS: RH and PTSD were both exceptionally common in a sample of SSP participants. RH can be detrimental to physical and mental health. Clinicians and policy makers may not consider incarceration as a traumatic experience for PWUD; however, our data suggest that among highly marginalized PWUD, prior exposure to incarceration and RH may add an additional burden to their daily struggles, namely PTSD.

NEXT: description, rationale, and evaluation of a novel internet-based mail-delivered syringe service program.

Background: Despite proven health benefits, harm reduction services provided through in-person syringe services programs (SSPs) and pharmacies are largely unavailable to most people who inject drugs (PWID). Internet-based mail-delivered harm reduction services could overcome barriers to in-person SSPs. This manuscript describes Needle Exchange Technology (NEXT) Harm Reduction, the first formal internet-based mail delivery SSP in the US. Methods: We examined the trajectory of NEXT's growth between February 2018 and August 2021. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize program participants. All analysis were run using STATA statistical software. Results: Over the course of 42 months, 1,669 unique participants enrolled in NEXT. The program distributed 1,648,162 total syringes with a median of 79,449 syringes per month. Most participants ordered multiple times (61%); 31% had more 5 or more orders (upper range = 48 orders). The total number of syringes per month and total number of first-time syringe orders per month increased steadily over time, particularly after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusions: The online platform and mail-delivery model appears successful in reaching PWID at high risk for harms from IDU. Changes to state laws and additional funding support are needed to make mail-delivery harm reduction more widely available throughout the US.

High Interest in Injectable Opioid Agonist Treatment With Hydromorphone Among Urban Syringe Service Program Participants.

BACKGROUND: Injectable opioid agonist treatment with hydromorphone (iOAT-H) is effective for persons who inject drugs (PWID) with opioid use disorder (OUD) but remains unavailable in the United States. Our objective was to determine interest in iOAT-H among syringe services program (SSP) participants. METHODS: We recruited PWID with OUD from SSPs in New York City. Interest in iOAT-H was assessed on a 4-point scale. We compared participants who were and were not interested in iOAT-H regarding sociodemographic characteristics and self-reported variables (past 30 days): heroin use, public injection practices, and participation in illegal activity other than drug possession. Participants reported their preferred OUD treatment and reasons for these preferences. RESULTS: Of 108 participants, most were male (69%), Hispanic (68%), and median age was 42 years. The median number of prior OUD treatment episodes was 6 (interquartile range: 2-12). Most (65%) were interested in iOAT-H. Interested participants (vs not interested) reported, over the prior 30 days, greater heroin use days (mean, 26.4 vs 22.3), injecting in public more times (median, 15 vs 6), and a higher percentage having participated in illegal activity (40% vs 16%). Preferences for OUD treatment were: iOAT-H (43%), methadone (39%), and buprenorphine (9%). Participants who preferred iOAT-H to conventional OUD treatments reported preferring injection as a route of administration and that available OUD treatments helped them insufficiently. CONCLUSIONS: SSP participants with OUD reported high interest in iOAT-H. Participants had attempted conventional treatments but still used heroin almost daily. We identified PWID at risk for opioid-related harms who potentially could benefit from iOAT-H.

Mitigation through on-site testing & education among formerly incarcerated individuals against Covid-19 - The MOSAIC study: Design and rationale.

BACKGROUND: Many of the largest COVID-19 outbreaks in the United States have occurred at carceral facilities. Criminal legal system (CLS)-involved individuals typically face structural barriers accessing medical care post-release. Improving COVID-19 testing and education for CLS-involved individuals could improve health outcomes for this vulnerable population and the communities to which they return. Community-based organizations (CBO) and community health workers (CHWs) fill care gaps by connecting CLS-involved individuals with essential re-entry services. The MOSAIC study will: 1) test an onsite CHW-led SARS-CoV-2 testing and education intervention in a reentry CBO and 2) model the cost-effectiveness of this intervention compared to standard care. METHODS: We will recruit 250 CLS-involved individuals who have left incarceration in the prior 90 days. Participants will be randomized to receive onsite Point-of-Care testing and education (O-PoC) or Standard of Care (SoC). Over one year, participants will complete quarterly questionnaires and biweekly short surveys through a mobile application, and be tested for SARS-CoV-2 quarterly, either at the CBO (O-PoC) or an offsite community testing site (SoC). O-PoC will also receive COVID-19 mitigation counseling and education from the CHW. Our primary outcome is the proportion of SARS-CoV-2 tests performed with results received by participants. Secondary outcomes include adherence to mitigation behaviors and cost-effectiveness of the intervention. DISCUSSION: The MOSAIC study will offer insight into cost effective strategies for SARS-CoV-2 testing and education for CLS-involved individuals. The study will also contribute to the growing literature on CHW's role in health education, supportive counseling, and building trust between patients and healthcare organizations.

Low-dose buprenorphine initiation and treatment continuation among hospitalized patients with opioid dependence: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Buprenorphine is an effective treatment for both opioid use disorder (OUD) and chronic pain, but buprenorphine's pharmacology complicates treatment initiation for some patients. Low-dose buprenorphine initiation is a novel strategy that may reduce precipitated withdrawal. Few studies describe what patient populations benefit most from low-dose initiations and the clinical parameters that impact treatment continuation. This study aimed to 1) describe experiences with low-dose buprenorphine initiation, including both successes and failures among hospitalized patients in an urban underserved community; 2) identify patient- and treatment-related characteristics associated with unsuccessful initiation and treatment discontinuation; and 3) assess buprenorphine treatment continuation after discharge. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study with opioid-dependent (meaning OUD or receiving long-term opioid therapy for chronic pain) patients who underwent low-dose buprenorphine initiation during hospital admission from October 2021 through April 2022. The primary outcome was successful completion of low-dose initiation. Bivariate analysis identified patient- and treatment-related factors associated with unsuccessful initiation. Secondary outcomes were buprenorphine treatment discontinuation at post-discharge follow-up, 30- and 90-days. RESULTS: Of 28 patients who underwent low-dose buprenorphine initiation, 68 % successfully completed initiation. Unsuccessful initiation was associated with receipt of methadone during admission and higher morphine milligram equivalents (MME) of supplemental opioids. Of 22 patients with OUD, the percent receiving a buprenorphine prescription at a follow-up visit, 30 days, and 90 days, respectively, was 46 %, 36 %, and 36 %. Of 6 patients with chronic pain, the percent receiving a buprenorphine prescription at a follow-up visit, 30 days, and 90 days, respectively, was 100 %, 100 %, and 83 %. CONCLUSION: Low-dose buprenorphine initiation can be successful in opioid-dependent hospitalized patients. Patients taking methadone or requiring higher MME of supplemental opioids may have more difficulty with the low-dose buprenorphine initiation approach, but these findings should be replicated in larger studies. This study suggests patient- and treatment-related factors that clinicians could consider when determining the optimal treatment strategy for patients wishing to transition to buprenorphine.

Three decades of research in substance use disorder treatment for syringe services program participants: a scoping review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Syringe services programs (SSPs) provide a spectrum of health services to people who use drugs, with many providing referral and linkage to substance use disorder (SUD) treatment, and some offering co-located treatment with medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD). The objective of this study was to review the evidence for SSPs as an entry point for SUD treatment with particular attention to co-located (onsite) MOUD. METHODS: We performed a scoping review of the literature on SUD treatment for SSP participants. Our initial query in PubMed led to title and abstract screening of 3587 articles, followed by full text review of 173, leading to a final total of 51 relevant articles. Most articles fell into four categories: (1) description of SSP participants' SUD treatment utilization; (2) interventions to link SSP participants to SUD treatment; (3) post-linkage SUD treatment outcomes; (4) onsite MOUD at SSPs. RESULTS: SSP participation is associated with entering SUD treatment. Barriers to treatment entry for SSP participants include: use of stimulants, lack of health insurance, residing far from treatment programs, lack of available appointments, and work or childcare responsibilities. A small number of clinical trials demonstrate that two interventions (motivational enhancement therapy with financial incentives and strength-based case management) are effective for linking SSP participants to MOUD or any SUD treatment. SSP participants who initiate MOUD reduce their substance use, risk behaviors, and have moderate retention in treatment. An increasing number of SSPs across the United States offer onsite buprenorphine treatment, and a number of single-site studies demonstrate that patients who initiate buprenorphine treatment at SSPs reduce opioid use, risk behaviors, and have similar retention in treatment to patients in office-based treatment programs. CONCLUSIONS: SSPs can successfully refer participants to SUD treatment and deliver onsite buprenorphine treatment. Future studies should explore strategies to optimize the implementation of onsite buprenorphine. Because linkage rates were suboptimal for methadone, offering onsite methadone treatment at SSPs may be an appealing solution, but would require changes in federal regulations. In tandem with continuing to develop onsite treatment capacity, funding should support evidence-based linkage interventions and increasing accessibility, availability, affordability and acceptability of SUD treatment programs.

Treatment History and Interest in Injectable Opioid Agonist Treatment With Hydromorphone Among People Who Inject Drugs.

OBJECTIVES: Injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) is a novel approach to treating opioid use disorder (OUD) that is typically reserved for treatment-experienced persons who inject drugs (PWID) with long-standing OUD. This study examined PWID's past OUD treatment histories and their attitudes toward iOAT with hydromorphone. METHODS: This cross-sectional study recruited syringe services program participants with OUD in New York City. Participants self-reported past OUD care episodes (detoxification; outpatient, inpatient, or medication treatment; or mutual aid groups) and current interest in iOAT with hydromorphone (assessed on a 4-point scale with 3 or 4 considered "interested"). Participants with 2 or more treatment episodes in the past 5 years were considered treatment-experienced. We examined whether the number of past care episodes was associated with interest in iOAT. RESULTS: Of 108 PWID, most participants were male (68.5%) and Hispanic (68.5%) with a mean age of 43 years (±10.8). Nearly all (98.1%) had severe OUD and had received past OUD care (96.3%), with the mean number of care episodes being 17.4 (SD, ±15.9). Most participants (59.8%) were treatment-experienced. Interest in iOAT with hydromorphone was high (64.8%), but there was no significant association between total past care episodes and expressing interest in iOAT (odds ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.99-1.05). CONCLUSION: Participants were highly treatment-experienced, and iOAT interest was high regardless of prior OUD treatment. New OUD treatment options, such as iOAT with hydromorphone, would be welcomed by PWID whose OUD has not remitted with conventional treatment as well as other PWID.

Hospital-based clinicians lack knowledge and comfort in initiating medications for opioid use disorder: opportunities for training innovation.

BACKGROUND: Hospital-based clinicians infrequently initiate medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) for hospitalized patients. Our objective was to understand hospital-based clinicians' knowledge, comfort, attitudes, and motivations regarding MOUD initiation to target quality improvement initiatives. METHODS: General medicine attending physicians and physician assistants at an academic medical center completed questionnaires eliciting barriers to MOUD initiation, including knowledge, comfort, attitudes and motivations regarding MOUD. We explored whether clinicians who had initiated MOUD in the prior 12 months differed in knowledge, comfort, attitudes, and motivations from those who had not. RESULTS: One-hundred forty-three clinicians completed the survey with 55% reporting having initiated MOUD for a hospitalized patient during the prior 12 months. Common barriers to MOUD initiation were: (1) Not enough experience (86%); (2) Not enough training (82%); (3) Need for more addiction specialist support (76%). Overall, knowledge of and comfort with MOUD was low, but motivation to address OUD was high. Compared to MOUD non-initiators, a greater proportion of MOUD initiators answered knowledge questions correctly, agreed or strongly agreed that they wanted to treat OUD (86% vs. 68%, p = 0.009), and agreed or strongly agreed that treatment of OUD with medication was more effective than without medication (90% vs. 75%, p = 0.022). CONCLUSIONS: Hospital-based clinicians had favorable attitudes toward MOUD and are motivated to initiate MOUD, but they lacked knowledge of and comfort with MOUD initiation. To increase MOUD initiation for hospitalized patients, clinicians will need additional training and specialist support.

Prior Incarceration Is Associated with Poor Mental Health at Midlife: Findings from a National Longitudinal Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: People with mental illnesses and people living in poverty have higher rates of incarceration than others, but relatively little is known about the long-term impact that incarceration has on an individual's mental health later in life. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate prior incarceration's association with mental health at midlife. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study PARTICIPANTS: Participants from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 (NLSY79)-a nationally representative age cohort of individuals 15 to 22 years of age in 1979-who remained in follow-up through age 50. MAIN MEASURES: Midlife mental health outcomes were measured as part of a health module administered once participants reached 50 years of age (2008-2019): any mental health history, any depression history, past-year depression, severity of depression symptoms in the past 7 days (Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression [CES-D] scale), and mental health-related quality of life in the past 4 weeks (SF-12 Mental Component Score [MCS]). The main exposure was any incarceration prior to age 50. KEY RESULTS: Among 7889 participants included in our sample, 577 (5.4%) experienced at least one incarceration prior to age 50. Prior incarceration was associated with a greater likelihood of having any mental health history (predicted probability 27.0% vs. 16.6%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.9 [95%CI: 1.4, 2.5]), any history of depression (22.0% vs. 13.3%; aOR 1.8 [95%CI: 1.3, 2.5]), past-year depression (16.9% vs. 8.6%; aOR 2.2 [95%CI: 1.5, 3.0]), and high CES-D score (21.1% vs. 15.4%; aOR 1.5 [95%CI: 1.1, 2.0]) and with a lower (worse) SF-12 MCS (-2.1 points [95%CI: -3.3, -0.9]; standardized mean difference -0.24 [95%CI: -0.37, -0.10]) at age 50, when adjusting for early-life demographic, socioeconomic, and behavioral factors. CONCLUSIONS: Prior incarceration was associated with worse mental health at age 50 across five measured outcomes. Incarceration is a key social-structural driver of poor mental health.

Injecting Alone: Practices and Preferences among People Who Inject Drugs in New York City.

Injecting alone is a suspected risk factor for opioid overdose death among people who inject drugs (PWID). Better understanding of PWID's injecting practices and preferences could guide pragmatic harm reduction and overdose prevention interventions. We investigated injection practices and preferences among PWID attending syringe services programs (SSPs). We surveyed 108 PWID with opioid use disorder from 3 New York City SSPs between November 2020 and August 2021 to ascertain harm reduction service preferences. This secondary analysis examined injection behavior preferences, reasons for these preferences, and self-reported non-fatal lifetime overdoses. Slightly more participants preferred injecting alone (56%) than with someone present (44%), but most in both groups inject alone most of the time (97% vs 52%, p < 0.01). Commonly reported reasons for preferring to inject alone were privacy (82%) and not wanting to be judged (78%), whereas many preferred to inject with others to have someone present in case of overdose (92%), for camaraderie (69%), and to share drugs (65%). Those preferring to inject alone (vs. with someone present) self-reported higher mean number of lifetime overdoses (3.1 vs 2.6), but differences were not statistically significant. In conclusion, most participants injected alone regardless of preference. While not associated with prior non-fatal overdose, injection preference likely carries risk for future overdose. Participants preferred injecting alone to avoid shame or injecting with others in case of overdose, which can inform public health interventions that support both preferences. Reducing stigma while facilitating rapid overdose response can mitigate the risk of fatal overdose.

Implementation of buprenorphine services in NYC syringe services programs: a qualitative process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Syringe services programs (SSPs) hold promise for providing buprenorphine treatment access to people with opioid use disorder (OUD) who are reluctant to seek care elsewhere. In 2017, the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) provided funding and technical assistance to nine SSPs to develop "low-threshold" buprenorphine services as part of a multipronged initiative to lower opioid-related overdose rates. The aim of this study was to identify barriers to and facilitators of implementing SSP-based buprenorphine services. METHODS: We conducted 26 semi-structured qualitative interviews from April 2019 to November 2019 at eight SSPs in NYC that received funding and technical assistance from DOHMH. Interviews were conducted with three categories of staff: leadership (i.e., buprenorphine program management or leadership, eight interviews), staff (i.e., buprenorphine coordinators or other staff, eleven interviews), and buprenorphine providers (six interviews). We identified themes related to barriers and facilitators to program implementation using thematic analysis. We make recommendations for implementation based on our findings. RESULTS: Programs differed in their stage of development, location of services provided, and provider type, availability, and practices. Barriers to providing buprenorphine services at SSPs included gaps in staff knowledge and comfort communicating with participants about buprenorphine, difficulty hiring buprenorphine providers, managing tension between harm reduction and traditional OUD treatment philosophies, and financial constraints. Challenges also arose from serving a population with unmet psychosocial needs. Implementation facilitators included technical assistance from DOHMH, designated buprenorphine coordinators, offering other supportive services to participants, and telehealth to bridge gaps in provider availability. Key recommendations include: (1) health departments should provide support for SSPs in training staff, building health service infrastructure and developing policies and procedures, (2) SSPs should designate a buprenorphine coordinator and ensure regular training on buprenorphine for frontline staff, and (3) buprenorphine providers should be selected or supported to use a harm reduction approach to buprenorphine treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Despite encountering challenges, SSPs implemented buprenorphine services outside of conventional OUD treatment settings. Our findings have implications for health departments, SSPs, and other community organizations implementing buprenorphine services. Expansion of low-threshold buprenorphine services is a promising strategy to address the opioid overdose epidemic.

The Stigma of Criminal Legal Involvement and Health: a Conceptual Framework.

The USA incarcerates more people than any other nation in the world. Exposure to the criminal legal system has been associated with a myriad of health outcomes but less is understood about what drives these associations. We argue that stigma due to criminal legal involvement, what we call criminal legal stigma, likely has a larger role in the association between incarceration and negative health outcomes than has been previously appreciated. There is limited research on the impact on health of criminal legal stigma despite abundant research on its negative social consequences. In this paper, we describe a conceptual framework of the health effects of criminal legal stigma drawing on previous research of criminal legal stigma and advances in other areas of stigma research. We outline key concepts related to stigma mechanisms, how they function at structural and individual levels, and how they might cause health outcomes. Finally, we identify potential areas for future research and opportunities for clinical interventions to remediate negative effects of stigma.

Onsite buprenorphine inductions at harm reduction agencies to increase treatment engagement and reduce HIV risk: Design and rationale.

BACKGROUND: Despite dramatic increases in opioid use disorder (OUD) and overdose deaths, the U.S. has been unable to consistently deliver OUD treatment to those who need it. Syringe services programs (SSPs) can engage an out-of-treatment population of people with OUD that has elevated overdose risk. Buprenorphine treatment is safe and effective, and US regulations allow for prescribing from diverse locations, including SSPs. This study's objective is to test buprenorphine treatment initiation at SSPs. We hypothesize that offering onsite buprenorphine treatment initiation will improve OUD treatment engagement without reducing buprenorphine treatment effectiveness or safety. METHODS: We will recruit 250 out-of-treatment SSP participants with OUD in a large urban area. Participants will be randomized to onsite buprenorphine treatment initiation or enhanced referral. Over 2 weeks, participants in the onsite treatment arm will see a buprenorphine provider twice at the SSP, receive weekly medication packs, and then their care will be transferred to a community health center for treatment continuation. In the control arm, within one week, participants will receive an appointment at the same community health center as in the intervention arm for buprenorphine initiation and continuation. Participants will be assessed with urine drug tests, questionnaires, and medical record review. The primary outcome will be engagement in buprenorphine treatment at 30 days. Secondary outcomes include buprenorphine diversion, opioid-free urine drug tests, and intervention cost-effectiveness. DISCUSSION: Our study will contribute to the growing literature on SSPs as a conduit to OUD treatment. SSPs hold promise to deliver needed care to people with OUD.

Participants of a mail delivery syringe services program are underserved by other safe sources for sterile injection supplies.

BACKGROUND: In the United States, accessing sterile injection supplies remains challenging for many people who inject drugs (PWID). Although women are less likely to inject drugs than men, women who do inject are disproportionately affected by IDU-related complications. Needle Exchange Technology (NEXT), the first formal online accessed mail delivery syringe services program (SSP) in the US, may overcome access barriers. We evaluated whether NEXT was reaching women participants and people without access to other safe sources of sterile injection supplies. METHODS: This cross-sectional study examined NEXT participants who enrolled in the mail-delivery SSP from February 2018 through March 2021. All NEXT participants completed an online questionnaire during enrollment, which included sociodemographic and clinical characteristics and injection-related risk factors (including prior sources of sterile injection supplies). Multivariable logistic regression (MVR) was used to examine associations between gender and prior use of safe sources of injection supplies (i.e., SSPs or pharmacies). RESULTS: 1,032 participants received injection supplies. Median age was 34 and participants were mostly cis-gendered women (55%) and white (93%). 34% reported infection with HCV; women were more likely to report HCV infection than men (38% vs 28%; p < 0.01). 68% of participants acquired injection supplies from less safe sources. Few participants exclusively used safe sources for injection supplies (26%). In adjusted MVR analysis, women participants had significantly lower odds than men of having exclusively used safe sources for injection supplies (adjusted OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.52, 0.98). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that NEXT services are utilized by women and people without prior access to sterile injection supplies. Women participants were less likely than men to have exclusively used safe sources for sterile injection supplies. Future research should explore women's preference for mail-delivery over in-person SSPs and determine whether online accessed mail delivery services can reach other underserved populations of PWID.

Low-threshold Buprenorphine Treatment in a Syringe Services Program: Program Description and Outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: Low-threshold buprenorphine treatment aims to reduce barriers to evidence-based opioid use disorder treatment. We aimed to describe the treatment philosophy, practices, and outcomes of a low-threshold syringe services program (SSP)-based buprenorphine program developed through an SSP-academic medical center partnership. METHODS: We included all SSP participants who received 1 or more buprenorphine prescription from Feb 5, 2019 to October 9, 2020. We collected data on patient characteristics, substance use, buprenorphine prescriptions, and urine drug tests (UDTs). We evaluated buprenorphine treatment retention using prescription data and buprenorphine adherence using UDTs. We used 2 retention definitions: (1) percentage of patients with buprenorphine prescriptions at 30, 90, and 180 days; and (2) total percentage of days "covered" with buprenorphine prescriptions through 180 days. RESULTS: One-hundred and eighteen patients received 1 or more buprenorphine prescriptions. Patients were largely middle-aged (mean age 44, standard deviation 11), male (68%), Hispanic (31%) or Non-Hispanic Black (32%), with heroin (90%) and crack/cocaine (62%) use, and injection drug use (59%). Retention was 62%, 43%, and 31% at 30, 90, and 180 days, respectively. The median percentage of days covered with buprenorphine prescriptions through 180 days was 43% (interquartile range 8%-92%). Of the 82 patients who completed 2 or more UDTs, the median percentage of buprenorphine-positive UDTs was 71% (interquartile range 40%-100%). CONCLUSIONS: In an SSP-based low-threshold buprenorphine treatment program, approximately one-third of patients continued buprenorphine treatment for 180 days or more, and buprenorphine adherence was high. SSPs can be a pathway to buprenorphine treatment for patients at high risk for opioid-related harms.

Interest in long-acting injectable buprenorphine among syringe services program participants.

OBJECTIVE: To examine syringe services program (SSP) participants' interest in long-acting injectable buprenorphine. DESIGN: SSP participants completed a 136-item questionnaire by phone. Items assessed quantitative ratings of interest in sublingual and injectable buprenorphine, preference for sublingual versus injectable buprenorphine, and reasons for preferences. SETTING: Two large urban SSPs. PARTICIPANTS: SSP participants ≥18 years of age with current or lifetime opioid use disorder (OUD). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): (1) Interest in sublingual and injectable buprenorphine, respectively, on a scale from 0 to 10 (0 = no interest and 10 = high interest); and (2) preference for sublingual buprenorphine versus injectable buprenorphine. Participants were also asked whether they agreed with statements that presented potential reasons for preferring each formulation. RESULTS: A total of 104 unique participants were interviewed, of which 72 (69 percent) were currently receiving or considering buprenorphine treatment. Among these 72 participants, the median level of interest in starting or continuing sublingual buprenorphine was 8 out of 10 (interquartile range [IQR]: 6-10) and in starting injectable buprenorphine was 5 out of 10 (IQR: 1-9). Thirty-six (50 percent) preferred sublingual, 27 (38 percent) preferred injectable, and 9 (13 percent) preferred neither or declined to answer. Participants who preferred injectable buprenorphine most commonly agreed that the convenience of the monthly injection was the reason for their preference. CONCLUSIONS: Among SSP participants with OUD, we found moderate interest in injectable buprenorphine. Introducing this new form of buprenorphine treatment at SSPs could help meet the needs of individuals who are not well-served by standard OUD treatment models.

"The Doctor Says You Cannot Have [Buprenorphine]" Autonomy and Use of Prescribed or Non-Prescribed Buprenorphine.

BACKGROUND: People may overcome barriers to professional buprenorphine treatment by using non-prescribed buprenorphine (NPB) to manage opioid use disorder (OUD). Little is known about how people perceive NPB differently than formal treatment. This qualitative study investigated how and why people use NPB as an alternative to formal treatment. METHODS: In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants of harm reduction agencies (N = 22) who had used buprenorphine. Investigators independently coded transcribed interviews, generating themes through iterative reading and analysis of transcripts. RESULTS: Three main factors drove decisions about prescribed and non-prescribed buprenorphine use: 1) autonomy; 2) treatment goals; and 3) negative early experiences with NPB. An overarching theme from our analysis was that participants valued autonomy in seeking to control their substance use. NPB was a valuable tool toward this goal and professional OUD treatment could impede autonomy. Participants mostly used NPB to "self-manage" OUD symptoms. Many participants had concerns about long-term buprenorphine treatment and instead used NPB over short periods of time. Several participants also reported negative experiences with NPB, including symptoms of withdrawal, which then deterred them from seeking out professional treatment. CONCLUSIONS: These results support prior studies showing that people use NPB to self-manage withdrawal symptoms and to reduce use of illicit opioids. Despite these benefits, participants focused on short-term goals and negative consequences were common. Increasing buprenorphine treatment engagement may require attention to patients' sense of autonomy, and also assurance that long-term treatment is safe, effective, and reliably accessible.

Does incarceration influence patients' goals for opioid use disorder treatment? A qualitative study of buprenorphine treatment in jail.

BACKGROUND: Correctional facilities increasingly offer medications for opioid use disorder (OUD), including buprenorphine. Nevertheless, retention in treatment post-incarceration is suboptimal and overdose mortality remains high. Our objectives were to understand how incarcerated patients viewed buprenorphine treatment and identify modifiable factors that influenced treatment continuation post-release. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 22 men receiving buprenorphine treatment in an urban jail. Interviews were audio recorded, professionally transcribed, and analyzed using a grounded-theory approach. Team members constructed preliminary case memos from transcripts, and then interactively discussed themes within respective memos. We established participant 'typologies' by consensus. RESULTS: Distinct typologies emerged based on participants' post-release treatment goals: (1) those who viewed buprenorphine treatment as a cure for OUD; (2) those who thought buprenorphine would help manage opioid-related problems; and (3) those who did not desire OUD treatment. Participants also described common social structural barriers to treatment continuation and community re-integration. Participants reported that post-release housing instability, unemployment, and negative interactions with parole contributed to opioid use relapse and re-incarceration. CONCLUSION: Participants had different goals for post-release buprenorphine treatment continuation, but their prior experiences suggested that social structural issues would complicate these plans. Incarceration can intensify marginalization, which when combined with heightened legal supervision, reinforced cycles of release, relapse, and re-incarceration. Participants valued buprenorphine treatment, but other structural and policy changes will be necessary to reduce incarceration-related inequities in opioid overdose mortality.