Yoga and Physical Therapy for Chronic Pain and Opioid Use Disorder Onsite in an Opioid Treatment Program: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of integrated treatment for chronic pain and opioid use disorder (OUD). Yoga and physical therapy (PT) may improve pain and physical function of people living with (PLW) chronic low back pain (CLBP) and may also reduce opioid craving and use, but PLW with OUD face barriers to accessing these interventions. We hypothesize that compared to treatment as usual (TAU), providing yoga and PT onsite at opioid treatment programs (OTPs) will be effective at improving pain, opioid use, and quality of life among people with CLBP and OUD, and will be cost-effective. METHODS: In this hybrid type-1 effectiveness-implementation study, we will randomly assign 345 PLW CLBP and OUD from OTPs in the Bronx, NY, to 12 weeks of onsite yoga, onsite PT, or TAU. Primary outcomes are pain intensity, opioid use, and cost-effectiveness. Secondary outcomes include physical function and overall well-being. DISCUSSION: This trial tests an innovative, patient-centered approach to combined management for pain and OUD in real-world settings. We rigorously examine the efficacy of yoga and PT onsite at OTPs as nonpharmacologic, cost-effective treatments among people with CLBP and OUD who face barriers to integrated care.

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.

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.

Nurse Care Management for Opioid Use Disorder Treatment: The PROUD Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Few primary care (PC) practices treat patients with medications for opioid use disorder (OUD) despite availability of effective treatments. Objective: To assess whether implementation of the Massachusetts model of nurse care management for OUD in PC increases OUD treatment with buprenorphine or extended-release injectable naltrexone and secondarily decreases acute care utilization. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Primary Care Opioid Use Disorders Treatment (PROUD) trial was a mixed-methods, implementation-effectiveness cluster randomized clinical trial conducted in 6 diverse health systems across 5 US states (New York, Florida, Michigan, Texas, and Washington). Two PC clinics in each system were randomized to intervention or usual care (UC) stratified by system (5 systems were notified on February 28, 2018, and 1 system with delayed data use agreement on August 31, 2018). Data were obtained from electronic health records and insurance claims. An implementation monitoring team collected qualitative data. Primary care patients were included if they were 16 to 90 years old and visited a participating clinic from up to 3 years before a system's randomization date through 2 years after. Intervention: The PROUD intervention included 3 components: (1) salary for a full-time OUD nurse care manager; (2) training and technical assistance for nurse care managers; and (3) 3 or more PC clinicians agreeing to prescribe buprenorphine. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a clinic-level measure of patient-years of OUD treatment (buprenorphine or extended-release injectable naltrexone) per 10 000 PC patients during the 2 years postrandomization (follow-up). The secondary outcome, among patients with OUD prerandomization, was a patient-level measure of the number of days of acute care utilization during follow-up. Results: During the baseline period, a total of 130 623 patients were seen in intervention clinics (mean [SD] age, 48.6 [17.7] years; 59.7% female), and 159 459 patients were seen in UC clinics (mean [SD] age, 47.2 [17.5] years; 63.0% female). Intervention clinics provided 8.2 (95% CI, 5.4-∞) more patient-years of OUD treatment per 10 000 PC patients compared with UC clinics (P = .002). Most of the benefit accrued in 2 health systems and in patients new to clinics (5.8 [95% CI, 1.3-∞] more patient-years) or newly treated for OUD postrandomization (8.3 [95% CI, 4.3-∞] more patient-years). Qualitative data indicated that keys to successful implementation included broad commitment to treat OUD in PC from system leaders and PC teams, full financial coverage for OUD treatment, and straightforward pathways for patients to access nurse care managers. Acute care utilization did not differ between intervention and UC clinics (relative rate, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.47-2.92; P = .70). Conclusions and Relevance: The PROUD cluster randomized clinical trial intervention meaningfully increased PC OUD treatment, albeit unevenly across health systems; however, it did not decrease acute care utilization among patients with OUD. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03407638.

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.

"It doesn't make any sense to even try": the disruptive impact of COVID-19's first wave on people with chronic pain using medical cannabis in New York.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted health care but it is unknown how it impacted the lives of people using medical cannabis for chronic pain. OBJECTIVE: To understand the experiences of individuals from the Bronx, NY, who had chronic pain and were certified to use medical cannabis during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted 1:1 semi-structured qualitative telephone interviews from March through May 2020 with a convenience sample of 14 individuals enrolled in a longitudinal cohort study. We purposively recruited participants with both frequent and infrequent patterns of cannabis use. Interviews addressed the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on daily life, symptoms, medical cannabis purchase, and use. We conducted a thematic analysis, with a codebook approach, to identify and describe prominent themes. RESULTS: Participants' median age was 49 years, nine were female, four were Hispanic, four were non-Hispanic White, and four were non-Hispanic Black. We identified three themes: (1) disrupted access to health services, (2) disrupted access to medical cannabis due to the pandemic, and (3) mixed impact of chronic pain on social isolation and mental health. Due to increased barriers to health care in general and to medical cannabis specifically, participants reduced medical cannabis use, stopped use, or substituted medical cannabis with unregulated cannabis. Living with chronic pain both prepared participants for the pandemic and made the pandemic more difficult. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic amplified pre-existing challenges and barriers to care, including to medical cannabis, among people with chronic pain. Understanding pandemic-era barriers may inform policies in ongoing and future public health emergencies.

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.

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.

Participation in HIV Behavioral Research: Unanticipated Benefits and Burdens.

HIV behavioral research has provided an invaluable knowledge base for effective approaches to behavioral challenges along the HIV care cascade. Little attention has been paid to tracking unanticipated effects of research participation, whether negative or positive. We used qualitative methods to elicit impressions of unanticipated effects of participation in behavioral research. An instrument was developed and piloted to assess positive (emotional gains, practical gains, HIV prevention knowledge and skills gains) and negative (emotional stress, discomfort with research) unanticipated effects. Participants (N = 25) from five projects, including men who have sex with men, adults who use substances, and youth, reported multiple positive unanticipated effects (sexual and drug risk reduction, goal setting, improvements in self-esteem and mood, relationship gains, health care behavior gains, knowledge and introspection gains) and rare unanticipated negative effects. Developing a systematic tool of unanticipated positive and negative effects of participation in behavioral research is a crucial next step.