Loss, liberation, and agency: Patient experiences of methadone treatment at opioid treatment programs during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Despite its safety and effectiveness, methadone treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) remains highly stigmatized, and stringent opioid treatment program (OTP) attendance requirements create barriers to retention for many patients. The COVID-19 pandemic prompted a shift in federal regulations governing methadone, including a blanket exemption permitting increased take-home doses of methadone. We studied the impact of these changes upon established patients' experiences of OTP care. METHOD: We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with 18 OTP patients who met our criteria of having established OTP care (i.e., enrolled at the OTP for at least 12 weeks) and were administered methadone three to six days weekly prior to the March 2020 blanket exemption. Interviews centered on how COVID-19 had affected their experiences of receiving treatment at an OTP. RESULTS: We identified three interconnected themes relevant to transformation of OTP care by the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants described mourning therapeutic OTP relationships and structure (1. loss), yet feeling more satisfaction with fewer in-person OTP visits (2. liberation), and appreciating more opportunities to self-direct their OUD care (3. agency). DISCUSSION: Structural changes made to OTP care early in the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in loss of community and structure. Increasing the availability of take-home methadone also improved patient experience and sense of agency. Our findings join a diverse body of converging evidence in support of policy changes allowing for more flexible dosing and individualized OTP care.

"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.

Cascade of care for office-based buprenorphine treatment in Bronx community clinics.

INTRODUCTION: The cascade of care for opioid use disorder (OUD) has been described at the population level to inform health policy and in health care systems, programs, and communities to guide targeted interventions. Office-based buprenorphine treatment is essential for expanding access to OUD treatment; however, few studies examine the cascade of care specifically for office-based buprenorphine treatment. Our objective was to describe a cascade of care for patients referred for office-based buprenorphine treatment in the primary care setting. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with OUD who were referred for office-based buprenorphine treatment within a large, urban health care system between 2018 and 2019. Our primary outcomes included completion of each step of the buprenorphine treatment cascade of care: 1) referred for treatment, 2) scheduled initial visit, 3) completed initial visit, 4) initiated buprenorphine treatment, and 5) retained in treatment at 90 days. We constructed a cascade of care by calculating proportions of patients identified at every step, starting with the total number of patients referred for treatment as the first step. We extracted data from the program's referral database and electronic medical record system. We compared characteristics of patients referred who initiated buprenorphine to those referred who did not initiate buprenorphine treatment using chi-squared tests and t-tests. To account for the hierarchical nature of the data, we conducted a Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) modeling to test the differences in attrition rates among the steps of the cascade of care. RESULTS: In the 24-month period between 2018 and 2019, 226 patients were referred for office-based buprenorphine treatment at Montefiore's Buprenorphine Treatment Network. Patients' mean age at referral was 47 years, and most were male (68.6%), Hispanic (49.6%), and publicly insured (75.7%). Among all patients, 182 (80.5%) were scheduled for an initial visit, 142 (62.8%) completed the initial visit, 134 (59.3%) initiated buprenorphine treatment, and 95 (42.0%) were retained in treatment at 90 days. 37.2% of all patients referred did not complete the initial visit. A GEE model showed that attrition is significantly steeper in the first two steps of the cascade of care, compared to the later three steps (AOR = 1.95, 95% CI = 1.31-2.91, p < 0.05). Compared to referred patients who did not initiate treatment, those referred who initiated treatment were more likely to be using non-prescribed buprenorphine at time of referral (19.4% vs. 5.4%, p < 0.05) and be self-referred (22.4% vs. 9.8%, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Our study is the first to describe a cascade of care for office-based buprenorphine treatment in a large health care system. The study observed the steepest attrition in the first two steps of the cascade of care, where more than a third of patients referred did not complete the initial visit. Patients who were self-referred, or using non-prescribed buprenorphine were more likely to initiate treatment. A cascade of care specific for office-based buprenorphine can inform future efforts to improve linkage to care.

A comparison of office-based buprenorphine treatment outcomes in Bronx community clinics before versus during the COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: In 2020, the US and New York City experienced unprecedented deaths due to the COVID-19 pandemic and drug overdoses. Policy changes reduced burdensome regulations for medication treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD). Despite these policy changes, few studies examined buprenorphine treatment outcomes during the pandemic. We compared treatment outcomes among Bronx patients referred to office-based buprenorphine treatment before versus during the pandemic. METHODS: In a retrospective cohort study, we compared patients referred to buprenorphine treatment in a Bronx community clinic before (March-August 2019) versus during (March-August 2020) the pandemic. We describe changes to buprenorphine treatment during the pandemic, including telehealth and prioritizing harm reduction. Using data from medical records and program logs, main outcomes included steps of the OUD treatment cascade of care-initial visit scheduled and completed, treatment initiated, and retained in treatment at 90 days. Using chi square and t-tests, we examined differences in patient characteristics and OUD treatment cascade steps before versus during the pandemic. RESULTS: Before and during the pandemic, 72 and 35 patients were referred to buprenorphine treatment, respectively. Patients' mean age was 46 years, most were male (67.3%) or Hispanic (52.3%), and few had private insurance (19.6%). Patients referred during (vs. before) the pandemic were more likely to have private insurance (31.4% vs. 13.9%, p < 0.05) and be referred from acute care settings (37.1% vs. 19.4%, p < 0.05). No significant differences in OUD cascade of care outcomes existed between those referred during versus before the pandemic. However, among patients who initiated buprenorphine treatment, those referred during (vs. before) the pandemic were more likely to be retained in treatment at 90 days (68.0% vs. 42.9%, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the COVID-19 pandemic's unprecedented devastation to the Bronx, along with worsening drug overdose deaths, OUD cascade of care outcomes were similar among patients referred to buprenorphine treatment before versus during the pandemic. Among patients who initiated buprenorphine treatment, treatment retention was better during (versus before) the pandemic. During a public health emergency, incorporating telehealth and prioritizing harm reduction are key strategies to maintain optimal OUD treatment outcomes.

Development and evaluation of a pilot overdose education and naloxone distribution program for hospitalized general medical patients.

Background: Overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND) to people at risk of witnessing or experiencing an opioid overdose has traditionally been provided through harm reduction agencies. Expanding OEND to inpatient general medical settings may reach at-risk individuals who do not access harm reduction services and have not been trained. An OEND program targeting inpatients was developed, piloted, and evaluated on 2 general medicine floors at Montefiore Medical Center, a large urban academic medical center in Bronx, New York. Methods: The planning committee consisted of 10 resident physicians and 2 faculty mentors. A consult service model was piloted, whereby the primary inpatient care team paged the consult team (consisting of rotating members from the planning committee) for any newly admitted patient who had used any opioid in the year prior to admission. Consult team members assessed patients for eligibility and provided OEND to eligible patients through a short video training. Upon completion, patients received a take-home naloxone kit. To evaluate the program, a retrospective chart review over the first year (April 2016 to March 2017) of the pilot was conducted. Results: Overall, consults on 80 patients were received. Of these, 74 were eligible and the consult team successfully trained 50 (68%). Current opioid analgesic use of ≥50 morphine milligram equivalents daily was the most common eligibility criterion met (38%). Twenty-four percent of patients were admitted for an opioid-related adverse event, the most common being opioid overdose (9%), then opioid withdrawal (8%), skin complication related to injecting (5%), and opioid intoxication (2%). Twenty-five percent had experienced an overdose, 35% had witnessed an overdose in their lifetime, and 83% had never received OEND previously. Conclusions: Integrating OEND into general inpatient medical care is possible and can reach high-risk patients who have not received OEND previously. Future research should identify the optimal way of implementing this service.

HIV treatment outcomes among formerly incarcerated transitions clinic patients in a high prevalence setting.

BACKGROUND: Incarceration disproportionately affects people living with HIV/AIDS. When people are released from jail or prison, they face multiple barriers to HIV care, and those who do engage in care may have suboptimal HIV treatment outcomes. A limited number of studies have investigated HIV treatment outcomes among people who have been released from incarceration. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study comparing HIV viral load (VL) suppression and retention in care 12 months after entry into care among patients of a post-incarceration Transitions Clinic (TC) and a comparison group who received HIV care in the same community. Of 138 participants, 38 TC patients were matched to 100 non-TC controls based on age, race/ethnicity, gender, and date of HIV care entry. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in clinical study outcomes between TC and non-TC patients: 63% vs. 67% (p = 0.67) were retained in care and 54% vs. 63% (p = 0.33) had suppressed VL at 12 months. After adjusting for substance use disorder and viral load suppression at the start of treatment, the odds ratio of TC patients' 12-month retention was 0.60 (95% CI 0.25-1.49) and VL suppression was 0.44 (95% CI 0.16-1.23) compared with non-TC patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show HIV care outcomes for patients at a post-incarceration Transitions Clinic that are similar to those of community-based comparison patients. The transitions clinic model, which provides medical, behavioral health, and supportive services to formerly incarcerated people, may be an effective model of care for this population; however, more scholarship is needed to quantify the components most effective in supporting retention in care and viral load suppression.

Social Media Use and HIV-Related Risk Behaviors in Young Black and Latino Gay and Bi Men and Transgender Individuals in New York City: Implications for Online Interventions.

Urban young men who have sex with men (YMSM) and transgender women continue to experience high rates of new HIV infections in the USA, yet most of this population is not reached by current prevention interventions. The rate of Internet and social media use among youth is high. However, continually updated understanding of the associations between social media access and use and HIV risk behaviors is needed to reach and tailor technology-delivered interventions for those most vulnerable to HIV-racially and ethnically diverse urban YMSM and transgender persons. Thus, we conducted an in-person, venue-based cross-sectional survey among young gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals at locations primarily visited by Black and Latino gay and bisexual and transgender individuals in New York City to understand social media use and how it may relate to HIV risk behaviors to inform social media-based interventions. Among 102 primarily Black and Latino gay and bisexual men (75.5 %) and transgender women (19.6 %), over 90 % were under 30 years of age, 18.6 % reported homelessness in the past 6 months, and 10.8 % reported having HIV. All participants used social media, most accessed these platforms most often via a mobile device (67.6 %) and most logged on multiple times per day (87.3 %). Participants used social media to seek sex partners (56.7 %), exchange sex for money or clothes (19.6 %), and exchange sex for drugs (9.8 %). These results confirm prior studies demonstrating the feasibility of using social media platforms to reach at-risk, urban youth. Of particular concern is the association between recent STI and exchanging sex for money/clothes and drugs. Interventions using social media for young, urban minority MSM and transgender populations should incorporate risk reduction modules addressing exchange partners and promote frequent and regular HIV/STI testing.

Optimizing psychosocial support during office-based buprenorphine treatment in primary care: Patients' experiences and preferences.

BACKGROUND: Buprenorphine maintenance treatment is effective and has been successfully integrated into human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and primary care settings. However, one key barrier to providers prescribing buprenorphine is their perception that they are unable to provide adequate counseling or psychosocial support to patients with opioid addiction. This qualitative study investigated supportive elements of office-based buprenorphine treatment that patients perceived to be most valuable. METHODS: The authors conducted five focus groups with 33 buprenorphine treatment-experienced participants. Focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed. Iterative readings of transcripts and grounded theory analysis revealed common themes. RESULTS: Overall, participants perceived that buprenorphine treatment helped them to achieve their treatment goals and valued the flexibility, accessibility, and privacy of treatment. Participants identified interpersonal and structural elements of buprenorphine treatment that provided psychosocial support. Participants desired good physician-patient relationships, but also valued care delivery models that were patient-centered, created a safe place for self-disclosure, and utilized coordinated team-based care. CONCLUSIONS: Participants derived psychosocial support from their prescribing physician, but were also open to collaborative or team-based models of care, as long as they were voluntary and confidential. Buprenorphine-prescribing physicians without access to referral options for psychosocial counseling could focus on maintaining nonjudgmental attitudes and shared decision-making during patient encounters. Adding structure and psychosocial support to buprenorphine treatment through coordinated team-based care also seems to have great promise.