Buprenorphine deaths confirmed by toxicology reveal a low proportion of opioid agonist treatment before death in Finland.

We studied opioid agonist treatment (OAT) status before buprenorphine-related death in Finland, where buprenorphine is the principal OAT medicine and also the most misused opioid, through a retrospective population-based study using medico-legal cause-of-death investigation and OAT patient records. The study included all death cases (N = 570) between 2018 and 2020 with a buprenorphine or norbuprenorphine finding in post-mortem toxicology and with known drug misuse history or concomitant findings of illicit drugs. Of the deceased, 10% had received OAT in the year before death. Less than 1% of individuals < 25 years had received OAT, whereas the proportion in individuals ≥ 25 years was 13% (p < 0.001). There were significantly more females and more fatal poisonings (p < 0.001) among those < 25 years than among those ≥ 25 years. OAT medication at the time of death was sublingual buprenorphine-naloxone in 74% and subcutaneous buprenorphine in 23%. Except for significantly fewer benzodiazepine findings among those receiving OAT, minimal differences were found in terms of age, gender, cause and manner of death, or concomitant substance use between the deceased in and outside of OAT. Concomitant misuse of benzodiazepines, psychostimulants, alcohol, and gabapentinoids was frequent both in and outside of OAT and likely contributed to the death. These results suggest that access to OAT especially for young people and treatment of multiple addictions should be improved. Comprehensive information from medico-legal cause-of-death investigation as a starting point, combined with subsequent ante-mortem patient records, proved to be a successful approach to shed light on the Finnish scene of buprenorphine mortality.

Exploring Patients' Perceptions on Injectable Opioid Agonist Treatment: Influences on Treatment Initiation and Implications for Practice.

INTRODUCTION: Injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) with diacetylmorphine is an effective option for individuals previously considered non-responsive to opioid substitution treatment. Despite implementation in Canada and several European countries, relatively few eligible people choose to initiate iOAT. To better understand what encourages or deters prospective patients from initiating iOAT, the current study explores patients' perceptions on iOAT and how these influence therapy initiation in practice. METHODS: We conducted 34 semi-structured interviews with individuals currently in or eligible for iOAT in two German outpatient iOAT clinics. Transcripts were analysed following qualitative content analysis, with development of inductive categories and use of consensual coding. For member checking, we consulted individuals with lived experiences prior to data collection and publication. RESULTS: Participants based their choice to initiate iOAT on the perceived implications of the treatment on one's daily life and individual recovery. Participants were encouraged to initiate iOAT due to the therapy's perceived potential in reducing cravings and substance use, its positive health consequences, and due to the image of iOAT as a path towards abstinence. Regarding deterring perceptions, participants feared a profound impairment of daily life due to factors such as the daily visits to the clinic, were concerned about whether iOAT would sufficiently promote or even impede one's recovery, and described negative health effects. CONCLUSION: Perceptions found in this study profoundly influenced participants' decisions on iOAT enrolment and contextualize the previous literature. The study reveals the dynamic coexistence of different perceptions about iOAT and sheds light on the inner-group stigmatization of iOAT. Practitioners and future research should acknowledge the complexities found in the current study in order to exploit the full potential of effective treatment modalities such as iOAT.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Financial Incentives to Achieve Heroin Abstinence in Individuals With Heroin Use Disorder Starting New Treatment Episodes: A Cluster Randomized Trial-Based Economic Evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: Cost-effectiveness analysis of two 12-week contingency management (CM) schedules targeting heroin abstinence or attendance at weekly keyworker appointments for opioid agonist treatment compared with treatment as usual (TAU). METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted alongside a cluster randomized trial of 552 patients from 34 clusters (drug treatment clinics) randomly allocated 1:1:1 to opioid agonist treatment plus weekly keyworker appointments with (1) CM targeted at heroin abstinence (CM abstinence), (2) CM targeted at on-time attendance at weekly appointments (CM attendance), or (3) no CM (TAU). The primary cost-effectiveness analysis at 24 weeks after randomization took a societal cost perspective with effects measured in heroin-negative urine samples. RESULTS: At 24 weeks, mean differences in weekly heroin-negative urine results compared with TAU were 0.252 (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.397 to 0.901) for CM abstinence and 0.089 (95% CI -0.223 to 0.402) for CM attendance. Mean differences in costs were £2562 (95% CI £32-£5092) for CM abstinence and £317 (95% CI -£882 to £1518) for CM attendance. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were £10 167 per additional heroin-free urine for CM abstinence and £3562 for CM attendance with low probabilities of cost-effectiveness of 3.5% and 36%, respectively. Results were sensitive to timing of follow-up for CM attendance, which dominated TAU (better outcomes, lower costs) at 12 weeks, with an 88.4% probability of being cost-effective. Probability of cost-effectiveness remained low for CM abstinence (8.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Financial incentives targeted toward heroin abstinence and treatment attendance were not cost-effective over the 24-week follow-up. Nevertheless, CM attendance was cost-effective over the treatment period (12 weeks), when participants were receiving keyworker appointments and incentives.

A comparison of mortality rates for buprenorphine versus methadone treatments for opioid use disorder.

OBJECTIVE: Mortality from opioid use disorder (OUD) can be reduced for patients who receive opioid agonist treatment (OAT). In the United States (US), OATs have different requirements including nearly daily visits to a dispensing facility for methadone but weekly to monthly prescriptions for buprenorphine. Our objective was to compare mortality rates for buprenorphine and methadone treatments among a large sample of US patients with OUD. METHODS: We measured all-cause mortality, overdose mortality, and suicide mortality among US Department of Veterans Affairs patients with a diagnosis of OUD who received OAT from 2010 through 2019. We leveraged substantial and sustained regional variation in prescribing buprenorphine versus methadone as an instrumental variable (IV) and used inverse propensity of treatment weighting to balance relevant covariates across treatment groups. We compared mortality with true two-stage IV using both probit and linear probability models, as well as a reduced form IV model, adjusting for demographics and health status. RESULTS: Our cohort consisted of 61,997 patients with OUD who received OAT, of whom 92.7% were male with a mean age of 47.9 (SD = 14.1) years. Patients were followed for a median of 2 (IQR = 1,4) calendar years. Across regional terciles, mean methadone prescribing was 4.8%, 19.5%, and 75.1% of OAT patients. All models identified significant reductions in all-cause and suicide mortality for buprenorphine relative to methadone. For example, predicted all-cause mortality from the probit model was 169.7 per 10,000 person years (95% CI, 157.8, 179.6) in the lowest tercile of methadone prescribing compared with 206.1 (95% CI, 196.0, 216.3) in the highest tercile. No difference was identified for overdose mortality. CONCLUSION: We found significantly lower all-cause mortality and suicide mortality rates for buprenorphine compared with methadone. Our results support the less restrictive prescribing practices for buprenorphine as OAT in the US.

Causes and risk factors of death among people who inject drugs in Indonesia, Ukraine and Vietnam: findings from HPTN 074 randomized trial.

INTRODUCTION: The HIV Prevention Trials Network (HPTN) 074 study demonstrated a positive effect of an integrated systems navigation and psychosocial counseling intervention on HIV treatment initiation, viral suppression, medication assisted treatment (MAT) enrollment, and risk of death among people who inject drugs (PWID). In this sub-study, we analyzed the incidence, causes, and predictors of death among HIV-infected and uninfected participants. METHODS: The HPTN 074 randomized clinical trial was conducted in Indonesia, Ukraine, and Vietnam. HIV-infected PWID with unsuppressed viral load (indexes) were recruited together with at least one of their HIV-negative injection partners. Indexes were randomized in a 1:3 ratio to the intervention or standard of care. RESULTS: The trial enrolled 502 index and 806 partner participants. Overall, 13% (66/502) of indexes and 3% (19/806) of partners died during follow-up (crude mortality rates 10.4 [95% CI 8.1-13.3] and 2.1 [1.3-3.3], respectively). These mortality rates were for indexes nearly 30 times and for partners 6 times higher than expected in a population of the same country, age, and gender (standardized mortality ratios 30.7 [23.7-39.0] and 5.8 [3.5-9.1], respectively). HIV-related causes, including a recent CD4 < 200 cells/µL, accounted for 50% of deaths among indexes. Among partners, medical conditions were the most common cause of death (47%). In the multivariable Cox model, the mortality among indexes was associated with sex (male versus female aHR = 4.2 [1.5-17.9]), CD4 count (≥ 200 versus < 200 cells/µL aHR = 0.3 [0.2-0.5]), depression (moderate-to-severe versus no/mild aHR = 2.6 [1.2-5.0]) and study arm (intervention versus control aHR = 0.4 [0.2-0.9]). Among partners, the study arm of the index remained the only significant predictor (intervention versus control aHR = 0.2 [0.0-0.9]) while controlling for the effect of MAT (never versus ever receiving MAT aHR = 2.4 [0.9-7.4]). CONCLUSIONS: The results confirm that both HIV-infected and uninfected PWID remain at a starkly elevated risk of death compared to general population. Mortality related to HIV and other causes can be significantly reduced by scaling-up ART and MAT. Access to these life-saving treatments can be effectively improved by flexible integrated interventions, such as the one developed and tested in HPTN 074.

Rescue Analgesia for Opioid-Dependent Individuals on Opioid Agonist Treatment during Hospitalization: Adherence to Guideline Treatment.

INTRODUCTION: Opioid agonist treatment (OAT) is the first-line treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD). Simultaneously, opioids are essential medicines in acute pain management. The literature is scarce on acute pain management in individuals with OUD, and guidelines are controversial for patients on OAT. We aimed at analyzing rescue analgesia in opioid-dependent individuals on OAT during hospitalization in the University Hospital Basel, Switzerland. METHODS: Patient hospital records were extracted from the database over 6 months (Jan-Jun) in 2015 and 2018. Of the 3,216 extracted patient records, we identified 255 cases on OAT with full datasets. Rescue analgesia was defined according to established principles of acute pain management, e.g., i) the analgesic agent is identical to the OAT medication, and ii) the opioid agent is dosed above 1/6th morphine equivalent dose of the OAT medication. RESULTS: The patients were on average 51.3 ± 10.5 years old (range: 22-79 years), of which 64% were men. The most frequent OAT agents were methadone and morphine (34.9% and 34.5%). Rescue analgesia was not documented in 14 cases. Guideline-concordant rescue analgesia was observed in 186 cases (72.9%) and consisted mostly of NSAIDs, including paracetamol (80 cases), and identical agents such as the OAT opioid (70 cases). Guideline-divergent rescue analgesia was observed in 69 (27.1%) cases, predominantly due to an underdosed opioid agent (32 cases), another agent other than the OAT (18 cases), or contraindicated agents (10 cases). DISCUSSION: Our analysis suggests that rescue analgesia in hospitalized OAT patients was predominantly concordant with guidelines, while divergent prescriptions seemed to follow common principles of pain medicine. Clear guidelines are needed to appropriately treat acute pain in hospitalized OAT patients.

Peer-led safer supply and opioid agonist treatment medication distribution: a case study from rural British Columbia.

BACKGROUND: British Columbia (BC) has been facing a public health emergency of overdose since 2016, with rural regions of the province facing the highest rates of death. Peers (in this case, people with lived experience of substance use) are known to be effective patient navigators in health systems and can play a role in connecting patients to care and reducing overdose risk. CASE PRESENTATION: We outline a peer-led program focused on opioid agonist treatment and prescribed safe supply medication delivery that began in March 2020 at a clinic in rural BC. The peer takes an Indigenous harm reduction approach and is focused on meeting the needs of the whole person. The peer has regular contact with approximately 50 clients and navigates medication delivery and appointments for approximately 10-15 people each day. Clients have been retained on the medication, and experienced improvement in other outcomes, including securing housing, employment and managing acute and chronic health conditions. The peer has established contact with clients since March 2020 to support engagement with health care and continuity of medication access. This program highlights the importance and value of peer-led work and need for further investments in peer-led programs to respond to the unregulated drug poisoning crisis. CONCLUSIONS: This peer-led intervention is a promising approach to engaging people who remain disconnected from health services in care in a rural community. This model could be adapted to other settings to support patient contact with the health system and medication access and continuity, with the ultimate goal of reducing overdose risk.

"As long as that place stays open, I'll stay alive": Accessing injectable opioid agonist treatment during dual public health crises.

BACKGROUND: Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, overdose rates in North America have continued to rise, with more than 100,000 drug poisoning deaths in the past year. Amidst an increasingly toxic drug supply, the pandemic disrupted essential substance use treatment and harm reduction services that reduce overdose risk for people who use drugs. In British Columbia, one such treatment is injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT), the supervised dispensation of injectable hydromorphone or diacetylmorphine for people with opioid use disorder. While evidence has shown iOAT to be safe and effective, it is intensive and highly regimented, characterized by daily clinic visits and provider-client interaction-treatment components made difficult by the pandemic. METHODS: Between April 2020 and February 2021, we conducted 51 interviews with 18 iOAT clients and two clinic nurses to understand how the pandemic shaped iOAT access and treatment experiences. To analyze interview data, we employed a multi-step, flexible coding strategy, an iterative and abductive approach to analysis, using NVivo software. RESULTS: Qualitative analysis revealed the ways in which the pandemic shaped clients' lives and the provision of iOAT care. First, client narratives illuminated how the pandemic reinforced existing inequities. For example, socioeconomically marginalized clients expressed concerns around their financial stability and economic impacts on their communities. Second, clients with health comorbidities recognized how the pandemic amplified health risks, through potential COVID-19 exposure or by limiting social connection and mental health supports. Third, clients described how the pandemic changed their engagement with the iOAT clinic and medication. For instance, clients noted that physical distancing guidelines and occupancy limits reduced opportunities for social connection with staff and other iOAT clients. However, pandemic policies also created opportunities to adapt treatment in ways that increased patient trust and autonomy, for example through more flexible medication regimens and take-home oral doses. CONCLUSION: Participant narratives underscored the unequal distribution of pandemic impacts for people who use drugs but also highlighted opportunities for more flexible, patient-centered treatment approaches. Across treatment settings, pandemic-era changes that increase client autonomy and ensure equitable access to care are to be continued and expanded, beyond the duration of the pandemic.

Safety and feasibility of intranasal heroin-assisted treatment: 4-week preliminary findings from a Swiss multicentre observational study.

BACKGROUND: Heroin-assisted treatment (HAT) is effective for individuals with severe opioid use disorder (OUD) who do not respond sufficiently to other opioid agonist treatments. It is mostly offered with injectable diacetylmorphine (DAM) or DAM tablets creating a barrier for individuals who need the rapid onset of action but are either unable or unwilling to inject, or primarily snort opioids. To explore another route of administration, we evaluated the safety and feasibility of intranasal (IN) DAM. METHODS: This is a multicentre observational cohort study among patients in Swiss HAT. All patients planning to receive IN DAM within the treatment centres were eligible to participate. Participants were either completely switched to IN DAM or received IN DAM in addition to other DAM formulations or opioid agonists. Patients were followed up for four weeks. Sociodemographic characteristics, current HAT regimen, reasons for starting IN DAM, IN DAM doses, number of injection events in the sample, IN DAM continuation rate, and appearance of adverse events and nose-related problems were evaluated. RESULTS: Participants (n = 52) reported vein damage, preference for nasal route of administration, and desire of a stronger effect or for a less harmful route of administration as primary reasons for switching to IN DAM. After four weeks, 90.4% of participants (n = 47) still received IN DAM. Weekly average realised injection events decreased by 44.4% from the month before IN DAM initiation to the month following. No severe adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: After four weeks, IN DAM was a feasible and safe alternative to other routes of administration for patients with severe OUD in HAT. It addressed the needs of individuals with OUD and reduced injection behaviour. More long-term research efforts are needed to systematically assess efficacy of and patient satisfaction with IN DAM.

Supervised on-site dosing in injectable opioid agonist treatment-considering the patient perspective. Findings from a cross-sectional interview study in two German cities.

BACKGROUND: Injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) is an effective option to support people living with opioid use disorder (OUD) who have not sufficiently benefitted from oral OAT. However, iOAT has been criticised based on theoretical and practical grounds for its dosing policies: Current regulations demand supervised, on-site application and require patients to frequently visit their treatment facility. The current study aims to investigate how patients experience on-site application and derive strategies to enhance the acceptability and effectiveness of iOAT-delivery. METHODS: This article is based on semi-structured interviews with 27 individuals currently or previously in iOAT in two German outpatient iOAT-clinics. We undertook an inductive qualitative content analysis, which included blinded, independent coding and the analysis of individual cases. RESULTS: Comments regarding on-site application and daily visits to the clinic were grouped into positive and negative aspects, iOAT as the best alternative option, facilitators of daily visits, and suggestions for improvement. Positive aspects took the factors stability and social support in regard. Negative aspects ranged from general inconveniences to major impediments to individuals' daily lives and towards achieving psychosocial goals. Participants reported rigorous adherence to iOAT's treatment regime, often due to a perceived lack of alternative options. Meeting iOAT's demands was eased by the patients' coping-strategies and through facilitating measures implemented by iOAT-clinics. Despite acknowledgement of the potential detriments from easing regulations, take-home arrangements were frequently suggested by participants to improve iOAT. CONCLUSIONS: Being required to attend the clinic for supervised iOAT-application is not experienced uniformly. While clinics can support their patients to cope with strict regulations, alternative approaches to iOAT-application should be considered to accommodate patients' individual needs. Examples from other treatment modalities (e.g., remote supervision and delivery services) might aid to reconcile individualisation while providing adequate safety measures and improve iOAT in the long term.

Is use of opioid agonist treatment associated with broader primary healthcare use among men with recent injecting drug use histories following release from prison? A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: A precipitous decline in health status among people recently released from prison is common. In Victoria, Australia, opioid agonist treatment (OAT) in the community involves frequent contact with primary care, potentially facilitating broader use of primary healthcare services. Among a cohort of men who injected drugs regularly pre-imprisonment, we estimated differences in rates of primary healthcare use and medication dispensation between people who did and did not receive OAT post-release. METHODS: Data came from the Prison and Transition Health Cohort Study. Three-month post-release follow-up interviews were linked with primary care and medication dispensation records. Generalised linear models were fit with one exposure (OAT: none/partial/complete) for 13 outcomes relating to primary healthcare use, pathology testing, and medication dispensation, adjusted for other covariates. Coefficients were reported as adjusted incidence rate ratios (AIRR). RESULTS: Analyses included 255 participants. Compared to no OAT use, both partial and complete OAT use were associated with increased rates of standard (AIRR: 3.02, 95%CI: 1.88-4.86; AIRR: 3.66, 95%CI: 2.57-5.23), extended (AIRR: 2.56, 95%CI: 1.41-4.67; AIRR: 2.55, 95%CI: 1.60-4.07) and mental health-related (AIRR: 2.71, 95%CI: 1.42-5.20; AIRR: 2.27, 95%CI: 1.33-3.87) general practitioner (GP) consultations, total medication (AIRR: 1.88, 95%CI: 1.19-2.98; AIRR: 2.40, 95%CI: 1.71-3.37), benzodiazepine (AIRR: 4.99, 95%CI: 2.81-8.85; AIRR: 8.30, 95%CI: 5.28-13.04) and gabapentinoid (AIRR: 6.78, 95%CI: 3.34-13.77; AIRR: 4.34, 95%CI: 2.37-7.94) dispensations, respectively. Partial OAT use was also associated with increased after-hours GP consultations (AIRR: 4.61, 95%CI: 2.24-9.48) and complete OAT use? with increased pathology utilisation (e.g. haematological, chemical, microbiological or immunological tissue/sample testing; AIRR: 2.30, 95%CI: 1.52-3.48). CONCLUSION: We observed higher rates of primary healthcare use and medication dispensation among people who reported partial and complete OAT use post-release. Findings suggest that access to OAT post-release may have a collateral benefit in supporting broader health service utilisation, underscoring the importance of retention in OAT after release from prison.

How an emergency department is organized to provide opioid-specific harm reduction and facilitators and barriers to harm reduction implementation: a systems perspective.

BACKGROUND: The intersection of dual public health emergencies-the COVID-19 pandemic and the drug toxicity crisis-has led to an urgent need for acute care based harm reduction for unregulated opioid use. Emergency Departments (EDs) as Complex Adaptive Systems (CASs) with multiple, interdependent, and interacting elements are suited to deliver such interventions. This paper examines how the ED is organized to provide harm reduction and identifies facilitators and barriers to implementation in light of interactions between system elements. METHODS: Using a case study design, we conducted interviews with Emergency Physicians (n = 5), Emergency Nurses (n = 10), and clinical leaders (n = 5). Nine organizational policy documents were also collected. Interview data were analysed using a Reflexive Thematic Analysis approach. Policy documents were analysed using a predetermined coding structure pertaining to staffing roles and responsibilities and the interrelationships therein for the delivery of opioid-specific harm reduction in the ED. The theory of CAS informed data analysis. RESULTS: An array of system agents, including substance use specialist providers and non-specialist providers, interacted in ways that enable the provision of harm reduction interventions in the ED, including opioid agonist treatment, supervised consumption, and withdrawal management. However, limited access to specialist providers, when coupled with specialist control, non-specialist reliance, and concerns related to safety, created tensions in the system that hinder harm reduction provision with resulting implications for the delivery of care. CONCLUSIONS: To advance harm reduction implementation, there is a need for substance use specialist services that are congruent with the 24 h a day service delivery model of the ED, and for organizational policies that are attentive to discourses of specialized practice, hierarchical relations of power, and the dynamic regulatory landscape. Implementation efforts that take into consideration these perspectives have the potential to reduce harms experienced by people who use unregulated opioids, not only through overdose prevention and improving access to safer opioid alternatives, but also through supporting people to complete their unique care journeys.

"I'm almost opioid-a-phobic": family medicine residents' perceptions of enhancing opioid analgesic and agonist treatment training in a Canadian setting.

PURPOSE: As deaths from the illicit drug poisoning crisis continue to rise in Canada, increasing the number of healthcare professionals qualified to effectively prescribe opioids could be beneficial. The willingness of family medicine residents to undertake structured training in prescribing opioids for Opioid Agonist Treatment (OAT) and pain management have not been well described. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Family medicine residents (n = 20) in British Columbia, Canada, were asked about their experience with and willingness to enrol in OAT training. Informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, data were analysed thematically using NVivo software. RESULTS: Four themes were identified: (1) challenges to training implementation, (2) feelings and attitudes on prescribing practices, (3) helpful learning spaces and places of substance use training, and (4) recommendations for implementing training. Preparedness, exposure, and supportive learning environments for substance use education increased willingness to pursue OAT accreditation, while ineffective learning experiences, mixed feelings about opioid prescribing, and lack of protected time were the most common reasons for unwillingness. CONCLUSIONS: Protected time and a range of clinical experiences appear to facilitate residents' willingness to complete OAT and opioid training. Implementation strategies to enhance the uptake of OAT accreditation in family medicine residency must be prioritised.

Changes in Health-related Quality of Life for Hepatitis C Virus-Infected People Who Inject Drugs While on Opioid Agonist Treatment Following Sustained Virologic Response.

BACKGROUND: Although efforts to treat hepatitis C virus (HCV) in people who inject drugs (PWID) yield high rates of sustained virologic response (SVR), the relationship between successful HCV treatment and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) among PWID is poorly understood. We examined HRQOL changes throughout HCV treatment and post-treatment for PWID achieving SVR. METHODS: Participants included 141 PWID who achieved SVR following HCV treatment onsite at 3 opioid agonist treatment (OAT) clinics in the Bronx, New York. EQ-5D-3L assesses 5 health dimensions (mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression), producing an index of HRQOL ranging from 0 to 1. EQ-5D-3L was measured at baseline; 4, 8, and 12 weeks during treatment; and 12 and 24 weeks post-treatment. Linear mixed effects regression models assessed changes in the mean EQ-5D-3L index over time. RESULTS: Mean EQ-5D-3L index baseline was 0.66 (standard error [SE] = 0.02). While over half the population reported no baseline problems with self-care (85.1%), usual activities (56.0%), and mobility (52.5%), at least two-thirds reported problems with pain/discomfort (78.0%) and anxiety/depression (66.0%). Twenty-four weeks post-treatment, proportions reporting pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression decreased by 25.7% and 24.0%, respectively. Mean EQ-5D-3L index significantly improved during treatment (P < .0001), and improvement was sustained following treatment completion, with mean EQ-5D-3L index of 0.77 (SE = 0.02) 12 weeks post-SVR. CONCLUSIONS: HCV treatment led to sustained improvement in HRQOL for PWID on OAT who achieved SVR. Future research is necessary to determine whether improvements in HRQOL can be sustained beyond 12 weeks post-SVR.

Exploring why patients in heroin-assisted treatment are getting incarcerated-a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Heroin-assisted treatment has proven effective in reducing criminal offenses in opioid dependent individuals. Few studies attempted to explain the observed crime reduction and the reasons why these patients keep offending and getting incarcerated have to date not been explored. METHODS: Patients with a history of incarcerations during the time of participating in heroin-assisted treatment (n = 22) were invited to a semi-structured, narrative interview. Findings were evaluated with Mayring's qualitative content analysis framework. Additionally, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment test and the multiple-choice vocabulary intelligence test used to assess cognitive impairment and premorbid intelligence levels. RESULTS: Three main categories emerged in patients' narratives on their incarcerations: cocaine use, impaired functioning, and financial constraints. Lifetime prevalence of cocaine use disorder was 95.5% and their cocaine use often led to patients getting incarcerated. Impaired functioning mainly constituted the inability to receive and open mail. Financial constraints led to incarcerations in lieu of payment in 16 participants (72.7%). Categories overlapped notably and often occurred in close temporal proximity. A fourth category on the likelihood of getting incarcerated again in the future was inhomogeneous and ranged from the strong conviction to complete rejection of the scenario. Average premorbid intelligence levels were found, whereas the cognitive assessment suggested severe cognitive impairment in our sample. CONCLUSION: Participants mainly reported to have committed minor offenses and not being able to pay for resulting fines. The resulting prison sentences are an unconvincing practice from a medical and economic perspective alike. Public expenditure and the interruptions of the continuum of care could be reduced by legislatively protecting these marginalised patients.

Treatment of Opioid Use Disorder in Canadian Psychosocial Addiction Programs: A National Survey of Policy, Attitudes, and Practice.

OBJECTIVE: To describe current approaches in treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) within Canadian psychosocial outpatient, day, and residential addiction treatment programs, with an emphasis on the use of opioid agonist therapy (OAT). METHOD: An online census survey was conducted in English and French of Canadian psychosocial addiction treatment programs (N = 214). RESULTS: Programs estimated that 25% of their clients have OUD. A slight majority of programs provide some type of specialized services to clients with OUD (58%), most frequently providing or facilitating access to OAT but also specialized counselling, case management, education, and harm reduction services.Most programs reported that they admitted clients on OAT (88%) and only a minority expected or encouraged clients to taper (14%) or discontinue (6%). Programs focusing on client abstinence as the treatment goal were more likely to expect or encourage tapering or discontinuation than programs that focus on helping clients achieve personal consumption goals. Of programs that did not currently facilitate OAT, 44% indicated that they would provide OAT, but lacked the necessary accreditation, physician support, or other resources. No philosophical objections to OAT were noted.OAT initiation was provided by 30% of programs, 23% referred to another service within their organization, and 29% referred to a service outside their organization. The remaining 18% did not facilitate OAT initiation at all, ranging from 0% in Quebec to 23% in the Prairies. Overdose response kits were provided by 86% of programs. The majority not providing kits indicated willingness if policy support and resources were provided (67%). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the results demonstrate that psychosocial programs provide some specialized services for OUD but desire further support specifically to provide OAT, including training, knowledge, and the expertise of individuals qualified to prescribe and dispense OAT. Many psychosocial treatment programs expressed a need for staff and resources for this purpose.

Opioid agonist treatment (OAT) experiences and release plans among federally incarcerated individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) in Ontario, Canada: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Incarcerated populations experience an elevated prevalence of opioid use disorder (OUD). Federal correctional institutions in Canada have increasingly treated OUD among correctional populations via opioid agonist treatment (OAT) - an evidence based pharmacotherapy that works to reduce drug use and related health harms. However, there is limited evidence regarding incarcerated individuals' experiences with institutional-based OAT, as well potential OAT-related community release prospects. This information is important for optimal treatment retention and improved health. To address this knowledge gap, we conducted a longitudinal follow-up study examining OAT-related experiences among federally incarcerated individuals before and after community release. This article focuses on the baseline (pre-release) data. METHODS: This mixed-methods study examined OAT-related experiences and release prospects among n = 46 individuals scheduled for community release, recruited from seven federal prisons located in Ontario, Canada. Participants underwent a comprehensive interviewer-administered on-site assessment, including quantitative and qualitative items. Assessment data was furthermore linked to administrative correctional data. Data were analyzed using thematic qualitative and descriptive quantitative approaches. RESULTS: Participants had complex histories with opioid use including related negative health outcomes. Experiences with institutional OAT were divergent and provision was not standardized; those with OAT engagement pre-admission did not experience many challenges, whereas those initiating OAT during incarceration experienced barriers such as treatment waitlists and adverse process experiences. Most participants expressed a preference for buprenorphine-naloxone over methadone, but described difficulties accessing it. Participants were keen to transition into community-based treatment, yet envisaged prospective barriers and facilitators concerning successful reintegration and treatment continuity. CONCLUSIONS: Major barriers towards the current administration of OAT in federal correctional systems in Canada exist, including extensive waitlists, non-standardized practices, and challenges accessing preferred OAT formulations; this contributes to sub-optimal treatment. Eliminating waitlists, standardizing OAT provision, providing additional OAT options, and more comprehensive release planning may be essential for treatment retention and positive outcomes.

Effectiveness and Safety of Low-Threshold Opioid-Agonist Treatment in Hard-To-Reach Populations with Opioid Dependence.

OBJECTIVES: Opioid-use disorder is related to premature death worldwide. Opioid-agonist treatment (OAT) is an effective treatment for opioid dependence. OAT delivery platforms may influence treatment access and outcomes, especially for the most vulnerable groups. The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness and safety of low-threshold OAT compared to the standard treatment. METHODS: Patients with diagnosed opioid dependence undergoing low-threshold OAT at the Bergen delivery platform in Norway were enrolled in a cohort study in 2014-2019. A national OAT cohort was the reference group. The main outcomes were treatment retention, the use of illicit opioids, non-fatal overdose, overdose death, and all-cause mortality during the first year following treatment initiation and the full treatment period. Additionally, healthcare utilization in the periods before and during OAT was investigated. RESULTS: Compared to the reference cohort, the low-threshold cohort (n = 128, mean age: 38 years, women: 28%) showed treatment retention rates of 95% versus 92%, illicit opioid use of 7% versus 10%, non-fatal overdose of 7% versus 6%, and death at 1.0% versus 1.3%, respectively. The incident rate ratios (IRRs) for healthcare utilization increased substantially during the OAT period compared to the period before; the IRR increased by 3.3 (95% confidence interval (CI): 2.8, 3.9) and 3.4 (95% CI: 3.1, 3.9) for all in- and outpatient healthcare, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Low-threshold OAT was at least as effective and safe as the standard OAT in terms of treatment retention, the use of illicit opioids, non-fatal overdose, and death. Healthcare utilization increased during the OAT compared to the period before. Lowering the threshold for OAT entrance within proper delivery platforms should be broadly considered to reduce harm and improve healthcare access among patients with opioid dependence.

Mortality, Causes of Death, and Predictors of Death among Patients On and Off Opioid Agonist Treatment: Results from a 19-Year Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Mortality is increased among people with opioid use disorder but reduced while on opioid agonist treatment (OAT). However, the impact of patient and treatment characteristics on mortality and causes of death is insufficiently studied. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to explore mortality and causes of death and examine the impact of patient and treatment characteristics on mortality in an OAT cohort with high retention in treatment. METHODS: Design: longitudinal cohort study. SETTING: Norway. Observation period: time from OAT start as of 1998 until death or end of 2016, 2,508 person-years (PY) in total. SAMPLE: 200 persons starting OAT 1998-2007. DATA SOURCES: hospital records, interviews, the Norwegian Cause of Death Registry, Statistics Norway. RESULTS: Retention: 86.4% of the observation period was on OAT, 9.0% off, 4.6% unknown OAT status. All-cause crude mortality rate per 100 PY during the whole observation period was 1.64 (95% CI: 1.19-2.20), for deaths of somatic cause 0.88 (0.56-1.31), for drug-induced deaths 0.44 (0.23-0.76), and traumatic deaths 0.24 (0.10-0.50). Off-versus-on-OAT all-cause mortality ratio was 2.31 (1.00-4.85). On OAT, 58% of the deaths were of somatic cause and 21% drug-induced; off OAT, 38% of somatic cause and 50% drug-induced. Increasing baseline age and rate of somatic hospital treatment episodes were independently associated with increased all-cause mortality risk, while increasing rate of in-patient psychiatric treatment episodes was associated with reduced risk. Increasing duration of nicotine and cannabis use and alcohol dependence as well as increasing severity of polydrug use were associated with increased all-cause and somatic mortality adjusted for age and sex. CONCLUSION: The long observation period made it possible to demonstrate the importance of long-term retention in OAT to reduce mortality. Further, the preponderance of somatic and reduction of drug-induced causes of death during OAT underlines the need for follow-up of chronic diseases and health-promoting lifestyle changes. These findings add to the knowledge about long-term OAT effects, not least in ageing OAT populations.

Measuring treatment attrition at various stages of engagement in Opioid Agonist Treatment in Ontario Canada using a cascade of care framework.

BACKGROUND: The cascade of care framework is an effective way to measure attrition at various stages of engagement in Opioid Agonist Treatment (OAT). The primary objective of the study was to describe the cascade of care for patients who have accessed OAT from a network of specialized addiction clinics in Ontario, Canada. The secondary objectives were to evaluate correlates associated with retention in OAT at various stages and the impact of patients' location of the residence on retention in OAT. DESIGN: A multi-clinic retrospective cohort study was conducted using electronic medical record (EMR) data from the largest network of OAT clinics in Canada (70 clinics) from 2014 to 2020. Study participants included all patients who received OAT from the network of clinics during the study period. MEASUREMENTS: In this study, four stages of the cascade of care framework were operationalized to identify treatment engagement patterns, including patients retained within 90 days, 90 to 365 days, one to 2 years, and more than 2 years. Correlates associated with OAT retention for 90 days, 90 to 365 days, 1 to 2 years, and more than 2 years were also evaluated and compared across rural and urban areas in northern and southern Ontario. RESULTS: A total of 32,487 patients were included in the study. Compared to patients who were retained in OAT for 90 days, patients who were retained for 90 to 365 days, 1 to 2 years, or more than 2 years were more likely to have a higher number of treatment attempts, a higher number of average monthly urine drug screening and a lower proportion of positive urine drug screening results for other drug use. CONCLUSION: Distinct sociodemographic and clinical factors are likely to influence treatment retention at various stages of engagement along the OAT continuum. Research is required to determine if tailored strategies specific to people at different stages of retention have the potential to improve outcomes of OAT.