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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

"We'll be able to take care of ourselves" - A qualitative study of client attitudes toward implementing buprenorphine treatment at syringe services programs.

Background: Syringe services programs (SSPs) complement substance use disorder treatment in providing services that improve the health of people who use drugs (PWUD). Buprenorphine treatment is an effective underutilized opioid use disorder treatment. Regulations allow buprenorphine prescribing from office-based settings, potentially including SSPs although few studies have examined this approach. Our objective was to assess the attitudes among PWUD toward the potential introduction of buprenorphine treatment in an SSP. Methods: In this qualitative study, we recruited 34 participants who were enrolled at a New York City-based SSP to participate in one of seven focus group sessions. The focus group facilitators prompted participants to share their thoughts in five domains: attitudes toward (1) medical clinics; (2) harm reduction in general; (3) SSP-based buprenorphine treatment; (4) potential challenges of SSP-based treatment; and (5) logistical considerations of an SSP-based buprenorphine treatment program. Four researchers analyzed focus group transcripts using thematic analysis. Results: Of the 34 participants, most were white (68%), over the age of 40 years old (56%), and had previously tried buprenorphine (89%). Common themes were: 1) The SSP is a supportive community for people who use drugs; 2) Participants felt less stigmatized at the SSP than in general medical settings; 3) Offering buprenorphine treatment could change the SSP's culture; and 4) SSP participants receiving buprenorphine may be tempted to divert their medication. Participants offered suggestions for a slow intentional introduction of buprenorphine treatment at the SSP including structured appointments, training medical providers in harm reduction, and program eligibility criteria. Conclusion: Overall, participants expressed enthusiasm for onsite buprenorphine treatment at SSPs. Research on SSP-based buprenorphine treatment should investigate standard buprenorphine treatment outcomes but also any effects on the program itself and medication diversion. Implementation should consider cultural and environmental aspects of the SSP and consult program staff and participants.

An ethical analysis of medication treatment for opioid use disorder (MOUD) for persons who are incarcerated.

Opioid use disorder (OUD) is highly prevalent among persons who are incarcerated. Medication treatment for opioid use disorder (MOUD), methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone, is widely used to treat OUD in the community. Despite MOUD's well-documented effectiveness in improving health and social outcomes, its use in American jails and prisons is limited.Several factors are used to justify limited access to MOUD in jails and prisons including: "uncertainty" of MOUD's effectiveness during incarceration, security concerns, risk of overdose from MOUD, lack of resources and institutional infrastructure, and the inability of people with OUD to provide informed consent. Stigma regarding MOUD also likely plays a role. While these factors are relevant to the creation and implementation of addiction treatment policies in incarcerated settings, their ethicality remains underexplored.Using ethical principles of beneficence/non-maleficence, justice, and autonomy, in addition to public health ethics, we evaluate the ethicality of the above list of factors. There is a two-fold ethical imperative to provide MOUD in jails and prisons. Firstly, persons who are incarcerated have the right to evidence-based medical care for OUD. Secondly, because jails and prisons are government institutions, they have an obligation to provide that evidence-based treatment. Additionally, jails and prisons must address the systematic barriers that prevent them from fulfilling that responsibility. According to widely accepted ethical principles, strong evidence supporting the health benefits of MOUD cannot be subordinated to stigma or inaccurate assessments of security, cost, and feasibility. We conclude that making MOUD inaccessible in jails and prisons is ethically impermissible.

History of Solitary Confinement Is Associated with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Symptoms among Individuals Recently Released from Prison.

This study assessed the relationship between solitary confinement and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms in a cohort of recently released former prisoners. The cross-sectional design utilized baseline data from the Transitions Clinic Network, a multi-site prospective longitudinal cohort study of post-incarceration medical care. Our main independent variable was self-reported solitary confinement during the participants' most recent incarceration; the dependent variable was the presence of PTSD symptoms determined by primary care (PC)-PTSD screening when participants initiated primary care in the community. We used multivariable logistic regression to adjust for potential confounders, such as prior mental health conditions, age, and gender. Among 119 participants, 43% had a history of solitary confinement and 28% screened positive for PTSD symptoms. Those who reported a history of solitary confinement were more likely to report PTSD symptoms than those without solitary confinement (43 vs. 16%, p < 0.01). In multivariable logistic regression, a history of solitary confinement (OR = 3.93, 95% CI 1.57-9.83) and chronic mental health conditions (OR = 4.04, 95% CI 1.52-10.68) were significantly associated with a positive PTSD screen after adjustment for the potential confounders. Experiencing solitary confinement was significantly associated with PTSD symptoms among individuals accessing primary care following release from prison. Larger studies should confirm these findings.

Development and evaluation of a community-based buprenorphine treatment intervention.

BACKGROUND: The majority of Americans with opioid use disorder remain out of treatment. Operating in 33 states, Washington DC, and Puerto Rico, harm reduction agencies, which provide sterile syringes and other health services to people who inject drugs, are a key venue to reach out-of-treatment opioid users. Aiming to link out-of-treatment individuals with opioid use disorder to buprenorphine treatment, we developed a community-based buprenorphine treatment (CBBT) intervention in collaboration with New York City harm reduction agencies. METHODS: Intervention development included formative data collection, feasibility testing at one harm reduction agency, and pilot testing for preliminary effectiveness at a second harm reduction agency. We used a pre-post design for both feasibility and pilot testing. In the CBBT intervention, we trained harm reduction agency staff to provide (1) buprenorphine education, (2) motivational interviewing, (3) referrals to buprenorphine-prescribing doctors, and (4) treatment retention support. We assessed feasibility by measuring staff satisfaction with the intervention and changes in knowledge about buprenorphine. We assessed preliminary effectiveness by comparing rates of buprenorphine initiation among groups of harm reduction agency clients before and after intervention implementation. RESULTS: Among staff members at the first harm reduction agency, knowledge increased from 52% correct answers pre-intervention to 79% correct post-intervention. Among clients at the second harm reduction agency, initiation of buprenorphine treatment was low and did not differ between pre- and post-intervention groups. CONCLUSIONS: The CBBT intervention was feasible and well-received, but initiation of buprenorphine treatment among harm reduction agency clients was low. More robust interventions may be necessary to increase initiation of buprenorphine treatment.

Recent incarceration and buprenorphine maintenance treatment outcomes among human immunodeficiency virus-positive patients.

BACKGROUND: Opioid use disorder is a common cause of morbidity and mortality among people living with human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS). Buprenorphine maintenance treatment (BMT) is an effective means of therapy, but patients with recent criminal justice involvement may need more support during BMT than other patients. The authors hypothesized that recently incarcerated BMT patients who initiated treatment in primary care would have poorer treatment outcomes than those who were not recently incarcerated. METHODS: Investigators analyzed data from a multisite cohort study of BMT integrated into HIV care. Patients were stratified by self-reported incarceration in the 30 days before initiation of BMT. The outcomes of interest were 6- and 12-month treatment retention and self-reported opioid use. Investigators used multivariable logistic regression and hierarchical linear model, respectively, to evaluate the association between recent incarceration and these outcomes while adjusting for potential confounding variables. RESULTS: Among 305 BMT patients living with HIV/AIDS, 39 (13%) reported recent incarceration. Patients with recent incarceration (vs. without) were more likely to be homeless, unemployed, and previously diagnosed with mental illness. Recent incarceration was not significantly associated with differences in 6-month (odds ratio [OR] = 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.46-1.98) and 12-month (OR = 0.57; 95% CI = 0.27-1.18) treatment retention or in self-reported opioid use (OR = 0.99; 95% CI = 0.51-1.92) after adjustment for potential confounding variables. CONCLUSIONS: Those with incarceration in the 30 days prior to BMT initiation were more likely to be homeless, unemployed, and previously diagnosed with mental illness than those without recent incarceration. However, no significant difference in self-reported opioid use or 6-month or 12-month retention in treatment was detected between those with and without recent incarceration. Future studies should confirm these findings with larger sample sizes. Encouraging formerly incarcerated individuals with opioid use disorder to initiate evidence-based treatments, including BMT, should be part of efforts to confront the opioid addiction epidemic in the United States.

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.

Harm Reduction Agencies as a Potential Site for Buprenorphine Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Harm reduction agencies complement addiction treatment by providing diverse services that improve the health of people who use drugs. Buprenorphine maintenance treatment (BMT) is an effective opioid addiction treatment that may be provided from flexible settings, potentially including harm reduction agencies. This study investigated attitudes toward different potential sites for BMT (harm reduction agencies, general medical clinics, and drug treatment programs) among harm reduction clients. METHODS: Using computer-based interviews, participants indicated preferred potential site for BMT (harm reduction agency, drug treatment program, or general medical clinic), interest in BMT by potential site, motivation for treatment, and barriers to BMT. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with harm reduction agency preference. RESULTS: Of 102 opioid users, the most preferred potential site for BMT was a harm reduction agency (51%), whereas fewer preferred general medical clinics (13%), drug treatment programs (12%), or were not interested in BMT (25%). In multivariable analysis, experiencing ≥1 barrier to BMT was strongly associated with preferring harm reduction agencies (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 3.39, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.00-11.43). CONCLUSIONS: The potential to initiate BMT at harm reduction agencies is highly favorable among harm reduction clients, especially among those experiencing barriers to BMT. Offering BMT at harm reduction agencies could improve access to treatment, but studies are needed to determine safety and efficacy of this approach.

I heard about it from a friend: assessing interest in buprenorphine treatment.

BACKGROUND: In the United States, opioid abuse and dependence continue to be a growing problem, whereas treatment for opioid abuse and dependence remains fairly static. Buprenorphine treatment for opioid dependence is safe and effective but underutilized. Prior research has demonstrated low awareness and use of buprenorphine among marginalized groups. This study investigates syringe exchange participants' awareness of, exposure to, and interest in buprenorphine treatment. METHODS: Syringe exchange participants were recruited from a mobile unit performing outreach to 9 street-side sites in New York City. Computer-based interviews were conducted to determine (1) opioid users' awareness of, exposure to, and interest in buprenorphine treatment; and (2) the association between awareness or exposure and interest in buprenorphine treatment. Logistic regression models were used to examine the associations between awareness of, direct exposure (i.e., having taken buprenorphine) or indirect exposure (i.e., knowing someone who had taken buprenorphine)S to, and interest in buprenorphine treatment. RESULTS: Of 158 opioid users, 70% were aware of, 32% had direct exposure to, and 31% had indirect exposure to buprenorphine; 12% had been prescribed buprenorphine. Of 138 opioid users who had never been prescribed buprenorphine, 57% were interested in buprenorphine treatment. In multivariate models, indirect exposure was associated with interest in buprenorphine treatment (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 2.65, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.22-5.77), but awareness and direct exposure were not. CONCLUSIONS: Syringe exchange participants were mostly aware of buprenorphine and interested in treatment, but few had actually been prescribed buprenorphine. Because indirect exposure to buprenorphine was associated with interest in treatment, future interventions could capitalize on indirect exposure, such as through peer mentorship, to address underutilization of buprenorphine treatment.

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.

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.

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.