Perioperative Management of Buprenorphine/Naloxone in a Large, National Health Care System: a Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Medication for opioid use disorder, including buprenorphine and methadone, is considered the gold standard treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD). As the number of patients receiving buprenorphine has grown, clinicians increasingly care for patients prescribed buprenorphine who present for surgery and require management of perioperative pain. OBJECTIVE: To describe practice patterns of perioperative and post-surgical use of buprenorphine among patients prescribed buprenorphine for OUD who experience major surgery. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study utilizing data from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW), a national repository of patient-level data. Data not accessible in CDW, including clinical instructions to patients to modify buprenorphine dose, were accessed via chart review. PARTICIPANTS: National sample of patients receiving care through the Veterans Health Administration. MAIN MEASURES: We report descriptive statistics on the incidence of buprenorphine dose hold prior to, during, and immediately following surgery, as well as post-surgical outcomes. Multivariable logistic regression identified socio-demographic and clinical characteristics associated with perioperative hold. KEY RESULTS: Our final sample comprised 183 patients, the majority of whom were white and male. Most patients (66%) experienced a perioperative buprenorphine dose hold: during the pre-operative, day of surgery, and post-operative periods, 40%, 62%, and 55% of patients had buprenorphine held. Buprenorphine dose hold was less likely for patients who had experienced homelessness/housing insecurity in the year prior to surgery (aOR = 0.25; 95% CI 0.10-0.61) as well as patients residing in rural areas (aOR=0.29; 0.12-0.68). Within the 12-month period following surgery, 122 patients (67%) were retained on buprenorphine, 10 patients (5.5%) had experienced an overdose, and 15 (8.2%) had died. CONCLUSIONS: We identified high rates of perioperative buprenorphine dose holds. As holding buprenorphine perioperatively does not align with emerging clinical recommendations and carries significant risks, educational campaigns or other provider-targeted interventions may be needed to ensure patients with OUD receive recommended care.

Addressing a rapidly changing service landscape during the COVID-19 pandemic: Creation of the Oregon substance use disorder resource collaborative.

Following the rising crisis of COVID-19 and the Oregon governor's stay-at-home orders, members of the Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU) inpatient addiction consult service recognized that local addiction treatment and recovery organizations were operating at limited capacity. As a result, discharge planning, patient access to local community-based treatment, and safety-net programming were affected. Given structural and intersectional risk vulnerabilities of people with substance use disorders (SUDs), the OHSU members felt that COVID-19 would disproportionately impact chronically marginalized members of our community. These inequities inspired the formation of the Oregon substance use disorder resources collaborative (ORSUD) led by four medical students. ORSUD's mission is to support the efforts of local safety-net organizations that and front-line providers who serve chronically marginalized community members in the midst of the global pandemic. We operationalized our mission through: 1) collecting and disseminating operational and capacity changes in local addiction and harm reduction services to the broader treatment community, and 2) identifying and addressing immediate resource needs for local safety-net programs. Our program uses a real-time public-facing document to collate local programmatic updates and general community resources. COVID-19 disproportionately burdens people with SUDs; thus, ORSUD exists to support programs serving people with SUDs and will continue to evolve to meet their needs and the needs of those who serve them.

Comparing Canadian and United States opioid agonist therapy policies.

Canada and the United States (U.S.) face an opioid use disorder (OUD) and opioid overdose epidemic. The most effective OUD treatment is opioid agonist therapy (OAT)-buprenorphine (with and without naloxone) and methadone. Although federal approval for OAT occurred decades ago, in both countries, access to and use of OAT is low. Restrictive policies and complex regulations contribute to limited OAT access. Through a non-systematic literature scan and a review of publicly available policy documents, we examined and compared OAT policies and practice at the federal (Canada vs. U.S.) and local levels (British Columbia [B.C.] vs. Oregon). Differences and similarities were noted between federal and local OAT policies, and subsequently OAT access. In Canada, OAT policy control has shifted from federal to provincial authorities. Conversely, in the U.S., federal authorities maintain primary control of OAT regulations. Local OAT health insurance coverage policies were substantively different between B.C. and Oregon. In B.C., five OAT options were available, while in Oregon, only two OAT options were available with administrative limitations. The differences in local OAT access and coverage policies between B.C. and Oregon, may be explained, in part, to the differences in Canadian and U.S. federal OAT policies, specifically, the relaxation of special federal OAT regulatory controls in Canada. The analysis also highlights the complicating contributions, and likely policy solutions, that exist within other drug policy sub-domains (e.g., the prescription regime, and drug control regime) and broader policy domains (e.g., constitutional rights). U.S. policymakers and health officials could consider adopting Canada's regulatory policy approach to expand OAT access to mitigate the harms of the ongoing opioid overdose epidemic.

Student Perspectives on the "Step 1 Climate" in Preclinical Medical Education.

The United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 was implemented in the 1990s as the most recent version of the National Board of Medical Examiners' preclinical licensing examination originally created in the late 1960s. For the purposes of state licensure, the exam is pass/fail, but the Step 1 numeric score has in recent years become central to the residency application and selection process. Consequently, a medical student's Step 1 score is increasingly viewed as a key outcome of preclinical medical education.In this Invited Commentary, students from various institutions across the country draw on their shared experiences to argue that the emphasis on Step 1 for residency selection has fundamentally altered the preclinical learning environment, creating a "Step 1 climate." The authors aim to increase awareness of the harms and unintended consequences of this phenomenon in medical education. They outline how the Step 1 climate negatively impacts education, diversity, and student well-being, and they urge a national conversation on the elimination of reporting Step 1 numeric scores.