Advocacy for Equity Around Evidence-Based Treatments: Overview and Proceedings of the AMERSA 2023 Conference.

This commentary provides an overview of the 2023 Association of Multidisciplinary Education and Research in Substance use and Addiction (AMERSA) annual conference: Advocacy for Equity Around Evidence-Based Treatments, held from November 1 to 4, 2023, in Washington, DC. The conference featured 9 interactive workshops, 106 oral abstract presentations, and 130 posters. From the preconference workshop to plenary sessions, paper, and poster presentations, there was a focus on addressing imbalanced social systems and structures underlying disparities. In the face of increasing drug overdose deaths, diminished access to prevention, intervention, treatment, and recovery supports for racial and ethnic minorities, there is a pressing need for advocacy for equity around evidence-based treatments.

The Cost of Safe Injection: Insights on Nonprescription Syringe Price Variability From Systematic Secret Shopping.

BACKGROUND: Although the sale of nonprescription syringes in pharmacies is legal in most states, people who inject drugs (PWID) continue to face obstacles to syringe purchase like stigma, prohibitive costs, restrictive policies, and stocking issues. We examined the consistency of syringe pricing as another possible barrier. METHODS: We analyzed data on syringe prices and other relevant variables from 153 unique secret shopper visits to 2 retail chain pharmacies in Massachusetts (MA), New Hampshire (NH), Oregon (OR), and Washington (WA) as part of the fidelity component of a large pharmacy-focused intervention study. Pretax prices from purchases made between August 2019 and May 2021 were adjusted for inflation to 2022 dollars, and a linear regression of the price of a 10-pack of syringes was constructed to examine the determinants of syringe pricing. RESULTS: The average real price of a 10-pack of syringes across all states was $4.53 (SD = 0.99), with wide variability between pharmacies (max = $11.44, min = $1.70) and between states (mean OR = $5.76, WA = $4.74, MA = $4.33, NH = $4.30). Forty-seven percent (n = 72) of the purchases were taxed despite syringes being tax exempt in MA and WA, and not having a sales tax in NH or OR. The results of the regression suggest that certain needle gauges were associated with lower overall prices, while 1 pharmacy chain and 2 syringe brands were associated with higher overall prices. CONCLUSIONS: The high variability in syringe pricing presents another barrier to pharmacy-based syringe access since high prices may leave PWID no choice but to reuse or share needles, especially in areas with limited alternatives or without a syringe service program. Leadership from healthcare systems, pharmacy chains, and state and local policymakers is essential to reduce stigma and to implement policies that streamline syringe purchases, eliminate the taxation of exempt syringes in accordance with state laws, and reduce the variation in syringe prices.

Assessing pharmacist and clinician perspectives on pharmacist-prescribed hormonal contraceptives.

BACKGROUND: After the Dobbs et al. ruling in June 2022 by the U.S. Supreme Court eliminated the federal right to abortion care, concerns about access to reproductive health have been elevated. Barriers to contraception use consist of knowledge deficits, unfavorable legal rulings, cost and insurance coverage, unnecessary medical practices, and health care inequities. Pharmacists are the most accessible health care providers who are positioned to mitigate these barriers and expand reproductive health access through scope of practice expansion. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has expressed their support for pharmacists prescribing hormonal contraceptives. As of October 2022, 22 states and jurisdictions have a protocol in place to allow for autonomous prescribing of hormonal contraceptives by pharmacists. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to simultaneously assess pharmacist and clinician perspectives of all ages and sexual identities, on pharmacist-prescribed hormonal contraceptives and barriers faced in accessing contraception. METHODS: The researchers conducted an institutional review board-approved observational study via a cross-sectional survey distributed to licensed pharmacists and clinicians from October 2022 to February 2023. The survey population included those who were 18 years or older, English speaking, and recruited both in person and through e-mail listservs. The survey assessed barriers to contraception access, perspectives toward pharmacist-prescribed hormonal contraception, likelihood of receiving pharmacist-prescribed hormonal contraception, and pharmacist comfort with prescribing hormonal contraceptives. RESULTS: Nearly 38% of respondents reported having ever experienced ≥ 1 barrier in accessing contraception, which were having a time barrier or delay in appointment, a cost or copay barrier, and/or lacking an obstetrician/gynecologist. Eighty-one percent of all respondents agreed or strongly agreed with pharmacist-prescribed hormonal contraception. Sixty-one percent of pharmacists said they are either very or somewhat comfortable prescribing hormonal contraception. Pharmacists' most commonly reported concerns were payment for services, lack of access to patient medical records, and patient safety. CONCLUSIONS: After Dobbs et al., most pharmacists and clinicians in Rhode Island support pharmacist-prescribed hormonal contraceptives and the most frequently reported barriers faced in accessing contraception may be overcome through pharmacist prescribing. The information and data gathered from this study supported legislation for pharmacist prescriptive authority for hormonal contraception in Rhode Island.

Tramadol utilization among patients with higher risk of adverse drug events: A claims analysis of commercially insured and Medicare Advantage members.

OBJECTIVE: To assess prescribing of tramadol among patients with contraindications and higher risks of adverse events in a large population of commercially insured and Medicare Advantage members. DESIGN: We performed a cross-sectional analysis evaluating tramadol utilization in patients with higher risk of adverse outcomes. SETTING: This study utilized 2016-2017 data from the Optum Clinformatics Data Mart. PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients with at least one tramadol prescription without a cancer or sickle cell diagnosis during the study period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We first determined if tramadol was prescribed among patients with contraindications or risk factors for adverse outcomes. We then determined if patient demographic or clinical factors were associated with the use of tramadol in these higher-risk scenarios using multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: Among patients with at least one prescription for tramadol, 19.66 percent (99 percent CI: 19.57-19.75) concurrently received an interacting cytochrome P450 isoenzyme medication, 19.24 percent (99 percent CI: 19.15-19.33) concurrently received a serotonergic medication, and 7.93 percent (99 percent CI: 7.88-8.00) concurrently received a benzodiazepine. Additionally, 1.59 percent (99 percent CI: 1.56-1.61) of patients who received tramadol also had a seizure disorder, while 0.55 percent (99 percent CI: 0.53-0.56) of patients were under the age of 18. Overall, nearly one in three patients (31.17 percent) received tramadol in the presence of at least one of these risks (99 percent CI: 31.06-31.27). CONCLUSION: Almost one in three patients prescribed tramadol had a clinically significant drug interaction or contraindication for use, suggesting that prescribers often disregard these concerns. Real-world studies are needed to better understand the likelihood of harms associated with the use of tramadol in these contexts.

Improving access to care via psychiatric clinical pharmacist practitioner collaborative management of buprenorphine for opioid use disorder.

BACKGROUND: As the death toll continues to rise in the opioid overdose epidemic, increasing access to medications for opioid use disorder (OUD), such as buprenorphine, is vital. Psychiatric clinical pharmacist practitioners (CPPs) can help bridge the gap in care but are limited in their ability to prescribe buprenorphine given federal restrictions. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe a pharmacist-psychiatrist collaborative practice designed to increase access to buprenorphine for OUD in rural communities by maximizing the CPP role. PRACTICE DESCRIPTION: A CPP operating under a scope of practice with prescriptive authority to manage substance use disorders (SUDs) and comorbid mental health conditions was hired in June of 2020 at a rural Veterans Affairs (VA) hospital in Tomah, Wisconsin. PRACTICE INNOVATION: A collaborative agreement with X-waivered psychiatrists was established to manage buprenorphine for patients with OUD. EVALUATION METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted on all patients with an OUD diagnosis from July 1, 2020, to October 31, 2021, to assess the use of medications for OUD, comorbid psychiatric, and SUD diagnoses; active naloxone prescription; and CPP involvement in care. For patients prescribed buprenorphine, their average wait time to initiation appointment was calculated in days and compared before and after CPP implementation. RESULTS: As of October 31, 2021, there were 60 patients with OUD cared for by the Tomah VA, of whom 28 received buprenorphine comanaged with the CPP. On average, those requesting urgent access appointment for buprenorphine assessment from the CPP were seen for same-day induction appointments compared with historically an average of a 6.1 day wait for outpatient appointments and 5.8 days for scheduled inpatient inductions. CONCLUSION: Collaborative approaches to buprenorphine management with a CPP improve access to care. Although collaboration decreases time burden for X-waivered psychiatrists, care could be more efficient and timely if a CPP could independently induct, stabilize, and manage patients on buprenorphine.

Analysis of naloxone access and primary medication nonadherence in a community pharmacy setting.

BACKGROUND: Access to naloxone is a primary public health strategy to prevent opioid overdose death. Factors associated with primary medication nonadherence (PMN) to naloxone are underreported in the literature. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate naloxone dispensing trends and PMN in a community pharmacy setting. METHODS: This retrospective analysis included patients of a community pharmacy chain in Maine and New Hampshire (57 and 29 pharmacy locations, respectively) for whom a claim for a naloxone prescription was billed between January 1, 2019, and July 31, 2020. RESULTS: A total of 2152 patients associated with 2606 naloxone claims were identified for analysis. A majority of the subjects were women (52.7%) and the mean age of all the subjects was 46.4 ± 16.0 years. Of the 2606 naloxone claims, 565 prescriptions were returned to stock and never dispensed to the patient for a PMN rate of 21.7%. Gender and age were not associated with naloxone PMN. Factors associated with naloxone PMN were urban location [x2(1) = 12.49, P = 0.0004], concomitant opioid analgesic [x2(1) = 4.56, P = 0.0328], and payment method [x2(4) = 251.07, P < 0.0001]. Regarding payment method, nonadherence was higher among cash (138 of 386, 35.8%) and private insurance (191 of 455, 42.0%) transactions whereas lower among Medicare (132 of 681, 19.4%) and Medicaid (89 of 899, 9.9%) transactions. Concomitant buprenorphine [x2(1) = 44.57, P < 0.0001] and the use of a naloxone standing order [x2(1) = 4.79, P = 0.0162] were associated with primary adherence to take-home naloxone. CONCLUSION: A notable portion of naloxone prescribed and filled in the community pharmacy setting was never obtained by the patient. Factors associated with PMN in this study included geographic location, use of a standing order, concomitant prescriptions for buprenorphine or opioid analgesic medications, and payment method. Underlying causes of PMN must be addressed (e.g., removing financial barriers and optimizing the use of standing orders) to increase naloxone access for persons at risk of opioid overdose.

Early buprenorphine-naloxone initiation for opioid use disorder reduces opioid overdose, emergency room visits, and healthcare cost compared to late initiation.

Background: Although the effectiveness of buprenorphine-naloxone (BUP-NX) has been established, real-world evidence on the benefits of early treatment initiation is limited.Objective: To evaluate the association between early BUP-NX initiation and health-related outcomes among insured adults with opioid use disorder (OUD).Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis using the Optum's de-identified Clinformatics® Data Mart Database from 2010 to 2018. Patients who initiated BUP-NX within 30 days of OUD diagnosis were classified as early initiators. Patients who initiated BUP-NX later, but within the one-year follow-up, were defined as late initiators. Outcomes included opioid overdose, opioid overdose-related emergency department (ED) visits, and all-cause healthcare cost during the year after OUD diagnosis. We employed generalized linear models to compare outcomes between early and late initiators, adjusting for baseline covariates and accounting for missing information for covariates using multiple imputation.Results: A total of 8,388 patients with OUD were identified; mean age was 39.9 years; 36% were female; and 67.6% were early initiators. Early initiators had an estimated 42% lower rate of opioid overdose (adjusted rate ratio (aRR) = 0.58; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.52, 0.64); 51% lower rate of opioid overdose-related ED visits (aRR = 0.49; 95% CI: 0.44, 0.55); and 31% lower total healthcare cost (adjusted cost ratio = 0.69; 95% CI: 0.66, 0.72), compared to late initiators.Conclusion: Compared to late BUP-NX initiation, early initiation was associated with a lower risk of opioid overdose and opioid overdose-related ED visits, and reduced total healthcare cost among insured adult patients with OUD.

Prescriber and pharmacist understanding of revised Rhode Island pain management regulations.

INTRODUCTION: Federal agencies and national associations have implemented action plans in response to the opioid crisis. Furthermore, over 30 states have enacted legislation with opioid-related restrictions, guidance, or requirements. Following recommendations from the governor-appointed Overdose Prevention and Intervention Task Force, the Rhode Island Department of Health developed an original and updated version of Pain Management Regulations in March 2017 and July 2018, respectively. Our study aimed to identify disparities in interpretation and misconceptions of the updated Rhode Island Department of Health new Pain Management Regulations. METHODS: Our 29-question survey evaluated pharmacist and prescriber knowledge of regulations, with special attention given to pain management in patients with cancer. RESULTS: Thirty-two prescribers and 33 pharmacists completed the survey. The survey identified significant variance in regulation knowledge. Pharmacists correctly identified diagnosis exclusions 13-84% of the time, with a much greater understanding when diagnosis language was used instead of ICD-10 codes. Prescribers correctly identified exclusions 24-46% of the time, with little difference noted when using diagnosis language versus ICD-10 codes. The majority (59.3%) of pharmacists misclassified patients with no prescription dispensed in 30 days as patients who would be considered opioid-naïve. Both prescribers and pharmacists commonly misidentified the frequency with which the prescription drug monitoring program needs to be checked, although in both scenarios were stricter than the regulations themselves. In addition, there were significant differences in interpretation regarding naloxone co-prescribing requirements and patient awareness of naloxone co-prescribing between prescribers and pharmacists. CONCLUSION: Our findings outline several misinterpretations that affect access to chronic and cancer-related pain opioid prescriptions, despite several Rhode Island Department of Health-initiated interventions. When adopting regulations, states should proactively develop educational initiatives to avoid access challenges for patients with diagnoses of exclusion.

Concurrent Utilization of Prescription Opioids and Non-opioid Controlled Substances: Rhode Island Prescription Drug Monitoring Program, 2018.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of concurrent prescription opioid and non-opioid controlled substance use in Rhode Island (RI). METHODS: We conducted a cross sectional observational study using data from the RI Prescription Drug Monitoring Program on controlled substance prescriptions dispensed in 2018. We estimated the prevalence of concurrent use of other prescribed controlled substances among adults who received at least one opioid prescription. RESULTS: In 2018, 142,692 RI adult residents received at least one opioid prescription, of whom 25.1% (99% confidence interval [CI]: 24.8-25.4) were concurrently prescribed at least one other controlled substance, including benzodiazepines (17.0%, 99% CI: 16.8-17.3), medications for insomnia (4.0%, 99% CI: 3.9-4.2), and stimulants (3.8%, 99% CI: 3.6-3.9). CONCLUSION: The concurrent use of prescription opioids and other prescribed controlled substances is common. Our findings suggest an urgent need to implement focused initiatives to address controlled substance polypharmacy to reduce the risk of overdose.

Community Pharmacists' Contributions to Disease Management During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Community pharmacists assist patients to manage disease and prevent complications. Despite the enormous challenge the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has dealt to the health care system, community pharmacists have maintained the delivery of critical health services to communities, including those most at risk for COVID-19. Community pharmacists are in a key position to deliver priority pandemic responses including point-of-care testing for chronic disease management, vaccinations, and COVID-19 testing.

A Modifiable Barrier to Hepatitis C Virus Elimination in Rhode Island: The Prior Authorization Process for Direct-Acting Antiviral Agents.

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is disproportionately prevalent among different groups of marginalized populations in Rhode Island (RI). Although direct-acting antiviral (DAA) agents are safe and cure HCV, RI payers limit access to these life-saving medications using prior authorizations (PAs). We assessed RI DAA-specific PA criteria. The authors reviewed payers' websites and/or called payers to obtain, describe, and analyze DAA PA forms, and approval and appeal processes. While some information was consistently required, we observed substantial differences among payers' requirements. All PA forms require at least one piece of data that is clinically superfluous for DAA prescription. These include post-treatment laboratory results, prescriber requirements, documentation of co-treatment of substance use disorders, and repeat diagnostic tests. Post-approval barriers also exist; DAA PAs are time-limited, and DAAs can only be obtained from preferred pharmacies. The PA process requires many steps, differing across RI payers, taking 45-120 minutes per patient. To achieve HCV elimination, DAA PA forms and processes should be standardized, streamlined, and ultimately removed.

Laws Mandating Coprescription of Naloxone and Their Impact on Naloxone Prescription in Five US States, 2014-2018.

Objectives. To examine early impacts of laws that require naloxone to be prescribed to patients at increased overdose risk.Methods. Using data from 2014 to 2018 from a large pharmacy chain, CVS Pharmacy, we examined the effects of naloxone-prescribing mandates 90 days before and after they took effect in Arizona, Florida, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia. We compared the number of naloxone doses initiated directly by prescribers and by pharmacy standing order, prescriber specialty, pharmacies dispensing, and payor type by applying linear models and the χ2 test.Results. Naloxone-prescribing mandates increased pharmacy naloxone provision 255% from 90 days before to after implementation. This approach appeared to engage more prescribers (1028 before to 4285 after), complement ongoing naloxone provision under pharmacy standing orders, expand geographic reach (from 40% to 80% of pharmacies dispensing), and broaden the naloxone payor mix in 4 (P < .05) of 5 states.Conclusions. Mandating the prescribing of naloxone quickly expands access to this life-saving medication for more people in more places. Other states should consider mandating the coprescription of naloxone to individuals at increased risk of overdose.