Perioperative pain optimization in the age of the opioid epidemic.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The opioid epidemic remains a constant and increasing threat to our society with overdoses and overdose deaths rising significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic. Growing evidence suggests a link between perioperative opioid use, postoperative opioid prescribing, and the development of opioid use disorder (OUD). As a result, strategies to better optimize pain management during the perioperative period are urgently needed. The purpose of this review is to summarize the most recent multimodal analgesia (MMA) recommendations, summarize evidence for efficacy surrounding the increased utilization of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols, and discuss the implications for rising use of buprenorphine for OUD patients who present for surgery. In addition, this review will explore opportunities to expand our treatment of complex patients via transitional pain services. RECENT FINDINGS: There is ample evidence to support the benefits of MMA. However, optimal drug combinations remain understudied, presenting a target area for future research. ERAS protocols provide a more systematic and targeted approach for implementing MMA. ERAS protocols also allow for a more comprehensive approach to perioperative pain management by necessitating the involvement of surgical specialists. Increasingly, OUD patients taking buprenorphine are presenting for surgery. Recent guidance from a multisociety OUD working group recommends that buprenorphine not be routinely discontinued or tapered perioperatively. Lastly, there is emerging evidence to justify the use of transitional pain services for more comprehensive treatment of complex patients, like those with chronic pain, preoperative opioid tolerance, or substance use disorder. SUMMARY: Perioperative physicians must be aware of the impact of the opioid epidemic and explore methods like MMA techniques, ERAS protocols, and transitional pain services to improve the perioperative pain experience and decrease the risks of opioid-related harm.

Harm Reduction for Opioid Use Disorder: Strategies and Outcome Metrics.

Tweet: The authors discuss harm reduction strategies and associated outcome metrics in relation to the ongoing opioid crisis.

Addressing Bioethical Implications of Implementing Diversion Programs in Resource-Constrained Service Environments.

The opioid epidemic demands the development, implementation, and evaluation of innovative, research-informed practices such as diversion programs. Aritürk et al. have articulated important bioethical considerations for implementing diversion programs in resource-constrained service environments. In this commentary, we expand and advance Aritürk et al.'s discussion by discussing existing resources that can be utilized to implement diversion programs that prevent or otherwise minimize the issues of autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence, and justice identified by Aritürk et al.

Willingness to utilize a mobile treatment unit in five counties at the epicenter of the US rural opioid epidemic.

INTRODUCTION: US federal policies are evolving to expand the provision of mobile treatment units (MTUs) offering medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD). Mobile MOUD services are critical for rural areas with poor geographic access to fixed-site treatment providers. This study explored willingness to utilize an MTU among a sample of people who use opioids in rural Eastern Kentucky counties at the epicenter of the US opioid epidemic. METHODS: The study analyzed Cross-sectional survey data from the Kentucky Communities and Researchers Engaging to Halt the Opioid Epidemic (CARE2HOPE) study covering five rural counties in the state. Logistic regression models investigated the association between willingness to utilize an MTU providing buprenorphine and naltrexone and potential correlates of willingness, identified using the Behavioral Model for Vulnerable Populations. RESULTS: The analytic sample comprised 174 people who used opioids within the past six months. Willingness to utilize an MTU was high; 76.5 % of participants endorsed being willing. Those who had recently received MOUD treatment, compared to those who had not received any form of treatment or recovery support services, had six-fold higher odds of willingness to use an MTU. However, odds of being willing to utilize an MTU were 73 % lower among those who were under community supervision (e.g., parole, probation) and 81 % lower among participants who experienced an overdose within the past six months. CONCLUSIONS: There was high acceptability of MTUs offering buprenorphine and naltrexone within this sample, highlighting the potential for MTUs to alleviate opioid-related harms in underserved rural areas. However, the finding that people who were recently under community supervision or had overdosed were significantly less willing to seek mobile MOUD treatment suggest barriers (e.g., stigma) to mobile MOUD at individual and systemic levels, which may prevent improving opioid-related outcomes in these rural communities given their high rates of criminal-legal involvement and overdose.

A trial of implementation facilitation to increase timely admission to methadone treatment.

BACKGROUND: During the ongoing opioid epidemic, some Opioid Treatment Programs (OTPs) are unable to admit program applicants in a timely fashion. Interim methadone (IM) treatment (without routine counseling) is an effective approach to overcome this challenge when counseling capacity is inadequate to permit admissions within 14 days of request. It requires both federal and state approval and has been rarely utilized since its incorporation into the federal OTP regulations in 1993. METHODS: We evaluated the impact of Implementation Facilitation (IF) on OTPs providing timely admission to methadone treatment (i.e., within 14 days of request), adopting IM, and changing admissions procedures. IF included data collection on admission processes and an external facilitator who engaged OTP leadership, Local Champions through site visits, remote academic detailing, and feedback. Local Champions and State Opioid Treatment Authorities (SOTAs) participated in learning collaboratives. Using a modified stepped wedge design, six OTPs in four US states on the east and west coasts were randomly assigned to one of two clusters that staggered the timing of IF receipt. Study Phases included: Pre-Implementation, IF, and Sustainability. OTPs submitted data on treatment requests and admissions for 28 months (N = 3108 requests for treatment). RESULTS: Although none of the OTPs adopted IM, all six developed policies and procedures to enable its use. Some OTPs streamlined admissions processes prior to study launch and during the IF intervention. OTPs reduced admission delays over time, although there was substantial site heterogeneity. The IF Phase for the early cluster coincided with the onset of COVID-19, complicating the study. Rates of timely admission within 14 days of request were 56.2 % (Pre-Implementation), 55.8 % (IF), and 78.8 % (Sustainability). Compared to the Pre-Implementation Phase, the odds of timely admission were not significantly different during the IF Phase but significantly higher during the Sustainability Phase (OR = 2.35 [95 % CI = 1.34, 4.12]; p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Committing to study participation and IF activities may have prompted some OTPs to change practices that improved timely admission. Attributing changes to IF should be done with caution considering study limitations. Data collection for the study spanned the COVID-19 pandemic, which complicates interpretation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov registration # NCT04188977.

Statewide efforts to address the opioid epidemic: Results from a national survey of single state agencies.

BACKGROUND: Single State Agencies (SSAs) are at the forefront of efforts to address the nation's opioid epidemic, responsible for allocating billions of dollars in federal, state, and local funds to ensure service quality, promote best practices, and expand access to care. Federal expenditures to SSAs have more than tripled since the early years of the epidemic, yet, it is unclear what initiatives SSAs have undertaken to address the crisis and how they are financing these efforts. METHODS: This study used data from an internet-based survey of SSAs, conducted by the University of Chicago Survey Lab from January to December 2021 (response rate of 94 %). The survey included a set of 14 items identifying statewide efforts to address the opioid epidemic and six funding sources. We calculated the percentage of SSAs that supported each statewide effort and the percentage of SSAs reporting use of each source of funding across the 14 statewide efforts. RESULTS: Treatment of opioid-related overdose figured most prominently among statewide efforts, with all SSAs providing funding for naloxone distribution and all but one SSA supporting naloxone training. Recovery support services, Project ECHO, and Hub and Spoke models were supported by the vast majority of SSAs. Statewide efforts related to expanding access to medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) received somewhat less support, with 45 % of SSAs supporting mobile methadone/MOUD clinics/programs and 70 % supporting buprenorphine in emergency departments. A relatively low proportion of SSAs (54 %) provided support for syringe services programs. State Opioid Response (SOR) funds were the most common funding source reported by SSAs (57 % of SSAs), followed by block grant funds (19 %) and other state funding (15 %). CONCLUSION: Results highlight a range of SSA efforts to address the nation's opioid epidemic. Limited adoption of efforts to expand access to MOUD and harm reduction services may represent missed opportunities. The uncertainty over reauthorization of the SOR grant post-2025 also raises concerns over sustainability of funding for many of these statewide initiatives.

What would it really take to solve the overdose epidemic in the United States?

The high overdose mortality rates in the United States poses several questions: Why have they been increasing exponentially since 1979? Why are they so high? And how can they be greatly reduced? Building on past research, the causes of the increase seem to be deeply rooted in US social and economic structures and processes, rather than due only to opioid prescription patterns or the advent of synthetic opioids. Given this, we consider what changes might be needed to reverse the exponentially-increasing overdose mortality. We use a path dependency argument to argue that the United States political, economic, and public health systems have helped create this crisis and, unfortunately, continue to heighten it. These same systems suggest that proposals to expand harm reduction and drug treatment capacity, to decriminalize or legalize drugs, or to re-industrialize the country sufficiently to reduce "communities of despair" will not be enacted at a scale sufficient to end the overdose crisis. We thus suggest that in the United States serious improvements in overdose rates and related policies and structures require massive social movements with a broad social change agenda.