Acceptability, feasibility, and outcomes of a clinical pilot program for video observation of methadone take-home dosing during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Methadone is one of the most utilized treatments for opioid use disorder. However, requirements for observing methadone dosing can impose barriers to patients and increase risk for respiratory illness transmission (e.g., COVID-19). Video observation of methadone dosing at home could allow opioid treatment programs (OTPs) to offer more take-home doses while ensuring patient safety through remote observation of ingestion. METHODS: Between April and August 2020, a clinical pilot program of video observation of methadone take-home dosing via smartphone was conducted within a multisite OTP agency. Participating patients completed a COVID-19 symptom screener and submitted video recordings of themselves ingesting all methadone take-home doses. Patients who followed these procedures for a two-week trial period could continue participating in the full pilot program and potentially receive more take-home doses. This retrospective observational study characterizes patient engagement and compares clinical outcomes with matched controls. RESULTS: Of 44 patients who initiated the two-week trial, 33 (75 %) were successful and continued participating in the full pilot program. Twenty full pilot participants (61 %) received increased take-home doses. Full pilot participants had more days with observed dosing over a 60-day period than matched controls (mean = 53.2 vs. 16.6 days, respectively). Clinical outcomes were similar between pilot participants and matched controls. CONCLUSIONS: Video observation of methadone take-home dosing implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic was feasible. This model has the potential to enhance safety by increasing rates of observed methadone dosing and reducing infection risks and barriers associated with relying solely on face-to-face observation of methadone dosing.

Kamini, a little recognised source of illicit opioid: A case series of 12 patients.

INTRODUCTION: This case series describes 12 patients who developed opioid use disorder after ingesting a prohibited, imported herbal product, Kamini, which contains Papaver somniferum. They appeared unaware of the risk of dependence from Kamini and most had struggled to manage their use for many months before presenting for treatment. METHODS: After two cases were presented at a clinical meeting, a chart review was conducted of cases across four public opioid treatment clinics in south-east Queensland with about 1500 patients registered, identifying 10 further cases. RESULTS: Twelve patients presented with features of opioid withdrawal, seeking treatment after use of Kamini for periods between 6 months and 8 years. Eleven patients were born in India. Nine patients stabilised on buprenorphine maintenance treatment, three of whom commenced long-acting injectable buprenorphine. One patient left after 1 day and subsequently began methadone treatment with a private prescriber. Two patients on smaller doses and shorter-term use undertook withdrawal with prescribed (off-label) trans-dermal buprenorphine. One patient, initially lost to follow-up, later stabilised on long-acting injectable buprenorphine. Reasons for presenting included supply shortages and financial distress during the COVID-19 pandemic. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Kamini represents an illicit source of non-prescription opioid in Australia. Although classified as an illegal import by the Therapeutic Goods Administration, patients confirm that it is readily available in Brisbane. Targeted efforts are needed to prevent further patients developing opioid dependence from use of Kamini and also to highlight treatment options for those seeking to stop Kamini use.

Treatment retention, return to use, and recovery support following COVID-19 relaxation of methadone take-home dosing in two rural opioid treatment programs: A mixed methods analysis.

OBJECTIVES: In March 2020, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration permitted Opioid Treatment Programs (OTPs) to relax restrictions on take-home methadone and promoted telehealth to minimize potential exposures to COVID-19. We assessed the effects of COVID-19-related changes on take-home methadone dosing in two OTPs serving five rural Oregon counties. METHODS: We used a mixed-methods convergent design. The OTPs extracted urine drug test (UDT) results, take-home methadone regimens, and treatment retention from the electronic health record (EHR) for patients (n = 377). A mixed-effects negative binomial regression model assessed patient-level differences in take-home doses before and after the COVID-19 policy changes and the associations with treatment discontinuation, and UDT positivity. Semi-structured qualitative interviews (n = 32) explored patient reactions to increased take-home dosing and reduced clinic visits to provide context for quantitative findings. RESULTS: The number of take-home doses increased in the post-COVID-19 period for patients engaged in treatment for more than 180 days (median: 8 vs 13 take-home doses per month, p = 0.011). Take-homes did not increase for patients with fewer days of treatment. Each percentage point increase in take-home dosing above what would be expected without COVID-19 policy changes was negatively associated with the percent of UDT positive for opioids (B = -0.12, CI [-0.21, -0.04], p = 0.005) and the probability of treatment discontinuation (aOR = 0.97, CI [0.95, 0.99], p = 0.003). Qualitative analysis revealed three themes explaining how increased take-home dosing supported recovery: 1) value of feeling trusted with increased responsibility; 2) reduced travel time permitted increased employment and recreation; and 3) reduced exposure to individuals less stable in recovery and potential triggers. CONCLUSIONS: Take-home methadone dose relaxations were associated with increased methadone take-home doses, improved retention, and decreased UDT opioid positive results among clinically stable patients. Qualitative findings suggest that fewer take-home restrictions are feasible and desirable and do not pose safety or public health harms.

Review of medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorder.

CONTEXT: The American opioid epidemic has necessitated the search for safe and effective means of treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD). Medication-assisted treatment (MAT) encompasses select medications that are proven effective treatments for OUD. Understanding the mechanisms of action, indications, and implementation of MAT is paramount to increasing its availability to all individuals struggling with opioid addiction. OBJECTIVES: This review is based on an educational series that aims to educate healthcare providers and ancillary healthcare members on the use of MAT for the treatment of OUD. METHODS: The database PubMed was utilized to retrieve articles discussing the implementation of MAT. Boolean operators and Medical Subject Headings (MeSHs) were applied including: MAT and primary care, MAT and telehealth, methadone, buprenorphine, naltrexone, MAT and osteopathic, MAT and group therapy, and MAT and COVID-19. RESULTS: Three medications have been approved for the treatment of OUD: methadone, naltrexone, and buprenorphine. Identifying ways to better treat and manage OUD and to combat stigmatization are paramount to dismantling barriers that have made treatment less accessible. Studies suggest that primary care providers are well positioned to provide MAT to their patients, particularly in rural settings. However, no study has compared outcomes of different MAT models of care, and more research is required to guide future efforts in expanding the role of MAT in primary care settings. CONCLUSIONS: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to changes in the way MAT care is managed. Patients require a novel point-of-care approach to obtain care. This review will define the components of MAT, consider the impact of MAT in the primary care setting, and identify barriers to effective MAT. Increasing the availability of MAT treatment will allow for greater access to comprehensive treatment and will set the standard for accessibility of novel OUD treatment in the future.

Improving methadone access for rural communities in the USA: lessons learned from COVID-19 adaptations and international models of care.

CONTEXT: The COVID-19 pandemic led to several changes to methadone treatment protocols at federal opioid treatment programs in the USA. ISSUE: Protocol changes were designed to reduce transmission of COVID-19 while allowing for continuity of care, but those changes also demonstrated that many policies surrounding opioid use disorder care in the USA cause unnecessary burdens to patients. In this commentary, we describe how current policies create and maintain fatal barriers to methadone treatment for people in rural communities who have opioid use disorder, and highlight how COVID-19 adaptations and more flexible methadone models in other countries can better allow for effective and accessible care. Reasons and ways to address these issues to create lasting solutions for rural communities are discussed. LESSONS LEARNED: We focus on three lessons: (1) methadone dispensing and take-home schedules during COVID-19, (2) telehealth services during COVID-19, and (3) international models in use prior to COVID-19. We then outline recommendations for each lesson to improve access to methadone treatment long term for rural communities in the USA. There is an urgent need to implement recommendations that maintain flexible approaches and address methadone treatment barriers in the rural USA. To achieve lasting health policy change and combat stigma about addiction and methadone treatment, there is a need for advocacy efforts that give voice to rural residents impacted by inequitable access to methadone treatment and rural-tailored educational initiatives that promote the evidence base for methadone. We hope opioid treatment program directors, regulatory authorities, and health policymakers consider our recommendations.

Factors Associated With Increased Opioid Use During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Prospective Study of Patients Enrolled in Opioid Agonist Treatment.

OBJECTIVES: The opioid use disorder (OUD) crisis in North America has become "an epidemic within a pandemic" in the context of the COVID-19 virus. We aimed to explore the association between the COVID-19 pandemic and changes in opioid use patterns among patients receiving treatment for OUD. METHODS: We used prospectively collected data from 456 patients attending 31 opioid agonist clinics across Ontario, Canada. All included participants underwent routine urine drug screens (UDSs) both before and after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. A paired sample t -test was used to compare the proportion of opioid-positive UDSs collected pre- and post-pandemic, and linear regression analysis was used to explore factors associated with this change. RESULTS: Participants had a mean age of 39.9 years (standard deviation = 10.9), 52%were male, and 81%were receivingmethadone treatment. The percentage of opioid-positive UDSs increased significantly during the pandemic, on average by 10.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 8.17, 12.95, P < 0.001). Continued opioid use before the pandemic was associated with 9.43% increase, on average, in the percentage of opioid-positive UDSs during the pandemic (95% CI 3.79, 15.07). Self-reported past-month cocaine (adjusted betacoefficient 6.83, 95% CI 0.92, 12.73) and amphetamine (adjusted beta-coefficient 13.13, 95% CI 5.15, 21.1) use at study entry were also associated with increases in opioid-positive UDSs. CONCLUSIONS: Increased opioid use is one measure of the negative impact the COVID-19 pandemic has had on individuals with OUD, an already marginalized population. Understanding factors associated with worse outcomes is essential to ensuring that treatment programs appropriately adapt to better serve this population during the pandemic.

"No home to take methadone to": Experiences with addiction services during the COVID-19 pandemic among survivors of opioid overdose in Boston.

INTRODUCTION: We conducted a qualitative study to explore the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on experiences with addiction treatment and harm reduction services. METHODS: The study recruited participants from Boston, Massachusetts, aged 18-65 who had a history of opioid use disorder and overdose, from a parent study (REpeated dose Behavioral intervention to reduce Opioid Overdose, REBOOT) to participate between August and October 2020. In-depth individual interviews explored the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on addiction service experiences. We conducted a grounded content analysis that examined codes related to addiction service access and engagement during the pandemic to compare and categorize participants according to their experiences. RESULTS: The study enrolled twenty participants. The mean age was 42 years; most identified as white (n = 16); ten participants identified as men, nine as cis-gender women, and one as a trans-gender woman. Participants described their experiences with COVID-19-driven changes to addiction care (methadone take homes, televisits for either buprenorphine or behavioral health services, and syringe service outreach) access and engagement as: 1) liberating (n = 7), 2) destabilizing (n = 8), or 3) unjust (n = 5). Participants in the liberating group found adaptations allowed for increased flexibility, freedom, and safety from COVID-19. This group was mostly housed and had strong social supports that facilitated participation in adapted treatment programs. COVID-19-related changes to addiction treatment disrupted routine and community supports among those in the destabilizing group. Participants in the unjust group felt that adaptations exacerbated inequities as a lack of housing and other social supports prohibited them from benefiting from the relaxed restrictions to methadone or buprenorphine. This group was mostly unhoused and found that adaptations did not adequately mitigate other inequities worsened by public health mandates for unhoused people who use drugs. CONCLUSION: Relaxed restrictions on medications for opioid use disorder created opportunities for improved patient-centered care. Concrete measures that address service barriers, such as phone or transportation access, may have reduced destabilizing and unjust experiences reported by our participants. However, addiction care inequities will persist if drivers of marginalization, specifically a lack of housing, remain unaddressed.

Take-home dosing experiences among persons receiving methadone maintenance treatment during COVID-19.

PURPOSE: Methadone maintenance treatment is a life-saving treatment for people with opioid use disorders (OUD). The coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) has introduced many concerns surrounding access to opioid treatment. In March 2020, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) issued guidance allowing for the expansion of take-home methadone doses. We sought to describe changes to treatment experiences from the perspective of persons receiving methadone at outpatient treatment facilities for OUD. METHODS: We conducted an in-person survey among 104 persons receiving methadone from three clinics in central North Carolina in June and July 2020. Surveys collected information on demographic characteristics, methadone treatment history, and experiences with take-home methadone doses in the context of COVID-19 (i.e., before and since March 2020). RESULTS: Before COVID-19, the clinic-level percent of participants receiving any amount of days' supply of take-home doses at each clinic ranged from 56% to 82%, while it ranged from 78% to 100% since COVID-19. The clinic-level percent of participants receiving a take-homes days' supply of a week or longer (i.e., ≥6 days) since COVID-19 ranged from 11% to 56%. Among 87 participants who received take-homes since COVID-19, only four reported selling their take-home doses. CONCLUSIONS: Our study found variation in experiences of take-home dosing by clinic and little diversion of take-home doses. While SAMSHA guidance should allow expanded access to take-home doses, adoption of these guidelines may vary at the clinic level. The adoption of these policies should be explored further, particularly in the context of benefits to patients seeking OUD treatment.

Adapting inpatient addiction medicine consult services during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: We describe addiction consult services (ACS) adaptations implemented during the Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic across four different North American sites: St. Paul's Hospital in Vancouver, British Columbia; Oregon Health & Sciences University in Portland, Oregon; Boston Medical Center in Boston, Massachusetts; and Yale New Haven Hospital in New Haven, Connecticut. EXPERIENCES: ACS made system, treatment, harm reduction, and discharge planning adaptations. System changes included patient visits shifting to primarily telephone-based consultations and ACS leading regional COVID-19 emergency response efforts such as substance use treatment care coordination for people experiencing homelessness in COVID-19 isolation units and regional substance use treatment initiatives. Treatment adaptations included providing longer buprenorphine bridge prescriptions at discharge with telemedicine follow-up appointments and completing benzodiazepine tapers or benzodiazepine alternatives for people with alcohol use disorder who could safely detoxify in outpatient settings. We believe that regulatory changes to buprenorphine, and in Vancouver other medications for opioid use disorder, helped increase engagement for hospitalized patients, as many of the barriers preventing them from accessing care on an ongoing basis were reduced. COVID-19 specific harm reductions recommendations were adopted and disseminated to inpatients. Discharge planning changes included peer mentors and social workers increasing hospital in-reach and discharge outreach for high-risk patients, in some cases providing prepaid cell phones for patients without phones. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE: We believe that ACS were essential to hospitals' readiness to support patients that have been systematically marginilized during the pandemic. We suggest that hospitals invest in telehealth infrastructure within the hospital, and consider cellphone donations for people without cellphones, to help maintain access to care for vulnerable patients. In addition, we recommend hospital systems evaluate the impact of such interventions. As the economic strain on the healthcare system from COVID-19 threatens the very existence of ACS, overdose deaths continue rising across North America, highlighting the essential nature of these services. We believe it is imperative that health care systems continue investing in hospital-based ACS during public health crises.

Adapting harm reduction services during COVID-19: lessons from the supervised injecting facilities in Australia.

The COVID-19 crisis has had profound impacts on health service provision, particularly those providing client facing services. Supervised injecting facilities and drug consumption rooms across the world have been particularly challenged during the pandemic, as have their client group-people who consume drugs. Several services across Europe and North America closed due to difficulties complying with physical distancing requirements. In contrast, the two supervised injecting facilities in Australia (the Uniting Medically Supervised Injecting Centre-MSIC-in Sydney and the North Richmond Community Health Medically Supervised Injecting Room-MSIR-in Melbourne) remained open (as at the time of writing-December 2020). Both services have implemented a comprehensive range of strategies to continue providing safer injecting spaces as well as communicating crucial health information and facilitating access to ancillary services (such as accommodation) and drug treatment for their clients. This paper documents these strategies and the challenges both services are facing during the pandemic. Remaining open poses potential risks relating to COVID-19 transmission for both staff and clients. However, given the harms associated with closing these services, which include the potential loss of life from injecting in unsafe/unsupervised environments, the public and individual health benefits of remaining open are greater. Both services are deemed 'essential health services', and their continued operation has important benefits for people who inject drugs in Sydney and Melbourne.

Telemedicine increases access to buprenorphine initiation during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Federal regulatory changes during the COVID-19 pandemic allow buprenorphine to be prescribed without an initial in-person evaluation. Prior to COVID-19, numerous barriers limited broad uptake of buprenorphine among people who use drugs at the system, provider, and patient levels, including lack of available DATA 2000 waivered clinicians to prescribe, stigma, and competing livelihood priorities. As two harm reduction primary care programs in New York State that care for people who use drugs and offer buprenorphine, one rural (Ithaca) and one urban (Manhattan), we have rapidly adopted telemedicine to initiate buprenorphine treatment. Our collective experience suggests that telemedicine for buprenorphine initiation is eliminating many traditional barriers to treatment, in particular for individuals leaving incarceration, and people who use drugs and access syringe service programs. Future models of buprenorphine treatment should incorporate telemedicine for buprenorphine initiation, which can be done in collaboration with community-based outreach and peer networks to engage people who use drugs. This regulatory change must be sustained beyond COVID-19, and is vital to increasing access to buprenorphine, closing the opioid use disorder treatment gap, and achieving greater health equity for people who use drugs.

Conceptualizing the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on people with opioid use disorder: an application of the social ecological model.

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in unparalleled societal disruption with wide ranging effects on individual liberties, the economy, and physical and mental health. While no social strata or population has been spared, the pandemic has posed unique and poorly characterized challenges for individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD). Given the pandemic's broad effects, it is helpful to organize the risks posed to specific populations using theoretical models. These models can guide scientific inquiry, interventions, and public policy. Models also provide a visual image of the interplay of individual-, network-, community-, structural-, and pandemic-level factors that can lead to increased risks of infection and associated morbidity and mortality for individuals and populations. Such models are not unidirectional, in that actions of individuals, networks, communities and structural changes can also affect overall disease incidence and prevalence. In this commentary, we describe how the social ecological model (SEM) may be applied to describe the theoretical effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD). This model can provide a necessary framework to systematically guide time-sensitive research and implementation of individual-, community-, and policy-level interventions to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on individuals with OUD.

Using telehealth to improve buprenorphine access during and after COVID-19: A rapid response initiative in Rhode Island.

Despite its proven efficacy, buprenorphine remains dramatically underutilized for management of opioid use disorder largely due to onerous barriers to treatment initiation. During the COVID-19 pandemic, many substance use disorder treatment facilities have reduced their hours and services, exacerbating existing barriers. To this end, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and Substance Abuse Mental Health Services Administration adjusted their guidelines to allow for new buprenorphine prescriptions following audio-only telehealth encounters, no longer requiring an in-person evaluation prior to treatment initiation. Under this new guidance, we established a 24/7 telephone hotline to function as a "tele-bridge" clinic where people with opioid use disorder can be linked with a buprenorphine prescriber in real-time for OUD assessment and unobserved buprenorphine initiation with connection to follow-up if appropriate. Additionally, we developed an ED callback protocol to reach patients recently seen for opioid overdose and facilitate their entry into care if interested. In this commentary we describe our hotline and ED callback protocols, discuss theoretical and anecdotal benefits to this approach, and advocate for continuation of current regulatory changes post-COVID-19 to maintain expanded access to novel treatment approaches.

A chance to do it better: Methadone maintenance treatment in the age of Covid-19.

Methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) in the United States, and particularly the clinic system of distribution, is often criticized as punitive, over-regulated, and misaligned to the needs of many patients. However, changes to the regulations that COVID-19 caused may have provided an opportunity for improving service. This commentary uses literature and my own experience to provide a brief description of how MMT programs responded to the threat of Covid-19 and how such responses fit into the larger context of attempts to reform treatment. It discusses, in particular, opportunities for liberalizing "take-home" doses and implementing office-based MMT.

Increased HIV testing in people who use drugs hospitalized in the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.

People who use drugs (PWUD) often experience barriers to preventative health care. During the COVID-19 pandemic, due to lapses in harm reduction services, several public health experts forecasted subsequent increases in diagnosis of HIV in PWUD. As many inpatient hospitals reworked patient flow during the COVID-19 surge, we hypothesized that HIV testing in PWUD would decrease. To answer this question, we compiled a deidentified list of hospitalized patients with electronic medical record indicators of substance use-a positive urine toxicology screen, prescribed medications to treat opioid use disorder, a positive CIWA score, or a positive CAGE score-admitted between January, 2020 and August, 2020. The outcome of interest was HIV test completion during inpatient hospitalization. The study used logistic regression to examine associations between type of substance use and receipt of HIV test. The study grouped substance use type into four groups (1) opioids (oxycodone, fentanyl, or other opiates) or opioid use disorder treatments (methadone, buprenorphine, naltrexone); (2) stimulant use (cocaine or amphetamines); (3) alcohol use (presence of a positive CAGE or CIWA score or alcohol present on toxicology screen); and (4) benzodiazepine use (benzodiazepines present on toxicology screen). The proportion of PWUD who were tested for HIV increased from 10.4% in January, 2020 to 28.2% in April, 2020 and back down to 12% in August. Notably, there was an inverse trend over time for number of people hospitalized with drug use, from 259 in January to a nadir of 85 in April, and then up to 217 in August, 2020. Contrary to our hypothesis, HIV testing increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, and we discuss explanations for this finding. The decrease in HIV testing post-pandemic peak is a reminder that we must work to develop interventions that lead to sustained high rates of HIV testing for all people, and especially for PWUD.