Road to Recovery: protocol for a mixed-methods prospective cohort study evaluating the impact of a new model of substance use care in a Canadian setting.

INTRODUCTION: The Road to Recovery (R2R) Initiative is an innovative model of substance use care that seeks to increase treatment capacity by creating approximately 100 new addiction treatment beds to provide on-demand addiction care in Vancouver, British Columbia, for patients with substance use disorders. The new model also coordinates the region's existing clinical substance use services to support patients across a care continuum that includes traditional office-based addiction treatment and harm reduction services, early withdrawal management and more intensive abstinence-based treatment programming. To understand the impact of offering on-demand and coordinated substance use care, an observational cohort of individuals who access any R2R clinical service will be created to examine health and social outcomes over time. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This prospective mixed-methods study will invite individuals from Vancouver, Canada, who access substance use treatment through the R2R model of care to (1) complete a baseline and 12-month follow-up quantitative questionnaire that solicits sociodemographic, substance use and previous addiction treatment data and (2) provide consent to the use of participants' personal identifiers to access health records for chart review and for annual linkage to select health and administrative databases to allow for ongoing (virtual) community follow-up over 5 years. Additionally, a purposive sample of cohort participants will be invited to participate in baseline and 12-month follow-up qualitative interviews to share their experiences accessing R2R and identify challenges and opportunities associated with the implementation of R2R. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the University of British Columbia Providence Health Care Research Ethics Board in September 2023. Results from the proposed study will be published in peer-reviewed journals, presented at national and international scientific conferences and disseminated through regular meetings with policymakers, individuals with lived and living experience, and other high-level stakeholders, academic presentations and lay media.

Initiation and/or re-initiation of drug use among people who use drugs in Vancouver, Canada from 2021 to 2022: a prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Widespread health service disruptions resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic coincided with a dramatic increase in overdose deaths among people who use drugs (PWUD) in Vancouver, Canada. Those with a history of injection drug use are known to be at heightened risk of substance-associated harms. Drug use patterns and associated sociodemographic and health care utilization trends have been understudied in this population since the pandemic onset. We sought to understand patterns of drug use initiation and/or re-initiation among people with a history of injection drug use (IVDU). METHODS: Data were obtained from three harmonized prospective cohort studies of PWUD in Vancouver. Participants with a lifetime history of IVDU who responded to a survey between June 2021 and May 2022 were included. The primary outcome variable was a composite of substance use initiation and re-initiation over the study period, labelled as drug (re)-initiation. A multivariable generalized linear mixed-effects model was used to examine factors associated with self-reported (re)-initiation of substance use over the past six months. RESULTS: Among 1061 participants, the median age was 47 years at baseline and 589 (55.5%) identified as men. In total, 183 (17.2%) participants reported initiating and/or re-initiating a drug, with 44 (4.1%) reporting new drug initiation and 148 (14.0%) reporting drug re-initiation (9 participants responded 'yes' to both). Overall, unregulated stimulants (e.g., crystal methamphetamine and cocaine) were the most common drug class (re-)initiated (n = 101; 55.2%), followed by opioids (n = 74; 40.4%) and psychedelics (n = 36; 19.7%). In the multivariable analysis, (re-)initiation of drug use was independently associated with recent IVDU (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 2.62, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02, 6.76), incarceration (AOR 3.36, CI 1.12, 10.14) and inability to access addiction treatment (AOR 4.91, 95% CI 1.22, 19.75). CONCLUSIONS: In an era impacted by the intersecting effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and the overdose crisis, nearly one in five PWUD with a history of IVDU began using a new drug and/or re-started use of a previous drug. Those who reported drug (re-)initiation exhibited riskier substance use behaviours and reported difficulty accessing treatment services. Our findings underscore the need to provide additional resources to support this high-risk population.

Health service utilization, substance use treatment response, and death in patients with opioid use disorder and comorbid hepatitis C findings from prospective cohort study with administrative database linkage.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with opioid use disorder (OUD), high rates of overdose and death have been reported in subgroups with Hepatitis C Virus (HCV). Evidence on the comorbid effect of HCV on clinical and substance use trajectories has been limited by small sample sizes, short follow-up, and heavy reliance on administrative data which lacks granularity on important prognostic factors. Additionally, few studies include populations on substance use treatment. AIM: To establish the impact of HCV exposure (antibody positivity) on health care utilization patterns, substance use treatment response, and death in a cohort of patients with OUD on opioid agonist therapy (OAT). METHODS: This multi-center prospective cohort study recruited adult patients with OUD on OAT from 57 substance use treatment centers in Ontario, Canada. The study collected substance use outcomes, and classified patients with ≥50 % positive opioid urine screens over one year of follow-up as having poor treatment response. Additional data obtained via linkage with ICES administrative databases evaluated the relationship between HCV status, healthcare service utilization, and death over 3 years of follow-up. Multiple logistic regression models established the adjusted impact of HCV on various outcomes. RESULTS: Among recruited participants (n = 3430), 44.10 % were female with a mean age of 38.64 years (Standard deviation: 10.96). HCV was prevalent in 10.6 % of the cohort (n = 365). Methadone was used most often (83.9 %, n = 2876), followed by sublingual buprenorphine (16.2 %, n = 554). Over the three-year follow-up, 5.3 % of patients died (n = 181). Unadjusted results reveal rates of hospitalization (all-cause, mental-health related, critical care) and emergency department visits (mental health-related), were significantly higher among HCV patients. Associations diminished in adjusted models. Active injection drug use exhibited the highest predictive risk for all outcomes. CONCLUSION: A high degree of acute physical and mental illness and its resulting health service utilization burden is concentrated among patients with OUD and comorbid HCV. Future research should explore the role for targeted interventions and how best to implement integrated healthcare models to better address the complex health needs of HCV populations who inject drugs.

Opioid agonist treatment outcomes among individuals with a history of nonfatal overdose: Findings from a pragmatic, pan-Canadian, randomized control trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: History of nonfatal overdose (NFO) is common among people who use opioids, but little is known about opioid agonist treatment (OAT) outcomes for this high-risk subpopulation. The objective of this study was to investigate the relative effectiveness of buprenorphine/naloxone and methadone on retention and suppression of opioid use among individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) and history of NFO. METHODS: Secondary analysis of a pan-Canadian pragmatic trial comparing flexible take-home buprenorphine/naloxone and supervised methadone for people with OUD and history of NFO. Logistic regression was used to examine the impact of OAT on retention in the assigned or in any OAT at 24 weeks and analysis of covariance was used to examine the mean difference in opioid use between treatment arms. RESULTS: Of the 272 randomized participants, 155 (57%) reported at least one NFO at baseline. Retention rates in the assigned treatment were 17.7% in the buprenorphine/naloxone group and 18.4% in the methadone group (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.17-1.54). Rates of retention in any OAT were 28% and 20% in the buprenorphine/naloxone and methadone arms, respectively (AOR = 1.55, 95% CI: 0.65-3.78). There was an 11.9% adjusted mean difference in opioid-free urine drug tests, favoring the buprenorphine/naloxone arm (95% CI: 3.5-20.3; p = .0057). CONCLUSIONS AND SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE: Among adults with OUD and a history of overdose, overall retention rates were low but improved when retention in any treatment was considered. These findings highlight the importance of flexibility and patient-centered care to improve retention and other treatment outcomes in this population.

Opioid Coprescription Through Risk Mitigation Guidance and Opioid Agonist Treatment Receipt.

Importance: At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the government of British Columbia, Canada, released clinical guidance to support physicians and nurse practitioners in prescribing pharmaceutical alternatives to the toxic drug supply. These alternatives included opioids and other medications under the risk mitigation guidance (RMG), a limited form of prescribed safer supply, designed to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and harms associated with illicit drug use. Many clinicians chose to coprescribe opioid medications under RMG alongside opioid agonist treatment (OAT). Objective: To examine whether prescription of hydromorphone tablets or sustained-release oral morphine (opioid RMG) and OAT coprescription compared with OAT alone is associated with subsequent OAT receipt. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based, retrospective cohort study was conducted from March 27, 2020, to August 31, 2021, included individuals from 10 linked health administrative databases from British Columbia, Canada. Individuals who were receiving OAT at opioid RMG initiation and individuals who were receiving OAT and eligible but unexposed to opioid RMG were propensity score matched at opioid RMG initiation on sociodemographic and clinical variables. Data were analyzed between January 2023 and February 2024. Exposure: Opioid RMG receipt (≥4 days, 1-3 days, or 0 days of opioid RMG dispensed) in a given week. Main Outcome and Measures: The main outcome was OAT receipt, defined as at least 1 dispensed dose of OAT in the subsequent week. A marginal structural modeling approach was used to control for potential time-varying confounding. Results: A total of 4636 individuals (2955 [64%] male; median age, 38 [31-47] years after matching) were receiving OAT at the time of first opioid RMG dispensation (2281 receiving ongoing OAT and 2352 initiating RMG and OAT concurrently). Opioid RMG receipt of 1 to 3 days in a given week increased the probability of OAT receipt by 27% in the subsequent week (adjusted risk ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.25-1.30), whereas receipt of opioid RMG for 4 days or more resulted in a 46% increase in the probability of OAT receipt in the subsequent week (adjusted risk ratio, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.43-1.49) compared with those not receiving opioid RMG. The biological gradient was robust to different exposure classifications, and the association was stronger among those initiating opioid RMG and OAT concurrently. Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study, which acknowledged the intermittent use of both medications, demonstrated that individuals who were coprescribed opioid RMG had higher adjusted probability of continued OAT receipt or reengagement compared with those not receiving opioid RMG.

What is the ideal time to begin tapering opioid agonist treatment? A protocol for a retrospective population-based comparative effectiveness study in British Columbia, Canada.

INTRODUCTION: Opioid agonist treatment (OAT) tapering involves a gradual reduction in daily medication dose to ultimately reach a state of opioid abstinence. Due to the high risk of relapse and overdose after tapering, this practice is not recommended by clinical guidelines, however, clients may still request to taper off medication. The ideal time to initiate an OAT taper is not known. However, ethically, taper plans should acknowledge clients' preferences and autonomy but apply principles of shared informed decision-making regarding safety and efficacy. Linked population-level data capturing real-world tapering practices provide a valuable opportunity to improve existing evidence on when to contemplate starting an OAT taper. Our objective is to determine the comparative effectiveness of alternative times from OAT initiation at which a taper can be initiated, with a primary outcome of taper completion, as observed in clinical practice in British Columbia (BC), Canada. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We propose a population-level retrospective observational study with a linkage of eight provincial health administrative databases in BC, Canada (01 January 2010 to 17 March 2020). Our primary outcomes include taper completion and all-cause mortality during treatment. We propose a 'per-protocol' target trial to compare different durations to taper initiation on the likelihood of taper completion. A range of sensitivity analyses will be used to assess the heterogeneity and robustness of the results including assessment of effectiveness and safety. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol, cohort creation and analysis plan have been classified and approved as a quality improvement initiative by Providence Health Care Research Ethics Board and the Simon Fraser University Office of Research Ethics. Results will be disseminated to local advocacy groups and decision-makers, national and international clinical guideline developers, presented at international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals electronically and in print.

Does This Patient Have Alcohol Use Disorder?: The Rational Clinical Examination Systematic Review.

Importance: The accuracy of screening tests for alcohol use disorder (defined as a problematic pattern of alcohol use leading to clinically significant impairment or distress) requires reassessment to align with the latest definition in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth Edition) (DSM-5). Objective: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of screening tools in identifying individuals with alcohol use disorder as defined in the DSM-5. Data Sources and Study Selection: The databases of MEDLINE and Embase were searched (January 2013-February 2023) for original studies on the diagnostic accuracy of brief screening tools to identify alcohol use disorder according to the DSM-5 definition. Because diagnosis of alcohol use disorder does not include excessive alcohol use as a criterion, studies of screening tools that identify excessive or high-risk drinking among younger (aged 9-18 years), older (aged ≥65 years), and pregnant persons also were retained. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios (LRs) were calculated. When appropriate, a meta-analysis was performed to calculate a summary LR. Results: Of 4303 identified studies, 35 were retained (N = 79 633). There were 11 691 individuals with alcohol use disorder or a history of excessive drinking. Across all age categories, a score of 8 or greater on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) increased the likelihood of alcohol use disorder (LR, 6.5 [95% CI, 3.9-11]). A positive screening result using AUDIT identified alcohol use disorder better among females (LR, 6.9 [95% CI, 3.9-12]) than among males (LR, 3.8 [95% CI, 2.6-5.5]) (P = .003). An AUDIT score of less than 8 reduced the likelihood of alcohol use disorder similarly for both males and females (LR, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.20-0.52]). The abbreviated AUDIT-Consumption (AUDIT-C) has sex-specific cutoff scores of 4 or greater for males and 3 or greater for females, but was less useful for identifying alcohol use disorder (males: LR, 1.8 [95% CI, 1.5-2.2]; females: LR, 2.0 [95% CI, 1.8-2.3]). The AUDIT-C appeared useful for identifying measures of excessive alcohol use in younger people (aged 9-18 years) and in those older than 60 years of age. For those younger than 18 years of age, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism age-specific drinking thresholds were helpful for assessing the likelihood of alcohol use disorder at the lowest risk threshold (LR, 0.15 [95% CI, 0.11-0.21]), at the moderate risk threshold (LR, 3.4 [95% CI, 2.8-4.1]), and at the highest risk threshold (LR, 15 [95% CI, 12-19]). Among persons who were pregnant and screened within 48 hours after delivery, an AUDIT score of 4 or greater identified those more likely to have alcohol use disorder (LR, 6.4 [95% CI, 5.1-8.0]), whereas scores of less than 2 for the Tolerance, Worried, Eye-Opener, Amnesia and Cut-Down screening tool and the Tolerance, Annoyed, Cut-Down and Eye-Opener screening tool identified alcohol use disorder similarly (LR, 0.05 [95% CI, 0.01-0.20]). Conclusions and Relevance: The AUDIT screening tool is useful to identify alcohol use disorder in adults and in individuals within 48 hours postpartum. The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism youth screening tool is helpful to identify children and adolescents with alcohol use disorder. The AUDIT-C appears useful for identifying various measures of excessive alcohol use in young people and in older adults.

Effect of Risk Mitigation Guidance opioid and stimulant dispensations on mortality and acute care visits during dual public health emergencies: retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of opioid and stimulant Risk Mitigation Guidance (RMG) dispensations on mortality and acute care visits during the dual public health emergencies of overdose and covid-19. DESIGN: Population based retrospective cohort study. SETTING: British Columbia, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: 5882 people with opioid or stimulant use disorder who received RMG prescriptions for opioids (n=5356) and/or stimulants (n=1061) (535 received both) from 27 March 2020 to 31 August 2021. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: All cause and overdose specific mortality and acute care visits in the week after RMG opioid or stimulant dispensation. RMG recipients were matched 1:1 with controls through use of high dimensional propensity score matching. Marginal structural models, executed on weekly time steps, were used to measure the effect of dispensations on outcomes. RESULTS: RMG opioid dispensations of one day or more were associated with reduced all cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 0.39, 95% confidence interval 0.25 to 0.60) and overdose related mortality (0.45, 0.27 to 0.75) in the subsequent week. Dispensations of RMG stimulants (≥1 days) were not significantly associated with reduced all cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 0.50, 0.20 to 1.23) or overdose related mortality (0.53, 0.18 to 1.56). The protective effect of RMG opioid dispensations increased with the number of days the medications were dispensed in a given week. People who received four or more days of RMG opioid dispensations had reduced all cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 0.09, 0.04 to 0.21) and overdose related mortality (0.11, 0.04 to 0.32) compared with the control group. Opioid RMG dispensations did not significantly modify the odds of all cause or overdose related acute care visits. Dispensations of RMG stimulants were associated with a significant decrease in the odds of acute care visits for any cause but did not affect the odds of overdose related acute care visits. CONCLUSIONS: RMG opioid dispensations were associated with reduced overdose related and all cause mortality among a sample of people with opioid use disorder. Pharmaceutical alternatives to the illegal drug supply are promising interventions to reduce mortality in people with opioid use disorder.

Comparative Analysis of Instrumental Variables on the Assignment of Buprenorphine/Naloxone or Methadone for the Treatment of Opioid Use Disorder.

BACKGROUND: Instrumental variable (IV) analysis provides an alternative set of identification assumptions in the presence of uncontrolled confounding when attempting to estimate causal effects. Our objective was to evaluate the suitability of measures of prescriber preference and calendar time as potential IVs to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of buprenorphine/naloxone versus methadone for treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD). METHODS: Using linked population-level health administrative data, we constructed five IVs: prescribing preference at the individual, facility, and region levels (continuous and categorical variables), calendar time, and a binary prescriber's preference IV in analyzing the treatment assignment-treatment discontinuation association using both incident-user and prevalent-new-user designs. Using published guidelines, we assessed and compared each IV according to the four assumptions for IVs, employing both empirical assessment and content expertise. We evaluated the robustness of results using sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The study sample included 35,904 incident users (43.3% on buprenorphine/naloxone) initiated on opioid agonist treatment by 1585 prescribers during the study period. While all candidate IVs were strong (A1) according to conventional criteria, by expert opinion, we found no evidence against assumptions of exclusion (A2), independence (A3), monotonicity (A4a), and homogeneity (A4b) for prescribing preference-based IV. Some criteria were violated for the calendar time-based IV. We determined that preference in provider-level prescribing, measured on a continuous scale, was the most suitable IV for comparative effectiveness of buprenorphine/naloxone and methadone for the treatment of OUD. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that prescriber's preference measures are suitable IVs in comparative effectiveness studies of treatment for OUD.

The Association Between Self-Reported Anxiety and Retention in Opioid Agonist Therapy: Findings From a Canadian Pragmatic Trial.

BACKGROUND: Prescription-type opioid use disorder (POUD) is often accompanied by comorbid anxiety, yet the impact of anxiety on retention in opioid agonist therapy (OAT) is unclear. Therefore, this study investigated whether baseline anxiety severity affects retention in OAT and whether this effect differs by OAT type (methadone maintenance therapy (MMT) vs. buprenorphine/naloxone (BNX)). METHODS: This secondary analysis used data from a pan-Canadian randomized trial comparing flexible take-home dosing BNX and standard supervised MMT for 24 weeks. The study included 268 adults with POUD. Baseline anxiety was assessed using the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI), with BAI ≥ 16 indicating moderate-to-severe anxiety. The primary outcomes were retention in assigned and any OAT at week 24. In addition, the impact of anxiety severity on retention was examined, and assigned OAT was considered an effect modifier. RESULTS: Of the participants, 176 (65%) reported moderate-to-severe baseline anxiety. In adjusted analyses, there was no significant difference in retention between those with BAI ≥ 16 and those with BAI < 16 assigned (29% vs. 28%; odds ratio (OR) = 2.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.94-4.40; P = 0.07) or any OAT (35% vs. 34%; OR = 1.57, 95% CI = 0.77-3.21; P = 0.21). In addition, there was no significant effect modification by OAT type for retention in assigned (P = 0.41) or any OAT (P = 0.71). In adjusted analyses, greater retention in treatment was associated with BNX (vs. MMT), male gender identity (vs. female, transgender, or other), enrolment in the Quebec study site (vs. other sites), and absence of a positive urine drug screen for stimulants at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline anxiety severity did not significantly impact retention in OAT for adults with POUD, and there was no significant effect modification by OAT type. However, the overall retention rates were low, highlighting the need to develop new strategies to minimize the risk of attrition from treatment. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03033732).

Prescription psychostimulants for the treatment of amphetamine-type stimulant use disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: There is currently no standard of care for pharmacological treatment of amphetamine-type stimulant (ATS) use disorder (ATSUD). This systematic review with meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42022354492) aimed to pool results from randomized placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate efficacy and safety of prescription psychostimulants (PPs) for ATSUD. METHODS: Major indexing sources and trial registries were searched to include records published before 29 August 2022. Eligible studies were RCTs evaluating efficacy and safety of PPs for ATSUD. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. Risk ratio (RR) and risk difference were calculated for random-effect meta-analysis of dichotomous variables. Mean difference and standardized mean difference (SMD) were calculated for random-effect meta-analysis of continuous variables. RESULTS: Ten RCTs (n = 561 participants) were included in the meta-analysis. Trials studied methylphenidate (n = 7), with daily doses of 54-180 mg, and dextroamphetamine (n = 3), with daily doses of 60-110 mg, for 2-24 weeks. PPs significantly decreased end-point craving [SMD  -0.29; 95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.55, -0.03], while such a decrease did not reach statistical significance for ATS use, as evaluated by urine analysis (UA) (RR = 0.93; 95% CI = 0.85-1.01). No effect was observed for self-reported ATS use, retention in treatment, dropout following adverse events, early-stage craving, withdrawal and depressive symptoms. In a sensitivity analysis, treatment was associated with a significant reduction in UA positive for ATS (RR = 0.89; 95% CI = 0.79-0.99) after removing studies with a high risk of bias. In subgroup analyses, methylphenidate and high doses of PPs were negatively associated with ATS use by UA, while higher doses of PPs and treatment duration (≥ 20 weeks) were positively associated with longer retention. CONCLUSIONS: Among individuals with amphetamine-type stimulant use disorder, treatment with prescription psychostimulants may decrease ATS use and craving. While effect size is limited, it may increase with a higher dosage of medications.

Safety and Efficacy of Rapid Methadone Titration for Opioid Use Disorder in an Inpatient Setting: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: Inpatient guidelines for methadone titration do not exist, whereas outpatient guidelines lack flexibility and do not consider individual opioid tolerance. The evaluation of rapid, adaptable titration protocols may allow more patient-centered and effective treatment for opioid use disorder in the fentanyl era. METHODS: This study performed a retrospective chart review of patients 18 years or older with opioid use disorder who were initiated on methadone at a single academic urban hospital using a rapid divided dose protocol between November 2019 and November 2020. The primary outcome was adverse events associated with methadone, specifically opioid toxicity or sedation requiring increased medical observation or intervention. The secondary outcome was total daily dose of methadone received on day 7 of titration. RESULTS: Ninety-eight patients were included for a total of 168 visits. Sixty-five (66%) were male, with a median age of 38 years (interquartile range, 31-42 years). Sedation occurred in 2 patients (1%), who required either naloxone administration or transfer to an intensive care unit for monitoring. Of the 135 visits where patients received at least 7 days of methadone, the mean dose on day 1 was 41 mg (SD, 9.6 mg) and on day 7 was 65 mg (SD, 20.9 mg). CONCLUSIONS: In this inpatient cohort, rapid methadone titration was well tolerated and resulted in patients reaching higher doses of methadone than would be possible with a standard schedule, with few adverse events. Given the known effective dose range, this approach may result in shorter time to clinical stabilization and suggests that alternative methadone titration schedules may be safe and effective in appropriately selected patients.

Bupropion for treatment of amphetamine-type stimulant use disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis of placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: This meta-analysis (PROSPERO-ID: CRD42022362962), pooled effect estimates of outcomes, from placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials (RCTs) examining bupropion efficacy and safety for amphetamine-type stimulant use disorder (ATSUD) treatment. METHOD: Electronic databases were searched for records published to October 31st, 2022, including MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EBM Reviews, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, trial registries. Inclusion criteria were RCTs comparing bupropion to placebo in ATSUD. Cochrane RoB2 tool and GRADE evidence certainty assessment were employed. Outcomes included amphetamine-type stimulant (ATS) use by urinalysis, retention in treatment, treatment adherence, ATS craving, addiction severity, depressive symptom severity, drop-out following adverse events (AEs), and serious AEs. Random-effect meta-analysis was conducted presenting standardized mean difference (SMD), risk ratio (RR), and risk difference (RD). RESULTS: Eight RCTs (total N=1239 participants) were included. Bupropion compared to placebo was associated with reduced ATS use (RR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.84, 0.96), end-of-treatment ATS craving (SMD: -0.38; 95%CI: -0.63, -0.13), and adherence (RR: 0.91; 95%CI: 0.84, 0.99). Subgroup analysis showed greater reduction in ATS use with longer trial duration (12 weeks) (RR: 0.85; 95%CI: 0.78, 0.93) and greater reduction in end-of-treatment ATS craving in studies with mixed ATS use frequency (SMD: -0.46; 95%CI: -0.70, -0.22) and male-only samples (SMD: -1.26; 95%CI: -1.87, -0.65). CONCLUSION: Bupropion showed a significant modest reduction in ATS use and ATS craving (both rated as very low-quality evidence), larger in males (craving), and with longer treatment (ATS use). These results may inform future studies. More research is warranted on who might benefit from bupropion as ATSUD treatment.

Correlates of nonfatal overdose among treatment-seeking individuals with non-heroin opioid use disorder: Findings from a pragmatic, pan-Canadian, randomized control trial.

INTRODUCTION: Misuse of prescription and synthetic opioids is a primary contributor to the escalating overdose crisis in North America. However, factors associated with nonfatal overdose (NFO) in this context are poorly understood. We examined individual and socio-structural level correlates of NFO among treatment-seeking adults with an opioid use disorder (OUD) not attributed to heroin (nonheroin opioid use disorder [NH-OUD]). METHODS: The study drew data from OPTIMA, a pan-Canadian, multicenter, pragmatic, two-arm randomized control trial comparing supervised methadone and flexible take-home dosing buprenorphine/naloxone models of care among adults with NH-OUD conducted between 2017 and 2020. We used bivariable and multivariable logistic regression to determine factors associated with a lifetime history of NFO among participants enrolled in the trial. RESULTS: Of 267 included participants, 154 (58%) reported a NFO in their lifetime, of whom 83 (55 %) had an NFO in the last 6 months. In multivariable analyses, positive urine drug test (UDT) for methamphetamine/amphetamine (Adjusted Odds Ratio [AOR] = 2.59; 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 1.17-5.80), positive UDT for fentanyl (AOR = 2.31; 95 % CI: 1.01-5.30), receiving income assistance (AOR = 2.17; 95 % CI: 1.18-4.09) and homelessness (AOR = 2.40; 95 % CI: 1.25-4.68) were positively associated with a lifetime history of NFO. CONCLUSIONS: We found a high prevalence of NFO history in treatment-seeking adults with NH-OUD, particularly among participants with certain drug use patterns and markers of socio-structural marginalization at the time of enrollment. Given the known impact of prior NFO on future harms, these findings highlight the need for comprehensive care approaches that address polysubstance use and social determinants of health to mitigate future overdose risk.

Changes to methadone maintenance therapy in the United States, Canada, and Australia during the COVID-19 pandemic: A narrative review.

INTRODUCTION: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, countries across the world made adaptations to policies regulating the provision of methadone maintenance therapy (MMT) to facilitate social distancing for health care providers and people in treatment. Many countries issued guidance about increasing take-home methadone doses after the onset of the pandemic. METHODS: In this review, we compare the regulation of MMT prior to the pandemic in the United States, Canada, and Australia, analyze changes to treatment policy in the context of COVID-19, and review emerging data on treatment outcomes. RESULTS: The United States only permits the prescription and disbursement of methadone for MMT treatment at federally designated opioid treatment programs (OTPs). Conversely, Australia and Canada operate on a community pharmacy-based distribution model, where patients can access methadone doses either in participating pharmacies or in some methadone clinics. CONCLUSION: Given reports of similar treatment outcomes and increased patient satisfaction since the pandemic-related policy changes, some changes including increased receipt of take-home doses should be considered for incorporation into post-pandemic treatment policies and regulations.