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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Comparative effectiveness of urine drug screening strategies alongside opioid agonist treatment in British Columbia, Canada: a population-based observational study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Urine drug tests (UDTs) are commonly used for monitoring opioid agonist treatment (OAT) responses, supporting the clinical decision for take-home doses and monitoring potential diversion. However, there is limited evidence supporting the utility of mandatory UDTs-particularly the impact of UDT frequency on OAT retention. Real-world evidence can inform patient-centred approaches to OAT and improve current strategies to address the ongoing opioid public health emergency. Our objective is to determine the safety and comparative effectiveness of alternative UDT monitoring strategies as observed in clinical practice among OAT clients in British Columbia, Canada from 2010 to 2020. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We propose a population-level retrospective cohort study of all individuals 18 years of age or older who initiated OAT from 1 January 2010 to 17 March 2020. The study will draw on eight linked health administrative databases from British Columbia. Our primary outcomes include OAT discontinuation and all-cause mortality. To determine the effectiveness of the intervention, we will emulate a 'per-protocol' target trial using a clone censoring approach to compare fixed and dynamic UDT monitoring strategies. A range of sensitivity analyses will be executed to determine the robustness of our results. 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.

Amphetamine-Related Emergency Department Visits in Ontario, Canada, 2003-2020.

OBJECTIVES: Despite unregulated amphetamine use increasing, there are limited data on related emergency department (ED) visits in Canada. Our primary objective was to examine trends in amphetamine-related ED visits over time in Ontario, including by age and sex. Secondary objectives were to examine whether patient characteristics were associated with ED revisit within 6 months. METHODS: Using administrative claims and census data, we calculated annual patient- and encounter-based rates of amphetamine-related ED visits from 2003 to 2020 among individuals 18+ years of age. We also performed a retrospective cohort study of individuals with amphetamine-related ED visits between 2019 and 2020 to determine whether select factors were associated with ED revisit within 6 months. Multivariable logistic regression modelling was used to measure associations. RESULTS: The population-based rate of amphetamine-related ED visits increased nearly 15-fold between 2003 (1.9/100,000 Ontarians) and 2020 (27.9/100,000 Ontarians). Seventy-five percent of individuals returned to the ED for any reason within 6 months. Psychosis and use of other substances were both independently associated with ED revisit for any reason within 6 months (psychosis: AOR = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.30-1.83; other substances: AOR = 1.84, 95% CI = 1.57-2.15), whereas having a primary care physician was negatively associated with ED revisit (AOR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.60-0.98). CONCLUSIONS: Increasing rates of amphetamine-related ED visits in Ontario are cause for concern. Diagnoses of psychosis and the use of other substances may serve to identify individuals who are most likely to benefit from both primary and substance-specific care.

Implications of Cannabis Legalization on Substance-Related Benefits and Harms for People Who Use Opioids: A Canadian Perspective.

In 2018, Canada enacted the Cannabis Act, becoming only the second country (after Uruguay) to legalize the recreational consumption of cannabis. Although there is ongoing global disagreement on the risk-benefit profile of cannabis with increasing legalization in many parts of the world, the evidence of rising cannabis use prevalence postlegalization has been consistent. In contrast, postlegalization changes in various cannabis-related metrics have been inconsistent in Canada and other parts of the world. Furthermore, the implications of cannabis legalization on substance-related harms and benefits for people who use unregulated drugs, particularly opioids, remain unclear. Finally, although Canada did not legalize cannabis to address the opioid crisis, there is rising scientific and popular interest in the therapeutic potential of cannabis to mitigate opioid-related harms. This perspective highlights the implications of cannabis legalization on substance-related benefits and harms for people who use opioids, the current state of Canadian research, and suggestions for future directions.

Trends in cocaine and crystal methamphetamine injection over time in a Canadian setting between 2008 and 2018.

OBJECTIVE: Unregulated stimulant use is rising globally, though trends in use of cocaine and crystal methamphetamine (CM), the two most commonly used unregulated stimulants in North America, are poorly characterized in many settings. In this study we examined patterns and associations between the injection of cocaine and CM over time in an urban Canadian setting. METHODS: The study collected data from two prospective cohorts of people who inject drugs in Vancouver, Canada, between 2008 and 2018. We applied a time series analysis, using multivariable linear regression to detect relationships between reported CM and cocaine injection and year, controlling for covariates. The study used cross-correlation to evaluate the relative trajectories of each substance over time. RESULTS: Among 2056 participants, per annum rates of reported injection cocaine use declined significantly over the duration of this study from 45 % to 18 % (p < 0.001), while rates of CM injection increased from 17 % to 32 % (p < 0.001). Multivariable linear regression showed that recent CM injection was negatively associated with recent cocaine injection (ß = -0.609, 95 % CI = -0.750, -0.467). Cross-correlation demonstrated that injection CM use was associated with a decrease in the likelihood of cocaine injection 12 months later (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate an epidemiological shift in patterns of injection stimulant use, with rising CM injection associated with a corresponding decrease in cocaine injection over time. Strategies are urgently needed that help to treat and reduce harm among the growing population of people who inject CM.