Effect of the Communities that HEAL intervention on receipt of behavioral therapies for opioid use disorder: A cluster randomized wait-list controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The U.S. opioid overdose crisis persists. Outpatient behavioral health services (BHS) are essential components of a comprehensive response to opioid use disorder and overdose fatalities. The Helping to End Addiction Long-Term® (HEALing) Communities Study developed the Communities That HEAL (CTH) intervention to reduce opioid overdose deaths in 67 communities in Kentucky, Ohio, New York, and Massachusetts through the implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs), including BHS. This paper compares the rate of individuals receiving outpatient BHS in Wave 1 intervention communities (n = 34) to waitlisted Wave 2 communities (n = 33). METHODS: Medicaid data included individuals ≥18 years of age receiving any of five BHS categories: intensive outpatient, outpatient, case management, peer support, and case management or peer support. Negative binomial regression models estimated the rate of receiving each BHS for Wave 1 and Wave 2. Effect modification analyses evaluated changes in the effect of the CTH intervention between Wave 1 and Wave 2 by research site, rurality, age, sex, and race/ethnicity. RESULTS: No significant differences were detected between intervention and waitlisted communities in the rate of individuals receiving any of the five BHS categories. None of the interaction effects used to test the effect modification were significant. CONCLUSIONS: Several factors should be considered when interpreting results-no significant intervention effects were observed through Medicaid claims data, the best available data source but limited in terms of capturing individuals reached by the intervention. Also, the 12-month evaluation window may have been too brief to see improved outcomes considering the time required to stand-up BHS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials.gov http://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov: Identifier: NCT04111939.

Effects of the Communities that Heal (CTH) intervention on perceived opioid-related community stigma in the HEALing Communities Study: results of a multi-site, community-level, cluster-randomized trial.

Background: Community stigma against people with opioid use disorder (OUD) and intervention stigma (e.g., toward naloxone) exacerbate the opioid overdose crisis. We examined the effects of the Communities that HEAL (CTH) intervention on perceived opioid-related community stigma by stakeholders in the HEALing Communities Study (HCS). Methods: We collected three surveys from community coalition members in 66 communities across four states participating in HCS. Communities were randomized into Intervention (Wave 1) or Wait-list Control (Wave 2) arms. We conducted multilevel linear mixed models to compare changes in primary outcomes of community stigma toward people treated for OUD, naloxone, and medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) by arm from time 1 (before the start of the intervention) to time 3 (end of the intervention period in the Intervention arm). Findings: Intervention stakeholders reported a larger decrease in perceived community stigma toward people treated for OUD (adjusted mean change (AMC) -3.20 [95% C.I. -4.43, -1.98]) and toward MOUD (AMC -0.33 [95% C.I. -0.56, -0.09]) than stakeholders in Wait-list Control communities (AMC -0.18 [95% C.I. -1.38, 1.02], p = 0.0007 and AMC 0.11 [95% C.I. -0.09, 0.31], p = 0.0066). The relationship between intervention status and change in stigma toward MOUD was moderated by rural-urban status (urban AMC -0.59 [95% CI, -0.87, -0.32], rural AMC not sig.) and state. The difference in stigma toward naloxone between Intervention and Wait-list Control stakeholders was not statistically significant (p = 0.18). Interpretation: The CTH intervention decreased stakeholder perceptions of community stigma toward people treated for OUD and stigma toward MOUD. Implementing the CTH intervention in other communities could decrease OUD stigma across diverse settings nationally. Funding: US National Institute on Drug Abuse.

The development of a recovery coaching training curriculum to facilitate linkage to and increase retention on medications for opioid use disorder.

Introduction: Medication treatment for opioid use disorder (MOUD) decreases opioid overdose risk and is the standard of care for persons with opioid use disorder (OUD). Recovery coach (RC)-led programs and associated training curriculums to improve outcomes around MOUD are limited. We describe our comprehensive training curriculum including instruction and pedagogy for novel RC-led MOUD linkage and retention programs and report on its feasibility. Methods­pedagogy and training development: The Kentucky HEALing (Helping to End Addiction Long-termSM) Communities Study (HCS) created the Linkage and Retention RC Programs with a local recovery community organization, Voices of Hope-Lexington. RCs worked to reduce participant barriers to entering or continuing MOUD, destigmatize and educate on MOUD and harm reduction (e.g., safe injection practices), increase recovery capital, and provide opioid overdose education with naloxone distribution (OEND). An extensive hybrid (in-person and online, both synchronous and asynchronous), inclusive learning-focused curriculum to support the programs (e.g., motivational interviewing sessions, role plays, MOUD competency assessment, etc.,) was created to ensure RCs developed the necessary skills and could demonstrate competency before deployment in the field. The curriculum, pedagogy, learning environment, and numbers of RCs trained and community venues receiving a trained RC are reported, along with interviews from three RCs about the training program experience. Results: The curriculum provides approximately 150 h of training to RCs. From December 2020 to February 2023, 93 RCs and 16 supervisors completed the training program; two were unable to pass a final competency check. RCs were deployed at 45 agencies in eight Kentucky HCS counties. Most agencies (72%) sustained RC services after the study period ended through other funding sources. RCs interviewed reported that the training helped them better explain and dispel myths around MOUD. Conclusion: Our novel training and MOUD programs met a current unmet need for the RC workforce and for community agencies. We were able to train and deploy RCs successfully in these new programs aimed at saving lives through improving MOUD linkage and retention. This paper addresses a need to enhance the training requirements around MOUD for peer support specialists.

Kentucky Outreach Service Kiosk (KyOSK) Study protocol: a community-level, controlled quasi-experimental, type 1 hybrid effectiveness study to assess implementation, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a community-tailored harm reduction kiosk on HIV, HCV and overdose risk in rural Appalachia.

INTRODUCTION: Many rural communities bear a disproportionate share of drug-related harms. Innovative harm reduction service models, such as vending machines or kiosks, can expand access to services that reduce drug-related harms. However, few kiosks operate in the USA, and their implementation, impact and cost-effectiveness have not been adequately evaluated in rural settings. This paper describes the Kentucky Outreach Service Kiosk (KyOSK) Study protocol to test the effectiveness, implementation outcomes and cost-effectiveness of a community-tailored, harm reduction kiosk in reducing HIV, hepatitis C and overdose risk in rural Appalachia. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: KyOSK is a community-level, controlled quasi-experimental, non-randomised trial. KyOSK involves two cohorts of people who use drugs, one in an intervention county (n=425) and one in a control county (n=325). People who are 18 years or older, are community-dwelling residents in the target counties and have used drugs to get high in the past 6 months are eligible. The trial compares the effectiveness of a fixed-site, staffed syringe service programme (standard of care) with the standard of care supplemented with a kiosk. The kiosk will contain various harm reduction supplies accessible to participants upon valid code entry, allowing dispensing data to be linked to participant survey data. The kiosk will include a call-back feature that allows participants to select needed services and receive linkage-to-care services from a peer recovery coach. The cohorts complete follow-up surveys every 6 months for 36 months (three preceding kiosk implementation and four post-implementation). The study will test the effectiveness of the kiosk on reducing risk behaviours associated with overdose, HIV and hepatitis C, as well as implementation outcomes and cost-effectiveness. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The University of Kentucky Institutional Review Board approved the protocol. Results will be disseminated in academic conferences and peer-reviewed journals, online and print media, and community meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05657106.

Impact of the Communities That HEAL Intervention on Buprenorphine-Waivered Practitioners and Buprenorphine Prescribing: A Prespecified Secondary Analysis of the HCS Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Buprenorphine significantly reduces opioid-related overdose mortality. From 2002 to 2022, the Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 2000 (DATA 2000) required qualified practitioners to receive a waiver from the Drug Enforcement Agency to prescribe buprenorphine for treatment of opioid use disorder. During this period, waiver uptake among practitioners was modest; subsequent changes need to be examined. Objective: To determine whether the Communities That HEAL (CTH) intervention increased the rate of practitioners with DATA 2000 waivers and buprenorphine prescribing. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prespecified secondary analysis of the HEALing Communities Study, a multisite, 2-arm, parallel, community-level, cluster randomized, open, wait-list-controlled comparison clinical trial was designed to assess the effectiveness of the CTH intervention and was conducted between January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2023, in 67 communities in Kentucky, Massachusetts, New York, and Ohio, accounting for approximately 8.2 million adults. The participants in this trial were communities consisting of counties (n = 48) and municipalities (n = 19). Trial arm randomization was conducted using a covariate constrained randomization procedure stratified by state. Each state was balanced by community characteristics including urban/rural classification, fatal opioid overdose rate, and community population. Thirty-four communities were randomized to the intervention and 33 to wait-list control arms. Data analysis was conducted between March 20 and September 29, 2023, with a focus on the comparison period from July 1, 2021, to June 30, 2022. Intervention: Waiver trainings and other educational trainings were offered or supported by the HEALing Communities Study research sites in each state to help build practitioner capacity. Main Outcomes and Measures: The rate of practitioners with a DATA 2000 waiver (overall, and stratified by 30-, 100-, and 275-patient limits) per 100 000 adult residents aged 18 years or older during July 1, 2021, to June 30, 2022, were compared between the intervention and wait-list control communities. The rate of buprenorphine prescribing among those waivered practitioners was also compared between the intervention and wait-list control communities. Intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were performed. Results: A total of 8 166 963 individuals aged 18 years or older were residents of the 67 communities studied. There was no evidence of an effect of the CTH intervention on the adjusted rate of practitioners with a DATA 2000 waiver (adjusted relative rate [ARR], 1.04; 95% CI, 0.94-1.14) or the adjusted rate of practitioners with a DATA 2000 waiver who actively prescribed buprenorphine (ARR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.86-1.10). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, the CTH intervention was not associated with increases in the rate of practitioners with a DATA 2000 waiver or buprenorphine prescribing among those waivered practitioners. Supporting practitioners to prescribe buprenorphine remains a critical yet challenging step in the continuum of care to treat opioid use disorder. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04111939.

Medications for opioid use disorder associated with reduced readmissions for patients with severe injection-related infections: A matched cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Hospitalizations due to severe injection-related infections (SIRIs) and patient-directed discharge (PDD) in people who inject drugs (PWID) are increasing, but research on readmission outcomes at PDD is limited. In this retrospective, matched cohort study we evaluated predictors of 30-day readmission by discharge status among PWID. METHODS: Among patients diagnosed with SIRIs at a tertiary hospital, Fisher's exact tests assessed differences in readmission rates by discharge status. Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) at discharge was defined as either having a buprenorphine dose dispensed within 24 h of discharge and buprenorphine being included in the discharge summary as a prescription, or a methadone dose dispensed inpatient within 24 h of discharge. Logistic regression analyses evaluated predictors of readmission outcomes. RESULTS: Among 148 PWID with SIRI diagnosis, 30-day readmission rate following PDD was higher than standard discharge (25.7 % vs. 9.5 %, p = 0.016) and MOUD decreased odds of 30-day readmission (OR = 0.32, 95 % CI: 0.12,0.83, p = 0.012). >7 missed days of antibiotic treatment increased odds of 30-day readmission (OR 4.65, 95 % CI: 1.14, 31.72, p = 0.030) within PDD patients. CONCLUSIONS: PDD carries higher 30-day readmission rate compared to standard discharge. Strategies to reduce PDD rates and increase MOUD initiation may improve readmission outcomes.

Pain Management in Patients With Opioid Use Disorder on Extended-release Buprenorphine: A Case Report.

ABSTRACT: Persons with opioid use disorder (OUD) are receiving extended-release buprenorphine (ER-buprenorphine) for treatment of OUD. There are no clinical guidelines for management of patients with OUD on ER-buprenorphine experiencing acute or chronic pain. This case report describes 3 patient-involved, multidisciplinary approaches for pain management in various clinical scenarios, including a scheduled knee replacement, emergent surgery for an ischemic limb, and management of chronic pain from metastatic malignancy. These cases illustrate that adequate analgesia for patients who have received ER-buprenorphine is possible, and approaches can be individualized, with shared decision making between providers and patients addressing all barriers to optimize treatment outcomes. Options for acute pain management that can be considered include supplemental sublingual buprenorphine, nonopioid adjuncts, and short courses of full opioid agonists. Potential barriers that impact OUD and acute/chronic pain are provider bias, limited access to palliative care clinicians with addiction medicine training, and payor restrictions to adding sublingual buprenorphine for patients that are on ER-buprenorphine. Additional training for clinicians and other members of the health care team is recommended to improve patient-involved care of persons with OUD experiencing pain.

Extended-release Buprenorphine Administered at Discharge in Hospitalized Persons With Opioid Use Disorder: A Case Series.

INTRODUCTION: Monthly subcutaneous injectable buprenorphine (XR-Bup) is an option for treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) that addresses some sublingual buprenorphine adherence barriers and is infrequently offered to hospitalized patients with OUD. METHODS: A retrospective case series was performed for patients receiving XR-Bup upon discharge from 1 academic medical center. Demographic information, diagnoses, follow-up, and documented factors informing the selection of XR-Bup were extracted from the electronic health record. RESULTS: In 1 year, 37 hospitalized patients with OUD received XR-Bup at discharge. The average age was 37.6 years, and patients were primarily Medicaid insured with an injection-related infection. The most common documented factors informing the selection of XR-Bup were as follows: previous sublingual buprenorphine adherence barriers, concurrent stimulant use disorder, and patient preference. Sixty-four percent of patients scheduled for follow-up attended appointments, and 55% received a second dose of XR-Bup. CONCLUSIONS: Subcutaneous injectable buprenorphine is an option for OUD treatment among hospitalized patients providing 30 or more days of buprenorphine coverage in the postdischarge period.

Get It in Writing: How to Make Medications for Opioid Use Disorder Available During Incarceration.

In a case example from the Kentucky HEALing Communities Study, extensive resources were deployed to address structural barriers and facilitate the provision of medication for opioid use disorder (OUD) in an urban county jail. However, implementation was unsuccessful, and this case example emphasizes the importance of including evidence-based medication for OUD (MOUD) treatment in the scope of work of jails' contracted medical providers. The privatization of correctional health care services allows local governments with opioid abatement funds to incorporate requirements into medical provider contracts to screen all people entering jails for OUD and to offer MOUD at intake, throughout incarceration, and upon release to everyone for whom it is clinically indicated. We provide sample contractual language that can be added to requests for medical provider proposals to help drive the private correctional health care market toward integrating MOUD treatment into their standard of care. This approach also could expedite efforts to scale up broad MOUD access across U.S. jails through sharing of workflows and best practices among the small group of national correctional health care companies contracted with jails in states with broad mandates, such as Massachusetts. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04111939.

Telemedicine Buprenorphine Initiation and Retention in Opioid Use Disorder Treatment for Medicaid Enrollees.

Importance: Early COVID-19 mitigation strategies placed an additional burden on individuals seeking care for opioid use disorder (OUD). Telemedicine provided a way to initiate and maintain transmucosal buprenorphine treatment of OUD. Objective: To examine associations between transmucosal buprenorphine OUD treatment modality (telemedicine vs traditional) during the COVID-19 public health emergency and the health outcomes of treatment retention and opioid-related nonfatal overdose. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study was conducted using Medicaid claims and enrollment data from November 1, 2019, to December 31, 2020, for individuals aged 18 to 64 years from Kentucky and Ohio. Data were collected and analyzed in June 2022, with data updated during revision in August 2023. Exposures: The primary exposure of interest was the modality of the transmucosal buprenorphine OUD treatment initiation. Relevant patient demographic and comorbidity characteristics were included in regression models. Main Outcomes and Measures: There were 2 main outcomes of interest: retention in treatment after initiation and opioid-related nonfatal overdose after initiation. For outcomes measured after initiation, a 90-day follow-up period was used. The main analysis used a new-user study design; transmucosal buprenorphine OUD treatment initiation was defined as initiation after more than a 60-day gap in buprenorphine treatment. In addition, uptake of telemedicine for buprenorphine was examined, overall and within patients initiating treatment, across quarters in 2020. Results: This study included 41 266 individuals in Kentucky (21 269 women [51.5%]; mean [SD] age, 37.9 [9.0] years) and 50 648 individuals in Ohio (26 425 women [52.2%]; mean [SD] age, 37.1 [9.3] years) who received buprenorphine in 2020, with 18 250 and 24 741 people initiating buprenorphine in Kentucky and Ohio, respectively. Telemedicine buprenorphine initiations increased sharply at the beginning of 2020. Compared with nontelemedicine initiation, telemedicine initiation was associated with better odds of 90-day retention with buprenorphine in both states (Kentucky: adjusted odds ratio, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.01-1.27]; Ohio: adjusted odds ratio, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.06-1.32]) in a regression analysis adjusting for patient demographic and comorbidity characteristics. Telemedicine initiation was not associated with opioid-related nonfatal overdose (Kentucky: adjusted odds ratio, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.56-1.40]; Ohio: adjusted odds ratio, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.83-1.41]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of Medicaid enrollees receiving buprenorphine for OUD, telemedicine buprenorphine initiation was associated with retention in treatment early during the COVID-19 pandemic. These findings add to the literature demonstrating positive outcomes associated with the use of telemedicine for treatment of OUD.

Advocacy for patients with opioid use disorder: A primer for physicians and other clinicians on the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Americans with opioid use disorder (OUD) have a disability that is protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Physicians may observe ADA violations when patients are forced to stop taking medications for opioid use disor-der (MOUD) as part of an entity's blanket policy that prohibits MOUD or when patients are denied medical treatment for various illnesses due to having an OUD diagnosis and/or receiving MOUD. Physicians and patients are likely unaware of how to identify potential ADA violations or what to do when they encounter one. This article will explain the ADA and how its protections are applicable to patients with OUD using several case examples. Physicians will learn to recognize possi-ble ADA violations and how to file a report with the Assistant United States Attorney. The article will outline how previous ADA settlements have addressed barriers to MOUD treatment access and highlight the need for more clinicians to serve as advocates to ensure all public entities and accommodations are in compliance with the ADA as it pertains to patients with OUD.

Contributions of a central registry to monitor methadone -treatment through the HEALing Communities Study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the process of establishing a Methadone Central Registry (MCR) as part of the HEALing (Helping to End Addiction Long-termSM) Communities Study (HCS) and to support recommendations with evidence of its functionality relative to Medicaid claims data for monitoring utilization of methadone, an evidence-based treatment for opioid use disorder. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: The manuscript authors were active participants in establishing the MCR and include representation from state government, Opioid Treatment Programs (OTPs), and HCS university partners. Secondary data were obtained from Kentucky's (KY's) MCR and Medicaid claims from July 2020 through June 2021. The functionality of data obtained from the MCR, as measured by data completeness and timeliness, is compared with Medicaid claims, the current standard. MAIN OUTCOMES: Central registry and Medicaid data were each aggregated statewide and at the HCS-KY county level. Dual levels of analysis were selected to inform stakeholders at the study and state levels. Descriptive statistics were calculated for the number of patients in methadone treatment. RESULTS: Statewide, the MCR provided a daily record of all individuals receiving methadone through an OTP within 72 hours. In contrast, Medicaid claims processing lagged 9 months and captured 57-62 percent of patients in the MCR. CONCLUSIONS: Replacing a fax-based system, an MCR meets the converging need of providers, regulatory authorities, and researchers to monitor utilization, patient dual enrollment, and treatment outcomes. Implementation strategies included key stakeholder engagement, state partner leadership, training, and federal funding. Adoption of an MCR is recommended.

State alignment with federal regulations in 2022 to relax buprenorphine 30-patient waiver requirements.

Background: In 2021, the Department of Health and Human Services released guidelines allowing waiver-eligible providers seeking to treat up to 30 patients to be exempt from waiver training (WT) and the counseling and other ancillary services (CAS) attestation. This study evaluates if states and the District of Columbia had more restrictive policies preventing adoption of the 2021 federal guidelines. Methods: First, the Westlaw database was searched for buprenorphine regulations. Second, state medical, osteopathic, physician assistant, nursing boards, and single state agencies (SSA) were surveyed to assess for the WT and CAS requirements and if they were discussing the 2021 guidelines. Results were recorded and compared by state and waiver-eligible provider types. Results: The Westlaw search revealed seven states with regulations requiring the WT and ten states requiring CAS. Survey results showed ten state boards/SSAs required WT for at least one waiver-eligible practitioner type and eleven state boards/SSAs required CAS. In some states, the WT and CAS requirements only applied in special circumstances. Eleven states had discrepancies between the Westlaw and survey results among three waiver-eligible provider types. Conclusions: Despite the 2021 federal change intended to increase access to buprenorphine, several states had regulations and/or provider boards and SSAs that were not supportive. Now, the Mainstreaming Addiction Treatment (MAT) Act of 2022 eliminated the federal x-waiver requirement to prescribe buprenorphine. However, these states may continue to have barriers to treatment access despite the MAT Act. Strategies to engage states with these restrictive policies are needed to improve buprenorphine treatment capacity.

Treating Opioid Use Disorder in Patients Who Are Incarcerated: Quandaries of a Hospitalist.

This Viewpoint discusses the importance of ensuring that life-saving medication for opioid use disorder is available to hospitalized persons who are incarcerated.

Community selected strategies to reduce opioid-related overdose deaths in the HEALing (Helping to End Addiction Long-term SM) communities study.

The Helping End Addictions Long Term (HEALing) Communities Study (HCS) seeks to significantly reduce overdose deaths in 67 highly impacted communities in Kentucky (KY), Massachusetts (MA), New York (NY), and Ohio (OH) by implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs) to reduce overdose deaths. The Opioid-overdose Reduction Continuum of Care Approach (ORCCA) organizes EBP strategies under three menus: Overdose Education and Naloxone Distribution (OEND), Medication Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder (MOUD), and Safer Prescribing and Dispensing Practices (SPDP). The ORCCA sets requirements for strategy selection but allows flexibility to address community needs. This paper describes and compiles strategy selection and examines two hypotheses: 1) OEND selections will differ significantly between communities with higher versus lower opioid-involved overdose deaths; 2) MOUD selections will differ significantly between urban versus rural settings. METHODS: Wave 1 communities (n = 33) provided data on EBP strategy selections. Selections were recorded as a combination of EBP menu, sector (behavioral health, criminal justice, and healthcare), and venue (e.g., jail, drug court, etc.); target medication(s) were recorded for MOUD strategies. Strategy counts and proportions were calculated overall and by site (KY, MA, NY, OH), setting (rural/urban), and opioid-involved overdose deaths (high/low). RESULTS: Strategy selection exceeded ORCCA requirements across all 33 communities, with OEND strategies accounting for more (40.8%) than MOUD (35.1%), or SPDP (24.1%) strategies. Site-adjusted differences were not significant for either hypothesis related to OEND or MOUD strategy selection. CONCLUSIONS: HCS communities selected strategies from the ORCCA menu well beyond minimum requirements using a flexible approach to address unique needs.

The policy landscape for naloxone distribution in four states highly impacted by fatal opioid overdoses.

Background: Expanding access to naloxone is one of the most impactful interventions in decreasing opioid-related mortality. However, state distribution rates of naloxone are insufficient to meet community need. The current study sought to better understand this gap by focusing on state policies that may facilitate or impede naloxone distribution in four states highly impacted by fatal opioid overdoses - Kentucky, Massachusetts, New York, and Ohio. Methods: We provide a descriptive analysis of the policy landscape impacting naloxone distribution through pharmacy and community channels in the four states participating in the HEALing Communities Study (HCS). Publicly available data and the expertise of the research team were used to describe each state's naloxone access laws (NALs), Medicaid coverage of naloxone, and community overdose education and naloxone distribution infrastructure. Data presented in this study represent the most current policy landscape through September 2022. Results: Variation exists between specific components of the NALs of each state, the structure of Medicaid coverage of naloxone, and the community distribution infrastructure networks. Massachusetts and New York have a statewide standing order, but other states use different strategies short of a statewide standing order to expand access to naloxone. Quantity limits specific to naloxone may limit access to Medicaid beneficiaries in some states. Conclusion: States participating in the HCS have developed innovative but different mechanisms to ensure naloxone access. Policies were dynamic and moved towards greater access. Research should consider the policy landscape in the implementation and sustainability of interventions as well as the analysis of outcomes.

Utility of an integrated health system specialty pharmacy in provision of extended-release buprenorphine for patients with opioid use disorder.

PURPOSE: Extended-release (ER) monthly injectable buprenorphine offers an alternative to daily sublingual (SL) dosing for treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) that may be attractive to several patient populations, including those with barriers to adherence and the frequent follow-up that are necessary for traditional SL buprenorphine. Despite the potential benefits of ER-buprenorphine, there are significant barriers to healthcare provider adoption that may prevent utilization in the populations that would benefit. SUMMARY: Our health system began providing clinic-administered ER-buprenorphine as treatment for OUD in May 2018 at a single clinic. Expansion was limited due to difficulties with delayed and inaccurate medication delivery and heavy administrative burden. To facilitate uptake of ER-buprenorphine for patients who could benefit, our integrated health-system specialty pharmacy (HSSP) assumed responsibility for medication distribution and administrative management beginning in October 2019. The HSSP provided accurate medication delivery, alleviated administrative burdens of benefits investigation and Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy compliance, and decreased medication wastage by implementing a medication return process. Subsequently, ER-buprenorphine services were expanded to 4 additional sites, allowing 244 more patients to receive treatment. CONCLUSION: HSSP support can provide significant benefit to patients and the health system through coordinating ER-buprenorphine dispensing and delivery.

Protocol for community-driven selection of strategies to implement evidence-based practices to reduce opioid overdoses in the HEALing Communities Study: a trial to evaluate a community-engaged intervention in Kentucky, Massachusetts, New York and Ohio.

INTRODUCTION: Opioid-involved overdose deaths continue to surge in many communities, despite numerous evidence-based practices (EBPs) that exist to prevent them. The HEALing Communities Study (HCS) was launched to develop and test an intervention (ie, Communities That HEAL (CTH)) that supports communities in expanding uptake of EBPs to reduce opioid-involved overdose deaths. This paper describes a protocol for a process foundational to the CTH intervention through which community coalitions select strategies to implement EBPs locally. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The CTH is being implemented in 67 communities (randomised to receive the intervention) in four states in partnership with coalitions (one per community). Coalitions must select at least five strategies, including one to implement each of the following EBPs: (a) overdose education and naloxone distribution; expanded (b) access to medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), (c) linkage to MOUD, (d) retention in MOUD and (e) safer opioid prescribing/dispensing. Facilitated by decision aid tools, the community action planning process includes (1) data-driven goal setting, (2) discussion and prioritisation of EBP strategies, (3) selection of EBP strategies and (4) identification of next steps. Following review of epidemiologic data and information on existing local services, coalitions set goals and discuss, score and/or rank EBP strategies based on feasibility, appropriateness within the community context and potential impact on reducing opioid-involved overdose deaths with a focus on three key sectors (healthcare, behavioural health and criminal justice) and high-risk/vulnerable populations. Coalitions then select EBP strategies through consensus or majority vote and, subsequently, suggest or choose agencies with which to partner for implementation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The HCS protocol was approved by a central Institutional Review Board (Advarra). Results of the action planning process will be disseminated in academic conferences and peer-reviewed journals, online and print media, and in meetings with community stakeholders. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04111939.

Management of Infective Endocarditis in People Who Inject Drugs: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

BACKGROUND: The American Heart Association has sponsored both guidelines and scientific statements that address the diagnosis, management, and prevention of infective endocarditis. As a result of the unprecedented and increasing incidence of infective endocarditis cases among people who inject drugs, the American Heart Association sponsored this original scientific statement. It provides a more in-depth focus on the management of infective endocarditis among this unique population than what has been provided in prior American Heart Association infective endocarditis-related documents. METHODS: A writing group was named and consisted of recognized experts in the fields of infectious diseases, cardiology, addiction medicine, and cardiovascular surgery in October 2021. A literature search was conducted in Embase on November 19, 2021, and multiple terms were used, with 1345 English-language articles identified after removal of duplicates. CONCLUSIONS: Management of infective endocarditis in people who inject drugs is complex and requires a unique approach in all aspects of care. Clinicians must appreciate that it requires involvement of a variety of specialists and that consultation by addiction-trained clinicians is as important as that of more traditional members of the endocarditis team to improve infective endocarditis outcomes. Preventive measures are critical in people who inject drugs and are cured of an initial bout of infective endocarditis because they remain at extremely high risk for subsequent bouts of infective endocarditis, regardless of whether injection drug use is continued.