An emergency-department-initiated outreach program for patients with opioid use disorder is associated with an increase in agonist therapy and engagement in addictions care: a one-year cohort study.

BACKGROUND: People with opioid use disorder (OUD) are high-risk for short-term mortality and morbidity. Emergency department (ED) interventions can reduce those risks, but benefits wane without ongoing community follow-up. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate an ED-based intensive community outreach program. METHODS: At two urban EDs between October 2019 and March 2020, we enrolled patients with OUD not currently on opioid agonist therapy (OAT) in a prospective cohort study evaluating a one-year intensive community outreach program, which provided ongoing addictions care, housing resources, and community support. We surveyed patients at intake and at scheduled outreach encounters at one, two, six, and twelve months. Follow-up surveys assessed OAT uptake, addictions care engagement, housing status, quality of life scores, illicit opioid use, and outreach helpfulness. We used descriptive statistics for each period and conducted sensitivity and subgroup analyses to account for missing data. RESULTS: Of 84 baseline participants, 29% were female and 32% were housed, with a median age of 33. Sixty participants (71%) completed at least one follow-up survey. Survey completion rates were 37%, 38%, 39%, and 40% respectively at one, two, six, and twelve months. Participants had a median of three outreach encounters. Among respondents, OAT was 0% at enrolment and ranged from 38% to 56% at follow-up; addictions care engagement was 22% at enrolment and ranged from 65% to 81% during follow-up; and housing was 40% at enrolment and ranged from 48% to 59% during follow-up. Improvements from baseline to follow-up occurred for all time periods. OAT and engagement in care benefits were maintained in sensitivity and subgroup analyses. Respondents rated the outreach program as helpful at all time periods, CONCLUSION: An ED-initiated intensive outreach program for patients with OUD not yet on OAT was associated with a persistent increase in OAT use and engagement in care, as well as housing.

Patient opinion and acceptance of emergency department buprenorphine/naloxone to-go home initiation packs.

OBJECTIVES: Many emergency department (ED) patients with opioid use disorder are candidates for home buprenorphine/naloxone initiation with to-go packs. We studied patient opinions and acceptance of buprenorphine/naloxone to-go packs, and factors associated with their acceptance. METHODS: We identified patients at two urban EDs in British Columbia who met opioid use disorder criteria, were not presently on opioid agonist therapy and not in active withdrawal. We offered patients buprenorphine/naloxone to-go as standard of care and then administered a survey to record buprenorphine/naloxone to-go acceptance, the primary outcome. Survey domains included current substance use, prior experience with opioid agonist therapy, and buprenorphine/naloxone related opinions. Patient factors were examined for association with buprenorphine/naloxone to-go acceptance. RESULTS: Of the 89 patients enrolled, median age was 33 years, 27% were female, 67.4% had previously taken buprenorphine/naloxone, and 19.1% had never taken opioid agonist therapy. Overall, 78.7% believed that EDs should dispense buprenorphine/naloxone to-go packs. Thirty-eight (42.7%) patients accepted buprenorphine/naloxone to-go. Buprenorphine/naloxone to-go acceptance was associated with lack of prior opioid agonist therapy, less than 10 years of opioid use and no injection drug use. Reasons to accept included initiating treatment while in withdrawal; reasons to reject included prior unsatisfactory buprenorphine/naloxone experience and interest in other treatments. CONCLUSION: Although less than half of our study population accepted buprenorphine/naloxone to-go when offered, most thought this intervention was beneficial. In isolation, ED buprenorphine/naloxone to-go will not meet the needs of all patients with opioid use disorder. Clinicians and policy makers should consider buprenorphine/naloxone to-go as a low-barrier option for opioid use disorder treatment from the ED when integrated with robust addiction care services.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIFS: De nombreux patients des services d'urgence (SU) atteints d'un trouble lié à la consommation d'opioïdes sont des candidats à l'initiation à la buprénorphine/naloxone à domicile avec des trousses à emporter. Nous avons étudié les opinions des patients et l'acceptation des paquets de buprénorphine/naloxone à emporter, ainsi que les facteurs associés à leur acceptation. MéTHODES: Nous avons identifié des patients à deux urgences urbaines de la Colombie-Britannique qui répondaient aux critères relatifs aux troubles liés à l'utilisation d'opioïdes, qui ne suivaient pas actuellement un traitement aux agonistes des opioïdes et qui n'étaient pas en sevrage actif. Nous avons offert aux patients la buprénorphine/naloxone à emporter comme norme de soins, puis nous avons administré une enquête pour enregistrer l'acceptation de la buprénorphine/naloxone à emporter, le critère de jugement principal. Les domaines d'enquête comprenaient la consommation actuelle de substances, l'expérience antérieure avec le traitement aux agonistes opioïdes et les opinions liées à la buprénorphine/naloxone. Les facteurs du patient ont été examinés pour déterminer l'association avec l'acceptation de la buprénorphine/naloxone à emporter. RéSULTATS: Sur 89 patients inscrits, l'âge médian était de 33 ans, 27,0% étaient des femmes, 67,4% avaient déjà pris de la buprénorphine/naloxone et 19,1% n'avaient jamais pris de traitement aux agonistes opioïdes. Dans l'ensemble, 78,7% des répondants étaient d'avis que les SU devraient distribuer des paquets de buprénorphine/naloxone à emporter. Trente-huit (42,7%) patients ont accepté la buprénorphine/naloxone à emporter. L'acceptation de la buprénorphine/naloxone à emporter était associée à l'absence de traitement antérieur par agonistes opioïdes, à moins de 10 ans d'utilisation d'opioïdes et à l'absence de consommation de drogues injectables. Les raisons d'accepter comprenaient le fait de commencer un traitement pendant le sevrage; les raisons de rejeter comprenaient une expérience antérieure insatisfaisante de buprénorphine/naloxone et un intérêt pour d'autres traitements. CONCLUSION: Bien que moins de la moitié de notre population à l'étude ait accepté la buprénorphine/naloxone à emporter lorsqu'elle lui était offerte, la plupart ont pensé que cette intervention était bénéfique. Isolément, la buprénorphine/naloxone à emporter à l'urgence ne répondra pas aux besoins de tous les patients atteints de troubles liés à l'utilisation d'opioïdes. Les cliniciens et les décideurs devraient considérer la buprénorphine/naloxone à emporter comme une option à faible barrière pour le traitement des troubles liés à la consommation d'opioïdes par l'urgence lorsqu'elle est intégrée à de solides services de soins de la toxicomanie.

Socioeconomic marginalization and risk of overdose in a community-recruited cohort of people who use drugs: A longitudinal analysis.

BACKGROUND: Poverty and socioeconomic disadvantage are important contributors to drug-related harm, but their precise role in overdose risk remains poorly understood. We sought to examine linkages between socioeconomic marginalization and non-fatal overdose risk in a community deeply affected by the ongoing drug poisoning crisis. METHODS: This observational study used data derived from two community-recruited prospective cohorts of people who use drugs (PWUD) in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Generalized linear mixed-effects models were used to assess longitudinal associations between multiple dimensions of socioeconomic disadvantage and self-reported non-fatal overdose. RESULTS: Between 2014 and 2020, 1,493 participants (38.2% women; 59.6% white; 35.7% Indigenous) provided 9,968 interviews. Non-fatal overdose was reported by 32.5% of participants over the study period. In multivariable analyses, non-fatal overdose was independently associated with incarceration (adjusted odds ratios [AOR]: 1.42, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.08-1.88, p=0.012), homelessness (AOR: 1.57, 95%CI: 1.27-1.93, p<0.001), increased monthly income (AOR: 1.01, 95%CI: 1.00-1.01, p=0.029), and lower material security (AOR: 0.76, 95%CI: 0.67-0.88, p<0.001). We also observed differing strengths of association between illegal income generation and overdose in men (AOR: 1.84, 95%CI: 1.46-2.32, p<0.001) compared to women (AOR: 1.37, 95%CI: 1.06-1.78, p=0.016). CONCLUSION: Non-fatal overdose was positively associated with incarceration, homelessness, higher monthly income, material insecurity, and engagement illegal income generating activities, underscoring the importance of addressing the socioeconomic production of overdose risk. These initiatives may include supportive housing interventions, alternative economic supports, and broader drug policy reform.

Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on enrollment in medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) in Vancouver, Canada: An interrupted time series analysis.

BACKGROUND: In anticipation of COVID-19 related disruptions to opioid use disorder (OUD) care, new provincial and federal guidance for the management of OUD and risk mitigation guidance (RMG) for prescription of pharmaceutical opioids were introduced in British Columbia, Canada, in March 2020. This study evaluated the combined impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and counteracting OUD policies on enrollment in medications for OUD (MOUD). METHODS: Using data from three cohorts of people with presumed OUD in Vancouver, we conducted an interrupted time series analysis to estimate the combined effects impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and counteracting OUD policies on the prevalence of enrollment in MOUD overall, as well as in individual MOUDs (methadone, buprenorphine/naloxone, slow-release oral morphine) between November 2018 and November 2021, controlling for pre-existing trends. In sub-analysis we considered RMG opioids together with MOUD. RESULTS: We included 760 participants with presumed OUD. In the post-COVID-19 period, MOUD and slow-release oral morphine prevalence rates showed an estimated immediate increase in level (+7.6%, 95% CI: 0.6%, 14.6% and 1.8%, 95% CI: 0.3%, 3.3%, respectively), followed by a decline in the monthly trend (-0.8% per month, 95% CI: -1.4%, -0.2% and -0.2% per month, 95% CI: -0.4, -0.1, respectively). There were no significant changes in the prevalence trends of enrollment in methadone, buprenorphine/naloxone, or when RMG opioids were considered together with MOUD. CONCLUSIONS: Despite immediate improvements in MOUD enrollment in the post-COVID-19 period, this beneficial trend reversed over time. RMG opioids appeared to have provided additional benefits to sustain retention in OUD care.

Inability to contact opioid agonist therapy prescribers during the COVID-19 pandemic in a Canadian setting: a cross-sectional analysis among people on opioid agonist therapy.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic and consequent public health response may have undermined key responses to the protracted drug poisoning crisis, including reduced access to opioid agonist therapy (OAT) among people with opioid use disorder. Our study objectives were to estimate the prevalence of and identify factors associated with inability to contact OAT prescribers when in need among people on OAT in a Canadian setting during the dual public health crises. METHODS: Survey data were collected from three prospective cohort studies of community-recruited people who use drugs between July and November 2020, in Vancouver, Canada. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify potential factors associated with inability to contact OAT prescribers among patients who accessed OAT in the past 6 months. RESULTS: Among 448 respondents who reported accessing OAT in the past 6 months, including 231 (54.9%) men, 85 (19.0%) reported having been unable to contact OAT prescribers when needed, whereas 268 (59.8%) reported being able to talk to their prescriber when needed, and 95 (21.2%) reported that they did not want to talk to their medication prescriber in the previous 6 months. Among those who reported inability to contact prescribers, 45 (53.6%) reported that their overall ability to contact prescribers decreased since the start of the pandemic. In multivariable analyses, factors independently associated with inability to talk to OAT prescribers included: chronic pain (Adjusted Odds Ratio [AOR] = 1.82; 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.02, 3.27), moderate to severe symptoms of depression or anxiety (AOR = 4.74; 95% CI 2.30, 9.76), inability to access health/social services (AOR = 2.66; 95% CI 1.41, 5.02), and inability to self-isolate or socially distance most or all of the time (AOR = 2.13; 95% CI 1.10, 4.14). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, approximately one fifth of the sample reported inability to contact their OAT prescribers when needed, and those people were more likely to have co-occurring vulnerabilities (i.e., co-morbidities, inability to access health/social services) and higher vulnerability to COVID-19. Interventions are needed to ensure optimal access to OAT and mitigate the deepening health inequities resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic and the escalating drug poisoning crisis.

Injecting drugs alone during an overdose crisis in Vancouver, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Settings throughout Canada and the USA continue to experience crises of overdose death due to the toxic unregulated drug supply. Injecting drugs alone limits the potential for intervention and has accounted for a significant proportion of overdose deaths, yet the practice remains understudied. We sought to examine the practice of injecting alone among people who inject drugs (PWID) in Vancouver, Canada. METHODS: Data were derived from two prospective cohorts of people who use drugs between June 2016 and November 2018. This analysis was restricted to participants who, in the previous 6 months, reported any injection drug use. Rates of injecting alone were categorized as always, usually, sometimes, or occasionally. We fit a multivariable generalized linear mixed model to identify factors associated with injecting drugs alone. RESULTS: Among 1070 PWID who contributed 3307 observations, 931 (87%) reported injecting alone at least once during the study period. In total, there were 729 (22%) reports of always injecting alone, 722 (21.8%) usually, 471 (14.2%) sometimes, 513 (15.5%) occasionally, and 872 (26.4%) never. In a multivariable model, factors positively associated with injecting drugs alone included male sex (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.69; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20-2.37), residence in the Downtown Eastside neighbourhood (AOR 1.43; 95% CI 1.08-1.91), binge drug use (AOR 1.36; 95% CI 1.08-1.72), and experiencing physical or sexual violence or both (AOR 1.43; 95% CI 1.00-2.03). Protective factors included Indigenous ancestry (AOR 0.71; 95% CI 0.52-0.98) and being in a relationship (AOR 0.30; 95% CI 0.23-0.39). CONCLUSION: We observed that injecting alone, a key risk for overdose mortality, was common among PWID in Vancouver. Our findings underline the need for additional overdose prevention measures that are gender-specific, culturally appropriate, violence- and trauma-informed, and available to those who inject alone.

Supervised Tablet Injectable Opioid Agonist Therapy (TiOAT): A Strategy to Address Safer Supply for Individuals With an Opioid Use Disorder?

North America is in the midst of an overdose crisis, with up to 130 Americans dying daily from a preventable drug overdose. Opioids account for 70% of overdose deaths. Despite government efforts to improve access to opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment and the implementation of various harm reduction initiatives, overdose mortality remains unacceptably high. Although effective treatments exist for OUD (eg, opioid agonist therapies like buprenorphine/naloxone and methadone), many individuals do not achieve stabilization with these medications. Tablet injectable opioid agonist therapy (TiOAT) is an initiative being piloted in British Columbia to provide witnessed access to a safer opioid supply for individuals with treatment-refractory OUD. The program offers participants a safer opioid supply through physician-prescribed pharmaceutical-grade hydromorphone tablets. TiOAT is suitable for individuals with severe OUD who are actively injecting opioids and are refractory to conventional OUD treatment. As such, a scale-up of the TiOAT program may be a feasible alternative to address persistent opioid-related deaths in North America, while minimizing potential harms associated with unwitnessed safer supply opioid prescribing (eg, diversion and overdose). Although a comprehensive evaluation of TiOAT is of critical importance (including an assessment of the program's adverse events), completion of the evaluation should not preclude scale-up of the program in the interim as a strategy to reduce opioid-related harms.

Dismantling racism against Black, Indigenous, and people of color across the substance use continuum: A position statement of the association for multidisciplinary education and research in substance use and addiction.

The Association for Multidisciplinary Education and Research in Substance Use and Addiction (AMERSA) acknowledges that racism profoundly affects persons who use alcohol and other drugs. Racism's deadly effects compounded with other social determinants of health result in a cascade of negative impacts. The AMERSA Board of Directors (BOD) proposes an initial set of strategies to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion using a framework that speaks to four key AMERSA experiences: engagement, education, mentorship, and leadership. Through these strategies, AMERSA commits to promoting equity and inclusion to dismantle the individual, institutional, and structural racism that has permeated the United States for centuries.

Evaluating the intended and unintended consequences of opioid-prescribing interventions on primary care in British Columbia, Canada: protocol for a retrospective population-based cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Between 2015 and 2018, there were over 40 000 opioid-related overdose events and 4551 deaths among residents in British Columbia (BC). During this time the province mobilised a variety of policy levers to encourage physicians to expand access to opioid agonist treatment and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (CPSBC) released a practice standard establishing legally enforceable minimum thresholds of professional behaviour in the hopes of curtailing overdose events. Our goal is to conduct a comprehensive investigation of the intended and unintended consequences of these policy changes. Specifically, we aim to understand the effects of these measures on physician prescribing behaviours, identify physician characteristics associated with uptake of the new measures, and measure the effects of the policy changes on patients' access to quality primary care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a population-level, retrospective cohort study of all BC primary care physicians who prescribed any opioid medication for opioid-use disorder or chronic non-cancer pain during the study period, and their patients. The study period is 1 January 2013-31 December 2018, with a 1-year wash-in period (1 January 2012-31 December 2012) to exclude patients who initiated long-term opioid treatment prior to our study period or whose pain type (ie, 'chronic non-cancer', 'acute', 'cancer or palliative', or 'other') cannot be confirmed. The project combines five administrative health datasets under the authority of the BC Ministry of Health, with the CPSBC's Physician Registry, BC Cancer Agency's Cancer Registry and Vital Statistics' Mortality data. We will create measures of prescribing concordance, access, continuity, and comprehensiveness to assess primary care delivery and quality at both the physician and patient level. We will use generalised estimating equations, interrupted time series, mixed effects models, and funnel plots to identify factors related to changes in prescribing and evaluate the impact of the changes to prescribing policies. Results will be reported using appropriate Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research guidelines (eg, STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by McGill University's Institutional Review Board (#A11-M55-19A), and the University of British Columbia's Research Ethics Board (#H19-03537). We will disseminate results via a combination of open access peer-reviewed journal publications, conferences, lay summaries and OpEds.

Factors associated with willingness to wear an electronic overdose detection device.

BACKGROUND: North America is in the midst of an opioid overdose epidemic. Although take-home naloxone and other measures have been an effective strategy to reduce overdoses, many events are unwitnessed and mortality remains high amongst those using drugs alone. While wearable devices that can detect and alert others of an overdose are being developed, willingness of people who use drugs to wear such a device has not been described. METHODS: Drug using persons enrolled in a community-recruited cohort in Vancouver, Canada, were asked whether or not they would be willing to wear a device against their skin that would alert others in the event of an overdose. Logistic regression was used to identify factors independently associated with willingness to wear such a device. RESULTS: Among the 1061 participants surveyed between December 2017 and May 2018, 576 (54.3%) were willing to wear an overdose detection device. Factors independently associated with willingness included ever having overdosed (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.39, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06-1.83), current methadone treatment (AOR = 1.86, 95% CI 1.45-2.40), female gender AOR = 1.41, 95% CI 1.09-1.84) and a history of chronic pain (AOR = 1.53, 95% CI 1.19-1.96). Whereas homelessness (AOR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.50-0.91) was negatively associated with willingness. CONCLUSIONS: A high level of willingness to wear an overdose detection device was observed in this setting and a range of factors associated with overdose were positively associated with willingness. Since some factors, such as homelessness may be a barrier, further research is needed to investigate explanations for unwillingness and to evaluate real world acceptability of a wearable overdose detection devices as this technology becomes available.

A delayed injection-site reaction in a patient receiving extended-release naltrexone.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacotherapy, such as oral naltrexone, has proven effective in treating alcohol use disorder, although medication adherence has presented challenges. Although a formulation of extended-release naltrexone for intramuscular injection has been developed to counter daily adherence issues, injection-site reactions can occur within days of depot injection. CASE: The authors report a case of an individual with alcohol use disorder who had a previously undescribed delayed injection-site reaction that occurred 11 days after injection. Subsequent challenge with the medication resulted in recurrence of the reaction. DISCUSSION: Although extended-release naltrexone is generally well tolerated, injection-site reactions can complicate treatment and can appear more than 10 days after medication administration.

Impact of binge alcohol on mortality among people who inject drugs.

INTRODUCTION: While the impacts of illicit drug use on mortality have been well described, the impact of poly-substance that includes alcohol has received less attention. We examined the impact of binge alcohol use on mortality among a cohort of people who inject drugs (PWID) in a Canadian setting. METHODS: Using data derived from a prospective cohort study of PWID in Vancouver, Canada recruited between May 1996 and November 2013. We ascertained dates and causes of death through a confidential linkage with the provincial registry and examined the impact of binge alcohol use. The primary outcome of interest was all-cause mortality. We used Cox proportional hazard regression to determine factors associated with mortality, including socio-demographic characteristics, drug use patterns and other risk behaviours. RESULTS: During the study period, 2550 individuals were followed (844 of whom were HIV positive at baseline) for a median of 75.4 months (interquartile range 37.9 113.2). Of these, 795 (31%) participants reported binge alcohol use at some time during the study period. In multivariable analyses, binge alcohol use remained independently associated with all-cause-mortality (adjusted hazard ratio=1.41; 95% confidence interval: 1.06-1.88) after adjustment for other drug use patterns. CONCLUSIONS: Binge alcohol use was associated with time to all-cause mortality among PWID in this setting. Since alcohol use is often overlooked as a risk factor for mortality among this population, these findings highlight the continued need to incorporate addiction treatment and public health interventions and policies that address binge alcohol use to reduce alcohol related-harms.

Factors associated with willingness to take extended release naltrexone among injection drug users.

BACKGROUND: Although opioid-agonist therapy with methadone or buprenorphine/naloxone is currently the mainstay of medical treatment for opioid use disorder, these medications often are not well accepted or tolerated by patients. Recently, extended release naltrexone (XR-NTX), an opioid antagonist, has been advanced as an alternative treatment. The willingness of opioid-addicted patients to take XR-NTX has not been well described. METHODS: Opioid-using persons enrolled in a community-recruited cohort in Vancouver, Canada, were asked whether or not they would be willing to take XR-NTX. Logistic regression was used to independently identify factors associated with willingness to take the medication. RESULTS: Among the 657 participants surveyed between June 1, 2013, and November 30, 2013, 342 (52.1%) were willing to take XR-NTX. One factor positively associated with willingness was daily heroin injection (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.53; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.02-2.31), whereas Caucasian ethnicity was negatively associated (AOR = 0.59; 95% CI = 0.43-0.82). Satisfaction with agonist therapy (13.4%) and unwillingness to stop opioids being used for pain (26.9%) were the most common reasons for being unwilling to take XR-NTX. CONCLUSIONS: A high level of willingness to take XR-NTX was observed in this setting. Interestingly, daily injection heroin use was positively associated with willingness, whereas Caucasian participants were less willing to take XR-NTX. Although explanations for unwillingness were described in this study, further research is needed to investigate real-world acceptability of XR-NTX as an additional option for the treatment of opioid use disorder.