"As safe as possible": a qualitative study of opioid withdrawal and risk behavior among people who use illegal opioids.

BACKGROUND: Opioid withdrawal is a regular occurrence among many people who use illicit opioids (PWUIO) that has also been shown to increase their willingness to engage in risk-involved behavior. The proliferation of fentanyl in the illicit opioid market may have amplified this relationship, potentially putting PWUIO at greater risk of negative health outcomes. Understanding the relationship between withdrawal and risk-involved behavior may also have important implications for the ways that problematic drug use is conceptualized, particularly in disease models of addiction, which position risk behavior as evidence of pathology that helps to justify ontological distinctions between addicts and non-addicts. Examining withdrawal, and its role in PWUIO's willingness to engage in risk, may aid in the development of alternative theories of risk involvement and create discursive spaces for de-medicalizing and de-othering people who use illegal drugs. METHODS: This article is based on 32 semi-structured interviews with PWUIO in the New York City area who also reported recent withdrawal experience. Interviews were conducted remotely between April and August 2022 and recorded for later transcription. Data were then coded and analyzed based on a combination of inductive and deductive coding strategies and informed by the literature. RESULTS: Participants described a strong relationship between withdrawal and their willingness to engage in risk-involved behavior that was exacerbated by the proliferation of fentanyl. Yet, their descriptions did not align with narratives of risk as a product of bad decisions made by individuals. Rather, data demonstrated the substantial role of social and structural context, particularly drug policies like prohibition and criminalization, in the kinds of risks that PWUIO faced and their ability to respond to them. CONCLUSIONS: Withdrawal should be taken more seriously both from an ethical perspective and as an important catalyst of risk behavior. However, theories that position activities taken to avoid withdrawal as irrational and as evidence of pathology are poorly aligned with the complexity of PWUIO's actual lives. We recommend the use of less deterministic and less medicalized theories of risk that better account for differences between how people view the world, and for the role of socio-structural forces in the production of risk.

Availability of medical cannabis services by racial, social, and geographic characteristics of neighborhoods in New York: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Within the United States (US), because racial/ethnic disparities in cannabis arrests continue, and cannabis legalization is expanding, understanding disparities in availability of legal cannabis services is important. Few studies report mixed findings regarding disparities in availability of legal cannabis services; none examined New York. We examined disparities in availability of medical cannabis services in New York. We hypothesized that New York census tracts with few Black or Hispanic residents, high incomes, high education levels, and greater urbanicity would have more medical cannabis services. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we used data from the 2018 US Census Bureau 5-year American Community Survey and New York Medical Marijuana Program. Main exposures were census tract characteristics, including urban-rural classification, percentage of Black and Hispanic residents, percentage of residents with bachelor's degrees or higher, and median household income. Main outcomes were presence of at least one medical cannabis certifying provider and dispensary in each census tract. To compare census tracts' characteristics with (vs. without) certifying providers and dispensaries, we used chi-square tests and t-tests. To examine characteristics independently associated with (vs. without) certifying providers, we used multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 4858 New York census tracts, 1073 (22.1%) had medical cannabis certifying providers and 37 (0.8%) had dispensaries. Compared to urban census tracts, suburban census tracts were 62% less likely to have at least one certifying provider (aOR = 0.38; 95% CI = 0.25-0.57). For every 10% increase in the proportion of Black residents, a census tract was 5% less likely to have at least one certifying provider (aOR = 0.95; 95% CI = 0.92-0.99). For every 10% increase in the proportion of residents with bachelor's degrees or higher, a census tract was 30% more likely to have at least one certifying provider (aOR = 1.30; 95% CI = 1.21-1.38). Census tracts with (vs. without) dispensaries were more likely to have a higher percentage of residents with bachelor's degrees or higher (43.7% vs. 34.1%, p < 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: In New York, medical cannabis services are least available in neighborhoods with Black residents and most available in urban neighborhoods with highly educated residents. Benefits of legal cannabis must be shared by communities disproportionately harmed by illegal cannabis.

The impact of relaxation of methadone take-home protocols on treatment outcomes in the COVID-19 era.

BACKGROUND: Background: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) allowed for an increase in methadone take-home doses for the treatment of Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) in March 2020. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of the SAMSHA exemption on methadone adherence and OUD-related outcomes. METHODS: A convenience sample of 183 clients (58% female) were recruited from a methadone clinic in the fall of 2019 for a cross-sectional survey. Survey data was linked to clinical records, including urine drug testing (UDT) results for methadone and emergency department (ED) visits at the local hospital. Participants were on stable methadone dosing for 9 months prior to and following March 2020. Methadone adherence was assessed by UDTs; OUD-related outcomes were assessed by overdose events and ED visits. Logistic regression was used to assess the association between change in take-home methadone doses and outcomes. RESULTS: Mean take-home doses increased nearly 200% (11.4 doses/30 days pre-COVID-19 vs. 22.3 post-SAMHSA exemption). ED visits dropped from 74 (40.4%) pre-COVID-19 to 56 (30.6%) post-SAMHSA exemption (p = <0.001). No significant changes were observed in either the number of clients experiencing overdose or those who experienced one or more methadone negative UDTs in the post-SAMHSA exemption period. Adjusted models did not show a significant association between changes in take-home doses and associated outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a near-doubling of take-home methadone doses during the COVID-19 exemption period, the increase in take-home doses was not associated with negative treatment outcomes in methadone-adherent clients.

Research priorities for expanding access to methadone treatment for opioid use disorder in the United States: A National Institute on Drug Abuse Center for Clinical Trials Network Task Force report.

In the US, methadone treatment can only be provided to patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) through federal and state-regulated opioid treatment programs (OTPs). There is a shortage of OTPs, and racial and geographic inequities exist in access to methadone treatment. The National Institute on Drug Abuse Center for Clinical Trials Network convened the Methadone Access Research Task Force to develop a research agenda to expand and create more equitable access to methadone treatment for OUD. This research agenda included mechanisms that are available within and outside the current regulations. The task force identified 6 areas where research is needed: (1) access to methadone in general medical and other outpatient settings; (2) the impact of methadone treatment setting on patient outcomes; (3) impact of treatment structure on outcomes in patients receiving methadone; (4) comparative effectiveness of different medications to treat OUD; (5) optimal educational and support structure for provision of methadone by medical providers; and (6) benefits and harms of expanded methadone access. In addition to outlining these research priorities, the task force identified important cross-cutting issues, including the impact of patient characteristics, treatment, and treatment system characteristics such as methadone formulation and dose, concurrent behavioral treatment, frequency of dispensing, urine or oral fluid testing, and methods of measuring clinical outcomes. Together, the research priorities and cross-cutting issues represent a compelling research agenda to expand access to methadone in the US.

Alcohol-Related Care Among Veterans With Unhealthy Alcohol Use: The Role of Long-Term Opioid Therapy Receipt.

OBJECTIVES: Long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) is potentially dangerous among patients with unhealthy alcohol use because of possible adverse interactions. We examined receipt of alcohol-related care among patients with unhealthy alcohol use receiving LTOT and without opioid receipt. METHODS: We use data collected from 2009 to 2017 in the Women Veterans Cohort Study, a national cohort of Veterans engaged in Veterans Health Administration care. We included patients who screened positive for unhealthy alcohol use (score ≥5) using the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Consumption questionnaire. Our primary exposure was LTOT (receipt of prescribed opioids for ≥90 days) versus no opioid receipt at the time of the first positive Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Consumption. Our primary outcome was receipt of brief intervention within 14 days of positive alcohol screen. Unadjusted and 4 adjusted modified Poisson regression models assessed prevalence and relative rates (RRs) of outcomes. RESULTS: Among eligible veterans, 6222 of 113,628 (5.5%) received LTOT at screening. Among patients receiving LTOT, 67.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 66.3%-68.6%) had a documented brief intervention within 14 days of positive screen, compared with 70.1% (95% CI, 69.8%-70.4%) among patients without opioid receipt (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.95-0.98; P < 0.001). Within adjusted models, the rate of brief intervention among patients receiving LTOT remained lower than patients without opioid receipt. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with unhealthy alcohol use, patients receiving LTOT had significantly lower rates of brief intervention receipt compared with those without opioid receipt, and they should be a focus for interventions to improve alcohol-related care and safer opioid prescribing.

Implementing a pharmacist-integrated collaborative model of medication treatment for opioid use disorder in primary care: study design and methodological considerations.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacists remain an underutilized resource in the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD). Although studies have engaged pharmacists in dispensing medications for OUD (MOUD), few studies have evaluated collaborative care models in which pharmacists are an active, integrated part of a primary care team offering OUD care. METHODS: This study seeks to implement a pharmacist integrated MOUD clinical model (called PrIMO) and evaluate its feasibility, acceptability, and impact across four diverse primary care sites. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research is used as an organizing framework for study development and interpretation of findings. Implementation Facilitation is used to support PrIMO adoption. We assess the primary outcome, the feasibility of implementing PrIMO, using the Stages of Implementation Completion (SIC). We evaluate the acceptability and impact of the PrIMO model at the sites using mixed-methods and combine survey and interview data from providers, pharmacists, pharmacy technicians, administrators, and patients receiving MOUD at the primary care sites with patient electronic health record data. We hypothesize that it is feasible to launch delivery of the PrIMO model (reach SIC Stage 6), and that it is acceptable, will positively impact patient outcomes 1 year post model launch (e.g., increased MOUD treatment retention, medication regimen adherence, service utilization for co-morbid conditions, and decreased substance use), and will increase each site's capacity to care for patients with MOUD (e.g., increased number of patients, number of prescribers, and rate of patients per prescriber). DISCUSSION: This study will provide data on a pharmacist-integrated collaborative model of care for the treatment of OUD that may be feasible, acceptable to both site staff and patients and may favorably impact patients' access to MOUD and treatment outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered on Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05310786) on April 5, 2022, https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/study/NCT05310786?id=NCT05310786&rank=1.

Recent modifications to the US methadone treatment system are a Band-Aid-not a solution-to the nation's broken opioid use disorder treatment system.

For 5 decades, US federal regulations have segregated methadone treatment for opioid use disorder from the rest of the health care system, confining its availability to specialty treatment programs that are highly regulated. These regulations have led to severe shortages in the availability of methadone and grave underutilization of this lifesaving medication despite a worsening overdose crisis. In this commentary, we discuss current barriers to methadone in the US opioid treatment system and how recent changes to federal regulations fall short of the reforms needed to significantly expand access to this treatment. Instead, we propose the urgent need to expand methadone to mainstream health care settings by allowing for office-based prescribing and pharmacy dispensing of methadone, the norm in many other developed countries.

Availability of Specific Programs and Medications for Addiction Treatment to Vulnerable Populations: Results from the Addiction Treatment Locator, Assessment, and Standards (ATLAS) Survey.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to describe addiction treatment facilities by their offerings of medications for alcohol use disorder (MAUD) and/or for opioid use disorder (MOUD), and by their offering services to groups with barriers to care: uninsured and publicly insured, youth, seniors, individuals preferring to receive care in Spanish, and sexual minority individuals. METHODS: We examined addiction treatment facility survey data in 6 US states. We performed bivariate analyses comparing facilities that offered MAUD, MOUD, and both (main outcomes). We then constructed a multivariable model to identify predictors of offering MAUD, MOUD, or both, including exposures that demonstrate programming for special populations. RESULTS: Among 2474 facilities, 1228 (50%) responded between October 2019 and January 2020. Programs were offered for youth (30%), elderly (40%), Spanish-speaking (37%), and sexual minority populations (39%), with 58% providing MAUD, 67% providing MOUD, and 56% providing both. Among those providing MAUD, MOUD, or both, a majority (>60% for all exposures) offered programming to vulnerable populations. With Delaware as reference, Louisiana (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.12-0.67) and North Carolina (aOR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.15-0.72) facilities had lesser odds of offering both MAUD and MOUD. All exposures identifying facilities offering treatment to vulnerable groups were associated with offerings of MAUD and/or MOUD except for offerings to youth; these facilities had less odds of offering MOUD (aOR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.31-0.62). CONCLUSIONS: There are facility-level disparities in providing MAUD and MOUD by state, and facilities with youth programming have lesser odds of offering MOUD than other facilities.