Faculty Bibliography

The association between recent release from incarceration and dramatically increased risk of fatal overdose is well-established at the individual level. Fatal overdose and. arrest/release are spatially clustered, suggesting that this association may persist at the neighborhood level. We analyzed multicomponent data from Rhode Island, 2016-2020, and observed a modest association at the census tract level between rates of release per 1000 population and fatal overdose per 100,000 person-years, adjusting for spatial autocorrelation in both the exposure and outcome. Our results suggest that for each additional person released to a given census tract per 1000 population, there is a corresponding increase in the rate of fatal overdose by 2 per 100,000 person years. This association is more pronounced in suburban tracts, where each additional release awaiting trial is associated with an increase in the rate of fatal overdose of 4 per 100,000 person-years and 6 per 100,000 person-years for each additional release following sentence expiration. This association is not modified by the presence or absence of a licensed medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) treatment provider in the same or surrounding tracts. Our results suggest that neighborhood-level release rates are moderately informative as to tract-level rates of fatal overdose and underscore the importance of expanding pre-release MOUD access in correctional settings. Future research should explore risk and resource environments particularly in suburban and rural areas and their impacts on overdose risk among individuals returning to the community.

Pre-existing mental disorders are linked to COVID-19-related outcomes. However, the findings are inconsistent and a thorough analysis of a broader spectrum of outcomes such as COVID-19 infection severity, morbidity, and mortality is required. We investigated whether the presence of psychiatric diagnoses and/or the use of antidepressants influenced the severity of the outcome of COVID-19. This retrospective cohort study evaluated electronic health records from the INSIGHT Clinical Research Network in 116,498 individuals who were diagnosed with COVID-19 between March 1, 2020, and February 23, 2021. We examined hospitalization, intubation/mechanical ventilation, acute kidney failure, severe sepsis, and death as COVID-19-related outcomes. After using propensity score matching to control for demographics and medical comorbidities, we used contingency tables to assess whether patients with (1) a history of psychiatric disorders were at higher risk of more severe COVID-19-related outcomes and (2) if use of antidepressants decreased the risk of more severe COVID-19 infection. Pre-existing psychiatric disorders were associated with an increased risk for hospitalization, and subsequent outcomes such as acute kidney failure and severe sepsis, including an increased risk of death in patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders or bipolar disorders. The use of antidepressants was associated with significantly reduced risk of sepsis (p = 0.033), death (p = 0.026). Psychiatric disorder diagnosis prior to a COVID-19-related healthcare encounter increased the risk of more severe COVID-19-related outcomes as well as subsequent health complications. However, there are indications that the use of antidepressants might decrease this risk. This may have significant implications for the treatment and prognosis of patients with COVID-19.

Policy Points People are dying at record numbers from overdose in the United States. Concerted action has led to a number of successes, including reduced inappropriate opioid prescribing and increased availability of opioid use disorder treatment and harm-reduction efforts, yet ongoing challenges include criminalization of drug use and regulatory and stigma barriers to expansion of treatment and harm-reduction services. Priorities for action include investing in evidence-based and compassionate policies and programs that address sources of opioid demand, decriminalizing drug use and drug paraphernalia, enacting policies to make medication for opioid use disorder more accessible, and promoting drug checking and safe drug supply.

BACKGROUND:Naloxone distribution is central to ongoing efforts to address the opioid overdose crisis. Some critics contend that naloxone expansion may inadvertently promote high-risk substance use behaviors among adolescents, but this question has not been directly investigated. METHODS:We examined relationships between naloxone access laws and pharmacy naloxone distribution with lifetime heroin and injection drug use (IDU), 2007-2019. Models generating adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) included year and state fixed effects, controlled for demographics and sources of variation in opioid environments (e.g., fentanyl penetration), as well as additional policies expected to impact substance use (e.g., prescription drug monitoring). Exploratory and sensitivity analyses further examined naloxone law provisions (e.g., third-party prescribing) and applied e-value testing to assess vulnerability to unmeasured confounding. RESULTS:Adoption of any naloxone law was not associated with changes in adolescent lifetime heroin or IDU. For pharmacy dispensing, we observed a small decrease in heroin use (aOR: 0.95 [CI: 0.92, 0.99]) and a small increase in IDU (aOR: 1.07 [CI: 1.02, 1.11]). Exploratory analyses of law provisions suggested that third-party prescribing (aOR: 0.80, [CI: 0.66, 0.96]) and non-patient-specific dispensing models (aOR: 0.78, [CI: 0.61, 0.99]) were associated with decreased heroin use but not decreased IDU. Small e-values associated with the pharmacy dispensing and provision estimates indicate that unmeasured confounding may explain observed findings. CONCLUSION:Naloxone access laws and pharmacy naloxone distribution were more consistently associated with decreases rather than increases in lifetime heroin and IDU among adolescents. Our findings therefore do not support concerns that naloxone access promotes high-risk adolescent substance use behaviors. As of 2019, all US states have adopted legislation to improve naloxone access and facilitate use. However, further removal of adolescent naloxone access barriers is an important priority given that the opioid epidemic continues to affect people of all ages.

As the USA faces a worsening overdose crisis, improving access to evidence-based treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) remains a policy priority. Federal regulatory changes in response to the COVID-19 pandemic substantially expanded flexibilities on take-home doses for methadone treatment for OUD. These changes have fuelled questions about the effect of new regulations on OUD outcomes and the potential effect on health of permanently integrating these flexibilities into treatment policy going forward. To aide US policy makers as they consider implementing permanent methadone regulatory changes, we conducted a review synthesising peer-reviewed research on the effect of the flexibilities of methadone take-home policies introduced during COVID-19 on methadone programme operations, OUD patient and provider experiences, and patient health outcomes. We interpret the findings in the context of the federal rule-making process and discuss avenues by which these findings can be incorporated and implemented into US policies on substance use treatment going forward.

BACKGROUND:Overdose is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality among people who inject drugs. Illicitly manufactured fentanyl is now a major driver of opioid overdose deaths. METHODS:Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 23 participants (19 persons who inject drugs and 4 service providers) from rural southern Illinois. Data were analyzed using constant comparison and theoretical sampling methods. RESULTS:Participants were concerned about the growing presence of fentanyl in both opioids and stimulants, and many disclosed overdose experiences. Strategies participants reported using to lower overdose risk included purchasing drugs from trusted sellers and modifying drug use practices by partially injecting and/or changing the route of transmission. Approximately half of persons who inject drugs sampled had heard of fentanyl test strips, however fentanyl test strip use was low. To reverse overdoses, participants reported using cold water baths. Use of naloxone to reverse overdose was low. Barriers to naloxone access and use included fear of arrest and opioid withdrawal. CONCLUSIONS:People who inject drugs understood fentanyl to be a potential contaminant in their drug supply and actively engaged in harm reduction techniques to try to prevent overdose. Interventions to increase harm reduction education and information about and access to fentanyl test strips and naloxone would be beneficial.