Faculty Bibliography

Treatment with buprenorphine significantly reduces both all-cause and overdose mortality among individuals with opioid use disorder. Offering buprenorphine treatment to individuals who experience a nonfatal opioid overdose represents an opportunity to reduce opioid overdose fatalities. Although some emergency departments (EDs) initiate buprenorphine treatment, many individuals who experience an overdose either refuse transport to the ED or are transported to an ED that does not offer buprenorphine. Emergency medical services (EMS) professionals can help address this treatment gap. In this Concepts article, we describe the federal legal landscape that governs the ability of EMS professionals to administer buprenorphine treatment, and discuss state and local regulatory considerations relevant to this promising and emerging practice.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS:Opioid overdose is a public health emergency in the United States. In an attempt to reduce potentially inappropriate opioid prescribing, many US states have adopted legal restrictions on the ability of medical professionals to prescribe or dispense opioids for pain. This review describes the major elements of relevant US state laws and the ways in which they have changed over time. METHODS:Systematic legal review in which two trained legal researchers collected and reviewed all US state laws that limit the amount or duration of opioids that medical professionals may prescribe or dispense for pain. These laws were then coded on a set of pre-selected measures, including when the law was enacted, dosage and duration limits imposed, circumstances in which the restrictions do not apply and whether additional requirements or restrictions apply to prescriptions issued to minors. RESULTS:The number of US states with opioid limitation laws increased from 10 in 2016 to 39 by the end of 2019. The provisions of these laws vary between states and have shifted within states over time. At the end of 2019 the modal duration limit was 7 days, with a range of 3 to 31. Fourteen states imposed limits on the dosage of opioids that can be prescribed, ranging from 30 morphine milligram equivalents (MME) to a 120 MME daily maximum. In 16 states, different limits apply to prescriptions issued to minors. CONCLUSIONS:The number of US states with opioid limitation laws nearly quadrupled between 2016 and 2019, with a great amount of heterogeneity between state restrictions and changes over time.

BACKGROUND:As of July 2018, 45 United States (US) states and the District of Columbia have enacted an overdose Good Samaritan law (GSL). These laws, which provide limited criminal immunity to individuals who request assistance during an overdose, may be of importance in the current wave of the overdose epidemic, which is driven primarily by illicit opioids including heroin and fentanyl. There are substantial differences in the structures of states' GSL laws which may impact their effectiveness. This study compared GSLs which have legal provisions protecting from arrest and laws which have more limited protections. METHODS:Using national county-level overdose mortality data from 3109 US counties, we examined the association of enactment of GSLs with protection from arrest and GSLs with more limited protections with subsequent overdose mortality between 2013 and 2018. Since GSLs are often enacted in conjunction with Naloxone Access Laws (NAL), we examined the effect of GSLs separately and in conjunction with NAL. We conducted these analyses using hierarchical Bayesian spatiotemporal Poisson models. RESULTS:GSLs with protections against arrest enactment in conjunction with a NAL were associated with 7% lower rates of all overdose deaths (rate ratio (RR): 0.93% Credible Interval (CI): 0.89-0.97), 10% lower rates in opioid overdose deaths (RR: 0.90; CI: 0.85-0.95) and 11% lower rates of heroin/synthetic overdose mortality (RR: 0.89; CI: 0.82-0.96) two years after enactment, compared to rates in states without these laws. Significant reductions in overdose mortality were not seen for GSLs with protections for charge or prosecution. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:GSLs with more expansive legal protections combined with a NAL, were associated with lower rates of overdose deaths, although these risk reductions take time to manifest. Policy makers should consider enacting and implementing more expansive GSLs with arrest protections to increase the likelihood people will contact emergency services in the event of an overdose.

Despite its proven efficacy, buprenorphine remains dramatically underutilized for management of opioid use disorder largely due to onerous barriers to treatment initiation. During the COVID-19 pandemic, many substance use disorder treatment facilities have reduced their hours and services, exacerbating existing barriers. To this end, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and Substance Abuse Mental Health Services Administration adjusted their guidelines to allow for new buprenorphine prescriptions following audio-only telehealth encounters, no longer requiring an in-person evaluation prior to treatment initiation. Under this new guidance, we established a 24/7 telephone hotline to function as a "tele-bridge" clinic where people with opioid use disorder can be linked with a buprenorphine prescriber in real-time for OUD assessment and unobserved buprenorphine initiation with connection to follow-up if appropriate. Additionally, we developed an ED callback protocol to reach patients recently seen for opioid overdose and facilitate their entry into care if interested. In this commentary we describe our hotline and ED callback protocols, discuss theoretical and anecdotal benefits to this approach, and advocate for continuation of current regulatory changes post-COVID-19 to maintain expanded access to novel treatment approaches.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS:Naloxone access laws (NALs) have been suggested to be an important strategy to reduce opioid-related harm. We describe the evolution of NALs across states and over time and review existing evidence of their overall association with naloxone distribution and opioid overdose as well as the potential effects of specific NAL components. METHODS:Descriptive analysis of temporal variation in US regional adoption of NAL components, accompanied by a systematic search of 13 databases for studies (published between 2005 and 20 December 2019) assessing the effects of NALs on naloxone distribution or opioid-related health outcomes. Eleven studies, all published since 2018, met inclusion criteria. Study time-frames spanned 1999-2017. Opioid-related overdose mortality, emergency department episodes and naloxone distribution were correlated with the presence of a NAL and, where data were available, NAL components. RESULTS:Existing evidence suggests mixed, but generally beneficial, effects for NALs. Nearly all studies show that NALs, particularly those that permit naloxone distribution without patient-specific prescriptions, are associated with increased naloxone access [incidence rate ratios (IRR) range from 1.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.15-1.66 to 7.75, 95% CI = 1.22-49.35] and increased opioid-related emergency department visits (IRR range from 1.14, 95% CI = 1.07-1.20 to 1.15, 95% CI = 1.02-1.29). Most studies show NALs are associated with reduced overdose mortality, although findings vary depending on the specific NAL components and time-period analyzed (IRR range from 0.66, 95% CI = 0.42-0.90 to 1.27, 95% CI = 1.27-1.27). Few studies account for the variation in opioid environments (i.e. illicit versus prescription) or other policy dimensions that may be correlated with outcomes. CONCLUSIONS:The existing literature on naloxone access laws in the United States supports beneficial effects for increased naloxone distribution, but provides inconclusive evidence for reduced fatal opioid overdose. Mixed findings may reflect variation in the laws' design and implementation, confounding effects of concurrent policy adoption, or differential effectiveness in light of changing opioid environments.