Faculty Bibliography

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 AND AIMS/OBJECTIVE:Opioid overdose is a leading cause of death during the immediate time after release from jail or prison. Most jails in the United States do not provide methadone and buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder (MOUD), and research in estimating its impact in jail settings is limited. We aimed to test the hypothesis that in-jail MOUD is associated with lower overdose mortality risk post-release. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:Retrospective, observational cohort study of 15 797 adults with opioid use disorder who were released from New York City jails to the community in 2011-17. They experienced 31 382 incarcerations and were followed up to 1 year. MEASUREMENTS/METHODS:The primary outcomes were death caused by accidental drug poisoning and all-cause death. The exposure was receipt of MOUD (17 119 events) versus out-of-treatment (14 263 events) during the last 3 days before community reentry. Covariates included demographic, clinical, behavioral, housing, healthcare utilization, and legal characteristics variables. We performed multivariable, mixed-effect Cox regression analysis to test association between in-jail MOUD and deaths. FINDINGS/RESULTS:A majority were male (82%) and their average age was 42 years. Receiving MOUD was associated with misdemeanor charges, being female, injection drug use, and homelessness. During 1 year post-release, 111 overdose deaths occurred, and crude death rates were 0.49 and 0.83 per 100 person-years for in-jail MOUD and out-of-treatment groups, respectively. Accounting for confounding and random effects, in-jail MOUD was associated with lower overdose mortality risk (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.20, 95% CI = 0.08-0.46), and all-cause mortality risk (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.22, 95% CI = 0.11-0.42) for the first month post-release. CONCLUSIONS:Methadone and buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder during incarceration was associated with an 80% reduction in overdose mortality risk for the first month post-release.

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.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:The overdose crisis continues to be a major public health emergency in the United States. While effective medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), such as buprenorphine, have ample scientific evidence to their effectiveness, they are underutilized in the United States and particularly in criminal justice settings. One rationale against the expansion of MOUD in carceral settings cited by jail, prison, and even Drug Enforcement Administration leaders is the potential for diversion of these medications. However, currently little data exist to support this claim. Instead, successful examples from early expansion states could help to change attitudes and calm misconceptions around diversion fears. RESULTS:In this commentary, we discuss the experience of one county jail that successfully expanded buprenorphine treatment and did not suffer significant impacts related to diversion. Instead, the jail found that their holistic and compassionate approach to buprenorphine treatment improved conditions both for incarcerated individuals and jail staff. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Amid a changing policy landscape and a federal commitment to increase access to effective treatments in criminal justice settings, lessons can be learned from jails and prisons that have already or are working toward expansion of MOUD in their facilities. Ideally, these anecdotal examples, in addition to data, will help to encourage more facilities to incorporate buprenorphine into their opioid use disorder treatment strategies.

OBJECTIVE:The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly affected people's ability to buy, sell, and obtain items that they use in their daily lives. It may have had a particularly negative effect on the ability of people who use illicit opioids to obtain them because the networks they relied on are illicit and not part of the formal economy. Our objective in this research was to examine if, and how, disruptions related to COVID-19 of illicit opioid markets have affected people who use illicit opioids. METHOD:We collected 300 posts--including replies to posts--related to the intersection of COVID-19 and opioid use from Reddit.com, a forum that has several discussion threads (i.e., subreddits) dedicated to opioids. We then coded posts from the two most popular opioid subreddits during the early pandemic period (March 5, 2020-May 13, 2020) using an inductive/deductive approach. RESULTS:We found two themes related to active opioid use during the early pandemic: (a) changes in drug supply and difficulty obtaining opioids, and (b) buying less-trustworthy drugs from lesser-known sources. CONCLUSIONS:Our findings suggest that COVID-19 has created market conditions that place people who use opioids at risk of adverse outcomes, such as fatal overdose.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:We sought to understand how opioid treatment programs (OTPs) adapted OTP operations to the COVID-19 pandemic and new federal regulations around methadone and buprenorphine. METHODS:In fall 2020, we conducted an online survey of all 103 OTPs licensed by the Pennsylvania Department of Drug and Alcohol Programs, including clinical directors. Survey domains included changes to methadone take-home and telehealth practices; overdose and diversion prevention tactics; perceptions regarding how such changes influence patient well-being; and financial/operational concerns related to the new policies and practices. We calculated descriptive statistics and conducted Chi-square test to test for differences between not-for-profit versus for-profit and large versus small OTPs. RESULTS:Forty-seven percent (46%) OTPs responded to the survey. 10% and 25%, respectively, endorsed offering telephone and video-based telemedicine buprenorphine induction. Sixty-six percent endorsed extending take-home supplies of methadone, but most indicated that these extensions applied to a minority of their patients. Most respondents agreed that provision of buprenorphine via telehealth and extended take-home methadone reduced patient burden in accessing medications and prevented exposure to COVID-19, while not significantly increasing risk of overdose. We did not find major differences in COVID-19 practice modifications by nonprofit status or size of OTP. CONCLUSIONS:In Pennsylvania, the COVID-19 pandemic led to rapid changes in provision of opioid treatment services. Findings on relatively low uptake of longer methadone take-home regimens and virtual buprenorphine initiation despite general support for these practices imply a need to further develop guidelines for best clinical practices and understand/address barriers to their implementation.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Behavioral health diagnoses are frequently underreported in administrative health data. For a pragmatic trial of a hospital addiction consult program, we sought to determine the sensitivity of Medicaid claims data for identifying patients with opioid use disorder (OUD). METHODS:A structured review of electronic health record (EHR) data was conducted to identify patients with OUD in 6 New York City public hospitals. Cases selected for review were adults admitted to medical/surgical inpatient units who received methadone or sublingual buprenorphine in the hospital. For cases with OUD based on EHR review, we searched for the hospitalization in Medicaid claims data and examined International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision discharge diagnosis codes to identify opioid diagnoses (OUD, opioid poisoning, or opioid-related adverse events). Sensitivity of Medicaid claims data for capturing OUD hospitalizations was calculated using EHR review findings as the reference standard measure. RESULTS:Among 552 cases with OUD based on EHR review, 465 (84.2%) were found in the Medicaid claims data, of which 418 (89.9%) had an opioid discharge diagnosis. Opioid diagnoses were the primary diagnosis in 49 cases (11.7%), whereas in the remainder, they were secondary diagnoses. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:In this sample of hospitalized patients receiving OUD medications, Medicaid claims seem to have good sensitivity for capturing opioid diagnoses. Although the sensitivity of claims data may vary, it can potentially be a valuable source of information about OUD patients.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:There is a growing concern over the increased prevalence of fentanyl contaminated oxycodone pills, referred to as M30s. The current study is an examination of content on the Reddit social media site in order to understand the perceptions of and experiences with exposure to fentanyl contaminated M30 pills. METHODS:Data include subreddit posts collected from January 1, 2021, to July 28, 2021, from 71 drug-related subreddits using 34 fentanyl-related search terms. A random subsample of 500 posts was examined for thematic analysis. 226 (45.2%) of posts were determined to be relevant and included in the final sample. RESULTS:Over one-third (n = 85, 37.6%) of subreddit posts with mention of fentanyl were related to pressed M30 pills. Three emergent themes related to pressed M30 pills were identified: suspicion of contamination in oxycodone pills was pervasive (51.2%), composition of pills evoked anxiety (40%), and M30 mitigation and testing strategies (29.4%). CONCLUSIONS:Many persons on the online communities of Reddit who use drugs were aware of fentanyl contamination in the current pressed pill market. Reddit offered a space to network with others to discuss harm reduction strategies and anxieties surrounding the pervasiveness of fentanyl in the current drug market.

BACKGROUND:Substance use treatment and harm reduction services are essential components of comprehensive strategies for reducing the harms of drug use and overdose. However, these services have been historically siloed, and there is a need to better understand how programs that serve people who use drugs (PWUD) are integrating these services. In this study, we compared treatment and harm reduction services offered by a multistate sample of substance use service providers and assessed how well they align with characteristics and needs of clients they serve early in the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS:We recruited a convenience sample of programs that deliver harm reduction and/or treatment services in ten US states. Program directors participated in a survey assessing the services offered at their program. We also recruited clients of these programs to participate in a survey assessing a range of sociodemographic and health characteristics, substance use behaviors, and health service utilization. We then cross-compared client characteristics and behaviors relative to services being offered through these programs. RESULTS:We collected and analyzed data from 511 clients attending 18 programs that we classified as either offering treatment with medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) (N = 6), syringe service programs (SSP) (N = 8), or offering both MOUD and SSP (N = 4). All programs delivered a range of treatment and harm reduction services, with MOUD & SSP programs delivering the greatest breadth of services. There were discrepancies between services provided and characteristics and behaviors reported by clients: 80% of clients of programs that offered MOUD without SSP actively used drugs and 50% injected drugs; 40% of clients of programs that offered SSP without MOUD sought drug treatment services. Approximately half of clients were unemployed and unstably housed, but few programs offered direct social services. CONCLUSIONS:In many ways, existing programs are not meeting the service needs of PWUD. Investing in innovative models that empower clients and integrate a range of accessible and flexible treatment, harm reduction and social services can pave the way for a more effective and equitable service system that considers the long-term health of PWUD.