Evidence of increased Fentanyl use during the COVID-19 pandemic among opioid agonist treatment patients in Ontario, Canada.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Amid the opioid crisis, the health care system is restructuring to prevent and treat COVID-19. Individuals in opioid agonist treatment (OAT) are uniquely challenged because of disruption to treatment, medication diversion, and isolation during the pandemic.Methods
Between January and September 2020, we utilized the electronic medical record from a chain of 67 opioid agonist treatment clinics in Ontario, Canada, to examine routinely collected urine drug screen results of patients in opioid agonist treatment by Public Health Units.Results
We present evidence of a 108% increase in the percentage of fentanyl positive urine drug screens from April to September (p< 0.001). During the same period, health regions in northern and southwestern Ontario, areas with a high concentration of rural communities, have seen the most notable increase in the percent of fentanyl positive urine drug screen results.Conclusion
The use of fentanyl increased by 108% among OAT patients in Ontario during the COVID 19 pandemic. We argue that the persistent increase of fentanyl exposure over time, specifically in the OAT population, suggests that reduced monitoring may decrease OAT's effectiveness and negatively impact patient outcomes.
SUBMITTER: Morin KA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7834895 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundWe assessed the impact of COVID-19, which includes the declaration of a state of emergency and subsequent release of pandemic-specific OAT guidance (March 17, 2020 to March 23, 2020) on the prevalence of OAT discontinuation.MethodsWe conducted a population-based time series analysis using interventional autoregressive integrated moving average models among Ontario residents who were stable (>60 days of continuous use) and not yet stable on OAT. Specifically, we examined whether COVID-19 impacted the weekly percentage of individuals who discontinued OAT, overall and stratified by treatment type (methadone vs. buprenorphine/naloxone). Additionally, we compared demographic characteristics and patient outcomes among people stable on OAT who discontinued treatment during (March 17, 2020 to November 30, 2020) and prior (July 3, 2019 to March 16, 2020) to the pandemic.ResultsThe weekly prevalence of OAT discontinuation across the study period ranged between 0.6% and 1.1%, among those stable on treatment compared to 7.3% and 16.6%, among those not stable on treatment. Following COVID-19, there was no significant change in the percentage of Ontarians who discontinued OAT, regardless of whether they were stabilized on treatment. Among those stable on OAT, a similar proportion of patients restarted therapy and experienced opioid-related harm following an OAT discontinuation. However, mortality following OAT discontinuation must be noted, as approximately 1.4% and 0.8% of people who discontinued methadone and buprenorphine/naloxone respectively, died within 30 days of discontinuation.ConclusionsTrends in the prevalence of OAT discontinuation did not significantly change during the first eight months of the COVID-19 pandemic.
| S-EPMC9008980 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8116980 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Substance use and substance use disorders are common in people who experience detention or incarceration in Canada, and opioid agonist treatment (OAT) may reduce the harms associated with substance use disorders. We aimed to define current physician practice in provincial correctional facilities in Ontario with respect to prescribing OAT and to identify potential barriers and facilitators to prescribing OAT.We invited all physicians practicing in the 26 provincial correctional facilities for adults in Ontario to participate in an online survey.Twenty-seven physicians participated, with representation from most correctional facilities in Ontario. Of participating physicians, 52% reported prescribing methadone and 48% reported prescribing buprenorphine/naloxone to patients in provincial correctional facilities. Nineteen percent of participants reported initiating methadone treatment and 11% reported initiating buprenorphine/naloxone for patients in custody. Participants identified multiple barriers to initiating OAT in provincial correctional facilities including concerns about medication diversion and safety, concerns about initiating treatment in patients who are not currently using opioids, lack of linkage with community-based providers and the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services policy. Identified facilitators to initiating OAT were support from institutional health care staff and administrative staff, adequate resources for program delivery and access to linkage with community-based OAT providers.This study identifies opportunities to improve OAT programs and to improve access to OAT for persons in provincial correctional facilities in Ontario.
| S-EPMC5813939 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe extent to which heightened distress during the COVID-19 pandemic translated to increases in severe mental health outcomes is unknown. We examined trends in psychiatric presentations to acute care settings in the first 12 months after onset of the pandemic.MethodsThis was a trends analysis of administrative population data in Ontario, Canada. We examined rates of hospitalizations and emergency department visits for mental health diagnoses overall and stratified by sex, age and diagnostic grouping (e.g., mood disorders, anxiety disorders, psychotic disorders), as well as visits for intentional self-injury for people aged 10 to 105 years, from January 2019 to March 2021. We used Joinpoint regression to identify significant inflection points after the onset of the pandemic in March 2020.ResultsAmong the 12 968 100 people included in our analysis, rates of mental health-related hospitalizations and emergency department visits declined immediately after the onset of the pandemic (peak overall decline of 30% [hospitalizations] and 37% [emergency department visits] compared to April 2019) and returned to near prepandemic levels by March 2021. Compared to April 2019, visits for intentional self-injury declined by 33% and remained below prepandemic levels until March 2021. We observed the largest declines in service use among adolescents aged 14 to 17 years (55% decline in hospitalizations, 58% decline in emergency department visits) and 10 to 13 years (56% decline in self-injury), and for those with substance-related disorders (33% decline in emergency department visits) and anxiety disorders (61% decline in hospitalizations).InterpretationContrary to expectations, the abrupt decline in acute mental health service use immediately after the onset of the pandemic and the return to near prepandemic levels that we observed suggest that changes and stressors in the first 12 months of the pandemic did not translate to increased service use. Continued surveillance of acute mental health service use is warranted.
| S-EPMC8598241 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:The objective was to characterize the relationship between geography, concurrent psychiatric services, all-cause mortality, and acute health care use for individuals enrolled in Opioid Agonist Treatment, in Ontario, Canada. METHODS:We conducted a propensity score matching study of patients enrolled in Opioid Agonist Treatment in Ontario for the first time between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2015. We first compared outcomes between patients who were actively engaged and patients who were not actively engaged in Opioid Agonist Treatment. We created treatment and a control groups on the basis of an individual's access to psychiatric care within an episode of Opioid Agonist Treatment. Relative risk and number needed to treat were calculated to determine the correlation between psychiatric care and health outcomes among patients enrolled in Opioid Agonist Treatment at two time points within an episode of care and for two geographic regions in Ontario (north and south). RESULTS:During the first year of Opioid Agonist Treatment, concurrent psychiatric care was associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality in southern Ontario (RR 0.80, 95% CI, 0.73-0.87), a reduction in emergency department visits in both northern and southern Ontario (north: RR = 0.76, 95% CI, 0.72-0.81; south: RR = 0.87, 95% CI, 0.86-0.88), and a reduction in hospitalizations (north: RR = 0.88, 95% CI. 0.82-0.94, south: RR = 0.92, 95% CI, 0.91-0.93). CONCLUSION:Our findings have significant clinical and political implications for health system planning highlighting the need for integrated mental health and addiction services for individuals with Opioid Use Disorder.
| S-EPMC6595572 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PURPOSE:People with cancer face an elevated risk of infection and severe sequelae from COVID-19. Dexamethasone is commonly used for antiemetic prophylaxis with systemic therapy for cancer. However, dexamethasone is associated with increased risk of viral and respiratory infections, and causes lymphopenia, which is associated with worse outcomes during COVID-19 infections. Our purpose was to minimize dexamethasone exposure during antiemetic prophylaxis for systemic therapy for solid tumors during the COVID-19 pandemic, while maintaining control of nausea and emesis. METHODS:We convened an expert panel to systematically review the literature and formulate consensus recommendations. RESULTS:No studies considered the impact of dexamethasone-based antiemetic regimens on the risk and severity of COVID-19 infection. Expert consensus recommended modifications to the 2019 Cancer Care Ontario Antiemetic Recommendations. CONCLUSION:Clinicians should prescribe the minimally effective dose of dexamethasone for antiemetic prophylaxis. Single-day dexamethasone dosing is recommended over multi-day dosing for regimens with high emetogenic risk excluding high-dose cisplatin, preferably in combination with palonosetron, netupitant, and olanzapine. For regimens with low emetogenic risk, 5-HT3 antagonists are recommended over dexamethasone.
| S-EPMC7324309 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceMethadone access may be uniquely vulnerable to disruption during COVID-19, and even short delays in access are associated with decreased medication initiation and increased illicit opioid use and overdose death. Relative to Canada, US methadone provision is more restricted and limited to specialized opioid treatment programs.ObjectiveTo compare timely access to methadone initiation in the US and Canada during COVID-19.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study was conducted from May to June 2020. Participating clinics provided methadone for opioid use disorder in 14 US states and territories and 3 Canadian provinces with the highest opioid overdose death rates. Statistical analysis was performed from July 2020 to January 2021.ExposuresNation and type of health insurance (US Medicaid and US self-pay vs Canadian provincial).Main outcomes and measuresProportion of clinics accepting new patients and days to first appointment.ResultsAmong 268 of 298 US clinics contacted as a patient with Medicaid (90%), 271 of 301 US clinics contacted as a self-pay patient (90%), and 237 of 288 Canadian clinics contacted as a patient with provincial insurance (82%), new patients were accepted for methadone at 231 clinics (86%) during US Medicaid contacts, 230 clinics (85%) during US self-pay contacts, and at 210 clinics (89%) during Canadian contacts. Among clinics not accepting new patients, at least 44% of 27 clinics reported that the COVID-19 pandemic was the reason. The mean wait for first appointment was greater among US Medicaid contacts (3.5 days [95% CI, 2.9-4.2 days]) and US self-pay contacts (4.1 days [95% CI, 3.4-4.8 days]) than Canadian contacts (1.9 days [95% CI, 1.7-2.1 days]) (P < .001). Open-access model (walk-in hours for new patients without an appointment) utilization was reported by 57 Medicaid (30%), 57 self-pay (30%), and 115 Canadian (59%) contacts offering an appointment.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study of 2 nations, more than 1 in 10 methadone clinics were not accepting new patients. Canadian clinics offered more timely methadone access than US opioid treatment programs. These results suggest that the methadone access shortage was exacerbated by COVID-19 and that changes to the US opioid treatment program model are needed to improve the timeliness of access. Increased open-access model adoption may increase timely access.
| S-EPMC8303098 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo describe opioid agonist treatment prescribing rates in provincial prisons and compare with community prescribing rates.DesignWe used quarterly, cross-sectional data on the number and proportion of people prescribed opioid agonist treatment in prison populations. Trends were compared with Ontario surveillance data from prescribers, reported on a monthly basis.SettingProvincial prisons and general population in Ontario, Canada between 2015 and 2018.ParticipantsAdults incarcerated in provincial prisons and people ages 15 years and older in Ontario.Main outcomes and measuresOpioid agonist treatment prescribing prevalence, defined as treatment with methadone or buprenorphine/naloxone.ResultsIn prison, 6.9%-8.4% of people were prescribed methadone; 0.8% to 4.8% buprenorphine/naloxone; and 8.2% to 13.2% either treatment over the study period. Between 2015 and 2018, methadone prescribing prevalence did not substantially change in prisons or in the general population. The prevalence rate of buprenorphine/naloxone prescribing increased in prisons by 1.70 times per year (95% CI 1.47 to 1.96), which was significantly higher than the increase in community prescribing: 1.20 (95% CI 1.19 to 1.21). Buprenorphine/naloxone prescribing prevalence was significantly different across prisons.ConclusionsThe increase in opioid agonist treatment prescribing between 2015 and 2018 in provincial prisons shows that efforts to scale up access to treatment in the context of the opioid overdose crisis have included people who experience incarceration in Ontario. Further work is needed to understand unmet need for treatment and treatment impacts.
| S-EPMC8603292 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWith legal access to medical cannabis in Canada since 2001, there is a need to fully characterize its use at both the individual and population levels. We draw on data from Canada's largest cohort study of medical cannabis to identify the primary reasons for medical cannabis authorization in Canada from 2014 to 2019 in two major provinces: Alberta (AB) and Ontario (ON), and review the extent that evidence supports each indication.MethodsSelf-reported baseline assessments were collected from adult patients in ON (n = 61,835) and AB (n = 3410) who were authorized medical cannabis. At baseline, sociodemographic, primary medical information, and validated clinical questionnaires were completed by patients as part of an individual assessment. Patients' reasons for seeking medical cannabis were compared to published reviews and guidelines to assess the level of evidence supporting medical cannabis use for each condition.ResultsMedical cannabis use in both AB and ON was similar in both demographic and reason for authorization. The most common reasons for medical cannabis authorization were: (1) pain (AB = 77%, ON = 76%) primarily due to chronic musculoskeletal, arthritic, and neuropathic pain, (2) mental health concerns (AB = 32.9%, ON = 38.7%) due to anxiety and depression, and (3) sleep problems (AB = 28%, ON = 25%). More than 50 other conditions were identified as reasons for obtaining authorization.ConclusionIn both AB and ON, the majority of reasons for medical cannabis authorization are not substantiated by clinical evidence to fully support its efficacy for long-term use. Ongoing epidemiological studies on medical cannabis on these treatments are warranted to fully outline its treatment benefits or risks.
| S-EPMC8186125 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceOpioids can impair motor skills and may affect the ability to drive; however, the association of opioid use with driving ability is not well established.ObjectiveTo examine the risk of motor vehicle collisions (MVCs) among drivers starting opioid therapy compared with that among drivers starting nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) therapy.Design, setting, and participantsThis population-based, retrospective cohort study included all residents of Ontario aged 17 years or older who started new prescription analgesic therapy between March 1, 2008, and March 17, 2019.ExposuresInitiation of opioid therapy or NSAID therapy, ascertained through prescription dispensing records in administrative data.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was an emergency department visit for injuries sustained as a driver in an MVC during the 14 days after starting analgesic therapy. Inverse probability treatment weighting was used to balance baseline covariates, and weighted Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to assess the association between new analgesic therapy and hazard of an emergency department visit after an MVC.ResultsOf the 1 454 824 individuals included in the study, 765 464 (52.6%) were new opioid recipients and 689 360 (47.4%) were new NSAID recipients. Most participants were aged 65 years or older (75.2%), and 55.2% were women. Of 194 individuals who had emergency department visits for injuries from an MVC within 14 days of initiating therapy, 98 (50.5%) were opioid recipients (3.41 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 2.80-4.15 per 1000 person-years) and 96 (49.5%) were NSAID recipients (3.64 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 2.98-4.45 per 1000 person-years). There was no significant difference in the risk of an emergency department visit for MVC injuries between opioid and NSAID recipients (weighted hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.70-1.25).Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this study suggest that the hazard of an emergency department visit for injuries relating to an MVC as a driver is similar between individuals starting prescription opioids and those starting prescription NSAIDs. These results may be useful for patients, clinicians, and caregivers when considering new analgesic therapy.
| S-EPMC8586904 | biostudies-literature