Dataset Information

Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare access among patients receiving medication for opioid use disorder.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic significantly altered treatment delivery for opioid treatment programs (OTPs) dispensing medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD). We aimed to identify patterns of substance use among MOUD patients and examine whether COVID-19-related impacts on access to healthcare varied across subgroups.

Methods

This analysis was embedded within a type 3 hybrid trial that enrolled patients across eight OTPs at the start of the pandemic. Enrolled patients reported on past-30 day use of multiple substances during their baseline assessment. Participants re-contacted in May-July 2020 completed a survey about COVID-19-related impacts on various life domains. Using latent class analysis we identified patient subgroups, and then examined group differences on a set of negative and positive COVID-19 impacts related to healthcare access.

Results

Of the 188 trial participants, 135 (72 %) completed the survey. Latent class analysis identified three MOUD patient subgroups: minimal use (class probability: 0.25); opioid use (class probability: 0.34); and polysubstance use (class probability: 0.41). Compared to the minimal use group, the polysubstance use group reported increased substance use and difficulty accessing sterile needles, naloxone, and preferred substance. The opioid use group reported increased substance use and difficulty accessing their preferred substance. There were no significant group differences related to accessing routine or specialized healthcare or medication; or paying attention to their health.

Conclusions

During COVID-19, many MOUD patients reported challenges accessing care, particularly harm reduction services for patients with polysubstance use. Additional efforts, like providing wraparound support, may be necessary to serve the needs of MOUD patients.

SUBMITTER: Jacka BP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7883735 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Social functioning (SF), the ability to engage with life and fulfill roles may be a salient "patient important outcome" in addiction treatment. It is not known if medication-assisted treatment (MAT) impacts SF in opioid use disorder (OUD). There is a growing evidence to suggest that men and women are impacted differently by OUD. This study is the largest to date to study sex differences in OUD and explore associations between MAT and SF. METHODS:Data were collected from 2736 participants with OUD, enrolled in MAT for varying lengths of time, in outpatient clinics across Ontario. SF was defined according to the Maudsley Addiction Profile's domains of (1) employment, (2) criminal activity, and (3) interpersonal conflict. Using logistic regression analysis, we examined sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with domains of SF. RESULTS:There were 1544 men (56%) and 1192 women (44%) in this study, and ages varied from 17 to 76 years for men and 18 to 69 years for women. At study entry, participants had been on MAT for a median of 2 years. Compared to men, women reported more psychological (mean MAP score 14/40, SD = 9.55, versus 11/40, SD = 8.64; p < 0.001) and physical symptoms (mean MAP score 17/40, SD = 7.70 versus 14/40, SD = 7.74; p < 0.001). More women reported unemployment(74% versus 58%; p < 0.0001) and interpersonal conflict (46% versus 35%; p < 0.0001). Men were more likely than women to report criminal activity (11%, versus 8%; p = 0.001). Psychological symptoms increased the risk of worse SF, across domains, for men and for women. Every year on MAT was associated with a 7% increase in the odds of women engaging with criminal activity (OR = 1.07, 95% CI 1.02, 1.12, p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS:Men and women had different SF profiles and psychological symptoms scores while on MAT. The length of time on MAT increased the risk of criminal activity in women, and overall, duration of MAT was not associated with improvement in SF. This may suggest that MAT alone may not support continual improvements in SF in OUD.

Project description:ImportanceIn the literature on opioid use disorder (OUD), opioid abstinence is used as an outcome measure for individuals receiving medication-assisted treatment (MAT), without consideration of patient-reported goals (PRGs).ObjectivesTo identify common PRGs for youths receiving MAT for OUD and assess whether these patients achieve their stated goals.Design, setting, and participantsThis prospective cohort study examined data from 152 individuals aged 16 to 25 years (noninclusive) recruited between May 22, 2018, and March 11, 2020, from 45 outpatient MAT clinics in the Pharmacogenetics of Opioid Substitution Treatment Response study. Youths receiving MAT for OUD were included and were followed up for 3 months.ExposuresMedication-assisted treatment for OUD.Main outcomes and measuresThe frequency of each PRG; the success of goal attainment, compared between those who reported specific PRGs and those who did not; and associations between reporting certain goals and achieving them.ResultsAmong the 152 youths in the study, 82 were male (53.9%), and the mean (SD) age was 22.8 (1.8) years. Ten overarching goals were identified, with the most common being to taper the dose of or stop MAT (96 [63.2%]), avoid use of recreational substances (71 [46.7%]), manage OUD symptoms (25 [16.4%]), live a normal life (14 [9.2%]), improve mental health (11 [7.2%]), and gain employment (8 [5.3%]). Overall, individuals who reported PRGs had similar odds of achieving them as those who did not for the goals of taper dose of or stop MAT (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 0.88-4.46; P = .10), avoid recreational substances (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.65-2.74; P = .43), manage OUD symptoms (β coefficient, -0.93; 95% CI, -4.24 to 2.38; P = .58), and improve mental health (β coefficient, -0.76; 95% CI, -6.31 to 4.78; P = .79). Furthermore, multivariable logistic regression showed that goals to taper the dose of or stop MAT (odds ratio, 1.90; 95% CI, 0.78-4.63; P = .16) or avoid recreational substances (odds ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.60-2.67; P = .53) were not associated with achieving these respective outcomes.Conclusions and relevanceThis study suggests that youths have highly variable PRGs regarding MAT for OUD and that reporting a goal may not mean one is at higher odds of achieving it. There is a need to develop treatment plans that effectively incorporate PRGs. In addition, the finding that most youths aim to minimize or stop their MAT dose warrants the creation of a tapering protocol to guide clinicians. Because a diagnosis of OUD has substantial psychosocial implications in this population, clinicians must ensure that these dimensions of care are part of routine clinical practice.

Project description:ObjectivesThe opioid overdose epidemic is escalating. Increasing access to medications for opioid use disorder in primary care is crucial. The impact of the US Department of Health and Human Services' policy change removing the buprenorphine waiver training requirement on primary care buprenorphine prescribing remains unclear. We aimed to investigate the impact of the policy change on primary care providers' likelihood of applying for a waiver and the current attitudes, practices, and barriers to buprenorphine prescribing in primary care.MethodsWe used a cross-sectional survey with embedded educational resources disseminated to primary care providers in a southern US academic health system. We used descriptive statistics to aggregate survey data, logistic regression models to evaluate whether buprenorphine interest and familiarity correlate with clinical characteristics, and a χ2 test to evaluate the effect of the educational intervention on screening.ResultsOf the 54 respondents, 70.4% reported seeing patients with opioid use disorder, but only 11.1% had a waiver to prescribe buprenorphine. Few nonwaivered providers were interested in prescribing, but perceiving buprenorphine to be beneficial to the patient population was associated with interest (adjusted odds ratio 34.7, P < 0.001). Two-thirds of nonwaivered respondents reported the policy change having no impact on their decision to obtain a waiver; however, among interested providers, it increased their likelihood of obtaining a waiver. Barriers to buprenorphine prescribing included lack of clinical experience, clinical capacity, and referral resources. Screening for opioid use disorder did not increase significantly after the survey.ConclusionsAlthough most primary care providers reported seeing patients with opioid use disorder, interest in prescribing buprenorphine was low and structural barriers remained the dominant obstacles. Providers with a preexisting interest in buprenorphine prescribing reported that removing the training requirement was helpful.

Project description:ImportanceMedication treatment for opioid use disorder (MOUD) is efficacious, but comorbid stimulant use and other behavioral health problems often undermine efficacy.ObjectiveTo examine the association of contingency management, a behavioral intervention wherein patients receive material incentives contingent on objectively verified behavior change, with end-of-treatment outcomes for these comorbid behavioral problems.Data sourcesA systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and reference sections of articles from inception through May 5, 2020. The following search terms were used: vouchers OR contingency management OR financial incentives.Study selectionProspective experimental studies of monetary-based contingency management among participants receiving MOUD.Data extraction and synthesisFollowing Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline, 3 independent investigators extracted data from included studies for a random-effects meta-analysis.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcome was the association of contingency management at end-of-treatment assessments with 6 clinical problems: stimulant use, polysubstance use, illicit opioid use, cigarette smoking, therapy attendance, and medication adherence. Random-effects meta-analysis models were used to compute weighted mean effect size estimates (Cohen d) and corresponding 95% CIs separately for each clinical problem and collapsing across the 3 categories assessing abstinence and the 2 assessing treatment adherence outcomes.ResultsThe search identified 1443 reports of which 74 reports involving 10 444 unique adult participants met inclusion criteria for narrative review and 60 for inclusion in meta-analyses. Contingency management was associated with end-of-treatment outcomes for all 6 problems examined separately, with mean effect sizes for 4 of 6 in the medium-large range (stimulants, Cohen d = 0.70 [95% CI, 0.49-0.92]; cigarette use, Cohen d = 0.78 [95% CI, 0.43-1.14]; illicit opioid use, Cohen d = 0.58 [95% CI, 0.30-0.86]; medication adherence, Cohen d = 0.75 [95% CI, 0.30-1.21]), and 2 in the small-medium range (polysubstance use, Cohen d = 0.46 [95% CI, 0.30-0.62]; therapy attendance, d = 0.43 [95% CI, 0.22-0.65]). Collapsing across abstinence and adherence categories, contingency management was associated with medium effect sizes for abstinence (Cohen d = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.47-0.69) and treatment adherence (Cohen d = 0.62; 95% CI, 0.40-0.84) compared with controls.Conclusions and relevanceThese results provide evidence supporting the use of contingency management in addressing key clinical problems among patients receiving MOUD, including the ongoing epidemic of comorbid psychomotor stimulant misuse. Policies facilitating integration of contingency management into community MOUD services are sorely needed.

Project description:ImportanceThe COVID-19 pandemic disrupted medical care, impacting prescribing of opioid analgesics and buprenorphine for opioid use disorder. Understanding these patterns can help address barriers to care.ObjectiveTo evaluate how prescribing of opioid analgesics and buprenorphine for opioid use disorder changed throughout the COVID-19 pandemic among both new and existing patients.Design, setting, and participantsIn this cross-sectional study, use of opioid analgesics and buprenorphine for opioid use disorder from March 18 to September 1, 2020, was projected using a national database of retail prescriptions from January 1, 2018, to March 3, 2020. Actual prescribing was compared with projected levels for all, existing, and new patients.ExposuresThe data include prescriptions to patients independent of insurance status or type and cover 90% of retail prescriptions, 70% of mail-order prescriptions, and 70% of nursing home prescriptions.Main outcomes and measuresPrescriptions for opioid analgesics and buprenorphine for opioid use disorder. Outcomes included total number of prescriptions, total morphine milligram equivalents, mean morphine milligram equivalents per prescription, mean dispensed units per prescription, and number of patients filling prescriptions.ResultsA total of 452 691 261 prescriptions for opioid analgesics and buprenorphine for opioid use disorder were analyzed for 90 420 353 patients (50 921 535 female patients [56%]; mean [SD] age, 49 [20] years). From March 18 to May 19, 2020, 1877 million total morphine milligram equivalents of opioid analgesics were prescribed weekly vs 1843 million projected, a ratio of 102% (95% prediction interval [PI], 94%-111%; P = .71). The weekly number of opioid-naive patients receiving opioids was 370 051 vs 564 929 projected, or 66% of projected (95% PI, 63%-68%; P < .001). Prescribing of buprenorphine was as projected for existing patients, while the number of new patients receiving buprenorphine weekly was 9865 vs 12 008 projected, or 82% (95% PI, 76%-88%; P < .001). From May 20 to September 1, 2020, opioid prescribing for new patients returned to 100% of projected (95% PI, 96%-104%; P = .95), while the number of new patients receiving buprenorphine weekly was 10 436 vs 11 613 projected, or 90% (95% PI, 83%-97%; P = .009).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study, existing patients receiving opioid analgesics and buprenorphine for opioid use disorder generally maintained access to these medications during the COVID-19 pandemic. Opioid prescriptions for opioid-naive patients decreased briefly and then rebounded, while initiation of buprenorphine remained at a low rate through August 2020. Reductions in treatment entry may be associated with increased overdose deaths.