Dataset Information

Impact of reduced restrictions on buprenorphine prescribing during COVID-19 among patients in a community-based treatment program.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Medications such as buprenorphine are considered the gold standard for the treatment of opioid use disorders. This study aimed to determine whether less restrictive buprenorphine prescribing practices during the COVID-19 pandemic impacted retention in and adherence to buprenorphine among patients accessing treatment from 2018-2020 at a community-based syringe services program.

Methods

In this retrospective cohort study, we compared retention in treatment before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Then, with relaxed restrictions acting as the intervention in a natural experiment, we conducted a sub-analysis of "continuity participants" who accessed treatment services both before and during the COVID-19 period. Records of 418 historical control patients treated with buprenorphine before COVID-19 were compared to 88 patients enrolled during COVID-19 (n=43 remote telemedicine and n=45 remote provider with patient on-site). Cox proportional hazards regressions were used to assess risk factors for treatment discontinuation. The sub-analysis used proportion of days covered (PDC) differences before and during COVID-19 (n=164) for a paired analysis in a nonparametric bootstrap test.

Results

The risk of discontinuation was 71% lower in those accessing remote telemedicine during COVID-19 (HR=0.29; CI: 0.18, 0.47) and 51% lower in those accessing their remote provider onsite during COVID-19 (HR=0.49; CI:0.31, 0.77), compared to the historical control group. The average PDC did not significantly differ before and during COVID-19 (difference=2.4%; CI:-0.6%, 5.3%).

Conclusions

The risk of discontinuing treatment was lower in both COVID-19 treatment groups compared to historical controls. Less restrictive buprenorphine prescribing guidelines during COVID-19 led to improved retention in care over 6-months.

SUBMITTER: Ward KM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9040407 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThe authors examined the impact of COVID-19-related policies reducing barriers to telehealth delivery of buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) on buprenorphine treatment across different modalities (telephone, video, and in-person visits).MethodsThis was a national retrospective cohort study with interrupted time-series analyses to examine the impact of policy changes in March 2020 on buprenorphine treatment for OUD in the Veterans Health Administration, during the year before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic (March 2019 to February 2020) and during the first year of the pandemic (March 2020 to February 2021). The authors also examined trends in the use of telephone, video, and in-person visits for buprenorphine treatment and compared patient demographic characteristics and retention in buprenorphine treatment across the two periods.ResultsThe number of patients receiving buprenorphine increased from 13,415 in March 2019 to 15,339 in February 2021. By February 2021, telephone visits were used by the most patients (50.2%; 4,456 visits), followed by video visits (32.4%; 2,870 visits) and in-person visits (17.4%; 1,544 visits). During the pre-pandemic period, the number of patients receiving buprenorphine increased significantly by 103 patients per month. After the COVID-19 policy changes, there was an immediate increase of 265 patients in the first month, and the number continued to increase significantly, at a rate of 47 patients per month. The demographic characteristics of patients receiving buprenorphine during the pandemic period were similar to those during the pre-pandemic period, but the proportion of patients reaching 90-day retention on buprenorphine treatment decreased significantly from 49.6% to 47.7%, while days on buprenorphine increased significantly from 203.8 to 208.7.ConclusionsThe number of patients receiving buprenorphine continued to increase after the COVID-19 policy changes, but the delivery of care shifted to telehealth visits, suggesting that any reversal of COVID-19 policies must be carefully considered.

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.

Project description:BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has had a disproportionate impact on people with intellectual disability (PwID). PwID are at higher risk of mental illness and receive psychotropic prescribing 'off licence' also, to manage distress behaviour. The lockdown and reduction of multidisciplinary face-to-face appointments had an impact on care delivery, the recourse possibly being psychotropic prescribing. It is imperative to comprehend the influence the pandemic had on psychotropic prescribing patterns to enable future planning.AimsThe aim was to understand the impact of the pandemic by comparing psychotropic prescribing patterns during the England lockdown with the prescribing patterns before lockdown in specialist urban and rural psychiatric services for PwID.MethodData was collected from Cornwall (rural) and London (urban) intellectual disability services in England as a service evaluation project to rationalise psychotropic prescribing. PwID in both services open across January 2020 to January 2021 were included. Baseline patient demographics including age, gender, ethnicity, intellectual disability level and neurodevelopmental and psychological comorbidities were collected. Baseline psychotropic prescribing and subsequent % change for each psychotropic group for the two services was compared using Pearson's chi-square and z-statistic (two tailed) with significance taken at P < 0.05.ResultsThe two centres London (n = 113) and Cornwall (n = 97) were largely comparable but for baseline differences in terms of presence of severe mental illness (37 v. 86, P < 0.001), challenging behaviour (44 v. 57, P < 0.05) and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (37 v. 3, P < 0.001). There was an overall increase in psychotropic prescribing during lockdown in urban as compared with rural settings (11% v. 2%).ConclusionsThe pandemic caused an increase in psychotropic prescribing associated with lockdown severity and urban settings. Team structures could have played a role.