Changes to methadone maintenance therapy in the United States, Canada, and Australia during the COVID-19 pandemic: A narrative review.

INTRODUCTION: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, countries across the world made adaptations to policies regulating the provision of methadone maintenance therapy (MMT) to facilitate social distancing for health care providers and people in treatment. Many countries issued guidance about increasing take-home methadone doses after the onset of the pandemic. METHODS: In this review, we compare the regulation of MMT prior to the pandemic in the United States, Canada, and Australia, analyze changes to treatment policy in the context of COVID-19, and review emerging data on treatment outcomes. RESULTS: The United States only permits the prescription and disbursement of methadone for MMT treatment at federally designated opioid treatment programs (OTPs). Conversely, Australia and Canada operate on a community pharmacy-based distribution model, where patients can access methadone doses either in participating pharmacies or in some methadone clinics. CONCLUSION: Given reports of similar treatment outcomes and increased patient satisfaction since the pandemic-related policy changes, some changes including increased receipt of take-home doses should be considered for incorporation into post-pandemic treatment policies and regulations.

Availability of timely methadone treatment in the United States and Canada during COVID-19: a census tract-level analysis☆

Objectives We sought to compare timely access to methadone treatment in the United States (US) and Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study of census tracts and aggregated dissemination areas (used for rural Canada) within 14 US and 3 Canadian jurisdictions in 2020. We excluded census tracts or areas with a population density of less than one person per square km. Data from a 2020 audit of timely medication access was used to determine clinics accepting new patients within 48 hours. Unadjusted and adjusted linear regressions were performed to examine the relationship between area population density and sociodemographic covariates and three outcome variables: 1) driving distance to the nearest methadone clinic accepting new patients, 2) driving distance to the nearest methadone clinic accepting new patients for medication initiation within 48 hours, and 3) the difference in the driving distance between the first and second outcome. Results We included 17,611 census tracts and areas with a population density greater than one person per square kilometer. After adjusting for area covariates, US jurisdictions were a median of 11.6 miles (p value <0.001) further from a methadone clinic accepting new patients and 25.1 miles (p value <0.001) further from a clinic accepting new patients within 48 hours than Canadian jurisdictions. Conclusions These results suggest that the more flexible Canadian regulatory approach to methadone treatment is associated with a greater availability of timely methadone treatment and reduced urban-rural disparity in availability, compared to the US.

Availability of timely methadone treatment in the United States and Canada during COVID-19: A census tract-level analysis.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to compare timely access to methadone treatment in the United States (US) and Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of census tracts and aggregated dissemination areas (used for rural Canada) within 14 US and 3 Canadian jurisdictions in 2020. We excluded census tracts or areas with a population density of less than one person per square km. Data from a 2020 audit of timely medication access was used to determine clinics accepting new patients within 48 h. Unadjusted and adjusted linear regressions were performed to examine the relationship between area population density and sociodemographic covariates and three outcome variables: 1) driving distance to the nearest methadone clinic accepting new patients, 2) driving distance to the nearest methadone clinic accepting new patients for medication initiation within 48 h, and 3) the difference in the driving distance between the first and second outcome. RESULTS: We included 17,611 census tracts and areas with a population density greater than one person per square kilometer. After adjusting for area covariates, US jurisdictions were a median of 11.6 miles (p value <0.001) further from a methadone clinic accepting new patients and 25.1 miles (p value <0.001) further from a clinic accepting new patients within 48 h than Canadian jurisdictions. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the more flexible Canadian regulatory approach to methadone treatment is associated with a greater availability of timely methadone treatment and reduced urban-rural disparity in availability, compared to the US.

The impact of relaxation of methadone take-home protocols on treatment outcomes in the COVID-19 era.

BACKGROUND: Background: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) allowed for an increase in methadone take-home doses for the treatment of Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) in March 2020. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of the SAMSHA exemption on methadone adherence and OUD-related outcomes. METHODS: A convenience sample of 183 clients (58% female) were recruited from a methadone clinic in the fall of 2019 for a cross-sectional survey. Survey data was linked to clinical records, including urine drug testing (UDT) results for methadone and emergency department (ED) visits at the local hospital. Participants were on stable methadone dosing for 9 months prior to and following March 2020. Methadone adherence was assessed by UDTs; OUD-related outcomes were assessed by overdose events and ED visits. Logistic regression was used to assess the association between change in take-home methadone doses and outcomes. RESULTS: Mean take-home doses increased nearly 200% (11.4 doses/30 days pre-COVID-19 vs. 22.3 post-SAMHSA exemption). ED visits dropped from 74 (40.4%) pre-COVID-19 to 56 (30.6%) post-SAMHSA exemption (p = <0.001). No significant changes were observed in either the number of clients experiencing overdose or those who experienced one or more methadone negative UDTs in the post-SAMHSA exemption period. Adjusted models did not show a significant association between changes in take-home doses and associated outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a near-doubling of take-home methadone doses during the COVID-19 exemption period, the increase in take-home doses was not associated with negative treatment outcomes in methadone-adherent clients.