Multi-level influences on increased overdose risk behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic among people who use drugs in Rhode Island: a qualitative investigation.

BACKGROUND: The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately affected structurally vulnerable populations including people who use drugs (PWUD). Increased overdose risk behaviors among PWUD during the pandemic have been documented, with research underscoring the role of influencing factors such as isolation and job loss in these behaviors. Here, we use qualitative methods to examine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and pandemic-related response measures on drug use behaviors in a sample of PWUD in Rhode Island. Using a social-ecological framework, we highlight the nested, interactive levels of the pandemic's influence on increased overdose risk behaviors. METHODS: From July to October 2021, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 18 PWUD who self-reported any increase in behaviors associated with overdose risk (e.g., increased use, change in drug type and/or more solitary drug use) relative to before the pandemic. Thematic analysis was conducted using a codebook with salient themes identified from interview guides and those that emerged through close reading of transcribed interviews. Guided by a social-ecological framework, themes were grouped into individual, network, institutional, and policy-level influences of the pandemic on drug use behaviors. RESULTS: Individual-level influences on increased overdose risk behaviors included self-reported anxiety and depression, isolation and loneliness, and boredom. Network-level influences included changes in local drug supply and changes in social network composition specific to housing. At the institutional level, drug use patterns were influenced by reduced access to harm reduction or treatment services. At the policy level, increased overdose risk behaviors were related to financial changes, job loss, and business closures. All participants identified factors influencing overdose risk behaviors that corresponded to several nested social-ecological levels. CONCLUSIONS: Participants identified multi-level influences of the COVID-19 pandemic and pandemic-related response measures on their drug use behavior patterns and overdose risk. These findings suggest that effective harm reduction during large-scale crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, must address several levels of influence concurrently.

Initial SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination Uptake in a Correctional Setting: Cross-sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: The largest outbreaks of COVID-19 in the United States have occurred in correctional facilities, and little is known about the feasibility and acceptability of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine campaigns among incarcerated people. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe a statewide vaccination program among incarcerated people and staff working in a prison setting. METHODS: Between December 2020 and February 2021, the Rhode Island Department of Corrections (RIDOC) offered the opportunity for SARS-CoV-2 vaccination to all correctional staff and sentenced individuals. Two RIDOC public health educators provided education on the vaccine, answered questions, and obtained consent before the vaccine clinic day for the incarcerated group. All staff received information on signing up for vaccines and watched an educational video that was created by the medical director. Additional information regarding vaccine education and resources was sent via email to the entire RIDOC department. RESULTS: During this initial campaign, 76.4% (1106/1447) of sentenced individuals and 68.4% (1008/1474) of correctional staff accepted and received the vaccine. Four months after the first vaccine was offered, 77.7% (1124/1447) of the sentenced population and 69.6% (1026/1474) of staff were fully vaccinated. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the feasibility and efficiency of vaccine implementation in a carceral setting. Education and communication likely played an important role in mitigating vaccine refusals.

Convalescent Plasma for Patients With Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Matched Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of convalescent plasma (CP) for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains unclear. METHODS: In a matched cohort analysis of hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19, the impact of CP treatment on in-hospital mortality was evaluated using univariate and multivariate Cox proportional-hazards models, and the impact of CP treatment on time to hospital discharge was assessed using a stratified log-rank analysis. RESULTS: In total, 64 patients who received CP a median of 7 days after symptom onset were compared to a matched control group of 177 patients. The incidence of in-hospital mortality was 12.5% and 15.8% in the CP and control groups, respectively (P = .52). There was no significant difference in the risk of in-hospital mortality between the 2 groups (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI] .39-2.20). The overall rate of hospital discharge was not significantly different between the 2 groups (rate ratio [RR] 1.28, 95% CI .91-1.81), although there was a significantly increased rate of hospital discharge among patients 65-years-old or greater who received CP (RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.03-3.36). There was a greater than expected frequency of transfusion reactions in the CP group (2.8% reaction rate observed per unit transfused). CONCLUSIONS: We did not demonstrate a significant difference in risk of mortality or rate of hospital discharge between the CP and control groups. There was a signal for improved outcomes among the elderly, and further adequately powered randomized studies should target this subgroup when assessing the efficacy of CP treatment.

COVID-19 EXPOSES A BROKEN PRISON SYSTEM

The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed innumerable flaws in US society, including a failure to ensure equitable community health, systemic racism, and a broken system of punishment and incarceration. Given the demonstrated risk of COVID-19 transmission in prisons and jails, any actions short of substantial decarceration represent a "deliberate indifference"-that is, knowing that incarcerated people face a substantial risk of serious harm and failing to take measures to abate it, which the US Supreme Court has found violates the Eighth Amendment. Alexandria Macmadu is a doctoral student in the Department of Epidemiology at the Brown University School of Public Health.

Revising our attitudes towards agonist medications and their diversion in a time of pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic led government regulators to relax prescribing rules for buprenorphine and methadone, the agonist medications that effectively treat opioid use disorder, allowing for take home supplies of up to 28 days. These changes prioritized the availability of these medications over concerns about their misuse and diversion, and they provided a means for overdose prophylaxis during the highly uncertain conditions of the pandemic. In considering how to capitalize on this shift, research should determine the extent to which increased diversion has occurred as a result, and what the consequences may have been. The shifts also set the stage to consider if methadone can be safely prescribed in primary care settings, and if the monthly injectable formulation of buprenorphine is a suitable alternative to increased supplies of sublingual strips if concerns about diversion persist. The disruptions of the pandemic have caused a surge in overdose deaths, so carefully considering the prophylactic potential of agonist medications, in addition to their role as a treatment, may help us address this mortality crisis.

COVID-19 as a Frying Pan: The Promise and Perils of Pandemic-driven Reform.

: The imposition of new regulations can send industries scrambling to comply, fostering innovation in doing so. How we police and treat people with opioid use disorder (OUD), with recent widespread social unrest in reaction to police violence and systemic racism bringing the need for lasting structural changes to our justice system and social services into especially acute relief. Arbitrary laws and counterproductive policies previously subject to only incremental reform have given way to sweeping changes: people convicted of nonviolent drug crimes have been released from jails and prisons, the enforcement of drug laws has been cast aside as a priority, and the regulations surrounding addiction treatment medications and treating patients with OUD have been greatly loosened. These are changes many practitioners and advocates have sought for years if not decades, but they come with the reality that the old systems are culturally entrenched and likely to be resilient. It is critical that researchers evaluate these changes and synthesize the results with existing evidence in ways that empower efforts to make the most effective responses permanent. The COVID-19 pandemic makes for a challenging research environment, but its OUD-related interventions have created new regulatory systems that lend themselves to valuable opportunities for evaluation as natural experiments by the burgeoning field of legal epidemiology.