Buprenorphine Treatment Episodes During the First Year of COVID: a Retrospective Examination of Treatment Initiation and Retention.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID pandemic, overall buprenorphine treatment appeared to remain relatively stable, despite some studies suggesting a decrease in patients starting buprenorphine. There is a paucity of empirical information regarding patterns of buprenorphine treatment during the pandemic. OBJECTIVE: To better understand the patterns of buprenorphine episodes during the pandemic and how those patterns compared to pre-pandemic patterns. DESIGN: Pharmacy claims representing approximately 92% of all prescriptions filled at retail pharmacies in all 50 US states and the District of Columbia. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals filling buprenorphine prescriptions indicated for treatment of opioid use disorder. MAIN MEASURES: The number of active, starting, and ending buprenorphine treatment episodes March 13 to December 1, 2020, and the expected number of such episodes in 2020 based on the growth in treatment episodes from March 13 to December 1, 2019. KEY RESULTS: The observed number of active buprenorphine episodes in December 2020 was comparable to the expected number, but new treatment episodes starting between March 13 and December 1, 2020, were 17.2% fewer than expected based on the 2019 experience. Similarly, the number of episodes that ended between March 13 and December 1, 2020, was 16.0% fewer than expected. Decreases from expected episode starts and ends occurred throughout the period but were greatest in the 2 months after the declaration of the public health emergency. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Beneath the apparent stability of buprenorphine patient numbers during the pandemic, the flow of individuals receiving buprenorphine treatment changed substantially. Our findings shed light on how policy changes meant to support buprenorphine prescribing influenced prescribing dynamics during that period, suggesting that while policy efforts may have been successful in maintaining existing patients in treatment, that success did not extend to individuals not yet in treatment.

Subsequent Buprenorphine Treatment Following Emergency Physician Buprenorphine Prescription Fills: A National Assessment 2019 to 2020.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder provided in the emergency department with subsequent buprenorphine treatment by community prescribers is associated with improved outcomes, but the frequency with which this occurs is unknown. We examined the rates of subsequent buprenorphine treatment for buprenorphine-naïve individuals filling buprenorphine prescriptions from emergency physicians and initiated buprenorphine treatment and how such rates varied before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: Using pharmacy claims capturing an estimated 92% of prescriptions filled at US retail pharmacies, we identified buprenorphine prescriptions filled between February 1, 2019, and November 30, 2020, written by emergency physicians. In this observational study, we calculated the rate at which patients subsequently filled buprenorphine prescriptions from other nonemergency clinicians, the frequency with which subsequent filled prescriptions were from different types of prescribers, and the changes in the rates of subsequent prescriptions following the declaration of the COVID-19 public health emergency. RESULTS: We identified 22,846 prescriptions written by emergency physicians and filled by buprenorphine-naïve patients. They were most commonly paid for by Medicaid and were in metropolitan counties; 28.5% of patients subsequently filled buprenorphine prescriptions written by other clinicians. Adult primary care physicians and advanced practice providers (eg, physician assistants and nurse practitioners) were responsible for most of the subsequent prescriptions. The rates of subsequent prescriptions were 3.5% lower after the COVID-19 public health emergency declaration. CONCLUSION: The majority of patients filling buprenorphine prescriptions written by emergency physicians do not subsequently fill prescriptions written by other clinicians, and the rates of subsequent prescriptions were lower after the declaration of the COVID-19 public health emergency. These findings highlight the need for a system of care that improves buprenorphine treatment continuity of care for patients with opioid use disorder from emergency settings to community treatment providers.

Trends in visits to substance use disorder treatment facilities in 2020.

OBJECTIVE: To describe weekly changes in the number of substance use disorder treatment (SUDT) facility visits in 2020 compared to 2019 using cell phone location data. METHODS: We calculated the percentage weekly change in visits to SUDT facilities from the week of January 5 through the week of October 11, 2020, relative to the week of January 6 through the week of October 13, 2019. We stratified facilities by county COVID-19 incidence per 10,000 residents in each week and by 2018 fatal drug overdose rate. Finally, we conducted a multivariable linear regression analysis examining percent change in visits per week as a function of county-level COVID-19 tercile, a series of calendar month indicators, and the interaction of county-level COVID-19 tercile and month. We repeated the regression analysis replacing COVID-19 tercile with overdose tercile. RESULTS: Beginning the eleventh week of 2020, the number of visits to SUDT facilities declined substantially, reaching a nadir of 48% of 2019 visits in early July. In contrast to January, there were significantly fewer visits in 2020 compared to 2019 in all subsequent months (p < 0.01 in all months). Multivariable regression results found that facilities in the tercile of counties experiencing the most COVID-19 cases had a significantly greater reduction in the number of SUDT visits in 2020 for the months of June through August than facilities in counties with the fewest COVID-19 rates (p < 0.05). The study found no statistically significant difference in the change in the number of visits by facilities in counties with historically different overdose rates. DISCUSSION: Our findings support the hypothesis that a reduction has occurred in the average weekly number of visits to SUDT facilities. The size of the effect differs based on the number of COVID-19 cases but not on historical overdose rate.