Predictors of opioid overdose during the COVID-19 pandemic: The role of relapse, treatment access and nonprescribed buprenorphine/naloxone.

INTRODUCTION: Emerging data indicate a disproportionate increase in overdose deaths since the onset of COVID-19. Speculation about causes for the increase center on rising drug use, illicit drug supply changes, and reduced treatment access. Possible overdose mitigation factors include reduced federal MOUD prescribing restrictions, naloxone distribution programs, and increased use of telehealth. Similarly, nonprescribed buprenorphine (NPB) use, increasingly described as a harm reduction strategy in the absence of treatment, may have moderated overdose risk. This study explored factors associated with pandemic-related overdose in people who use opioids (PWUO) in New Jersey. METHODS: We surveyed 342 PWUO from March to May 2021. Approximately 50 % of our sample was treated at some time since the COVID-19 emergency declaration in March 2020. The risk and protective factors associated with overdose were identified using Pearson's chi square test and ANOVA and tested in a series of multivariable logistic regression models for the full sample and the subsample of PWUO treated during the pandemic. RESULTS: Forty-eight percent of respondents increased their drug use during the pandemic, including 32 % who relapsed after previous abstinence. Fifteen percent overdosed at least once since March 2020. In the full sample, overdose was associated with Hispanic ethnicity (AOR = 3.51; 95 % CI = 1.22-10.11), pre-pandemic overdose (AOR = 6.75; 95 % CI = 3.03-15.02), lack/loss of medical insurance (AOR = 3.02; 95 % CI = 1.01-9.02), relapse (AOR = 2.94; 95 % CI = 1.36-6.36), and nonprescribed use of buprenorphine/naloxone (AOR = 3.16; 95 % CI = 1.49-6.70). The study found similar trends in the treatment sample, with the exceptions that heroin/fentanyl use also predicted overdose (AOR = 3.43; 95 % CI = 1.20-9.78) and the association of overdose with nonprescribed buprenorphine/naloxone was stronger (AOR = 4.91; 95 % CI = 2.01-12.03). Potential mitigating factors, such as take-home methadone and telehealth, were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Relapse during the pandemic was widespread and a significant contributor to overdose. Lack/loss of medical insurance further exacerbated the risk. Despite the growing literature reporting "therapeutic" use of NPB, people using nonprescribed buprenorphine/naloxone in the current study experienced up to five times the risk of overdose as nonusers. This finding suggests that, despite therapeutic intent, PWUO may be using NPB in ways that are ineffectual for addiction management, especially in the context of changing buprenorphine induction protocols in the context of fentanyl.

Adapting Peer Researcher Facilitated Strategies to Recruit People Receiving Mental Health Services to a Tobacco Treatment Trial.

Introduction: One of the most challenging aspects of conducting intervention trials among people who experience severe mental illness (SMI) and who smoke tobacco, is recruitment. In our parent "QuitLink" randomized controlled trial (RCT), slower than expected peer researcher facilitated recruitment, along with the impact of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions, necessitated an adaptive recruitment response. The objectives of the present study were to: (i) describe adaptive peer researcher facilitated recruitment strategies; (ii) explore the effectiveness of these strategies; (iii) investigate whether recruitment strategies reached different subgroups of participants; and (iv) examine the costs and resources required for implementing these strategies. Finally, we offer experience-based lessons in a Peer Researcher Commentary. Methods: People were included in the RCT if they smoked at least 10 cigarettes a day and were accessing mental health support from the project's two partnering mental health organizations in Victoria, Australia. The majority of people accessing these services will have been diagnosed with SMI. Recruitment occurred over 2 years. We began with peer facilitated recruitment strategies delivered face-to-face, then replaced this with direct mail postcards followed by telephone contact. In the final 4 months of the study, we began online recruitment, broadening it to people who smoked and were accessing support or treatment (including from general practitioners) for mental health and/or alcohol or other drug problems, anywhere in the state of Victoria. Differences between recruitment strategies on key participant variables were assessed. We calculated the average cost per enrolee of the different recruitment approaches. Results: Only 109 people were recruited from a target of 382: 29 via face-to-face (March 2019 to April 2020), 66 from postcards (May 2020 to November 2020), and 14 from online (November to December 2020 and January to March 2021) strategies. Reflecting our initial focus on recruiting from supported independent living accommodation facilities, participants recruited face-to-face were significantly more likely to be living in partially or fully supported independent living (n = 29, <0.001), but the samples were otherwise similar. After the initial investment in training and equipping peer researchers, the average cost of recruitment was AU$1,182 per participant-~US$850. Face-to-face recruitment was the most expensive approach and postcard recruitment the least (AU$1,648 and AU$928 per participant). Discussion: Peer researcher facilitated recruitment into a tobacco treatment trial was difficult and expensive. Widely dispersed services and COVID-19 restrictions necessitated non-face-to-face recruitment strategies, such as direct mail postcards, which improved recruitment and may be worthy of further research. Clinical Trial Registration: The trial is registered with ANZCTR (www.anzctr.org.au): ACTRN12619000244101 prior to the accrual of the first participant and updated regularly as per registry guidelines. The trial sponsor was the University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia.

Theory-Informed Models: Application to Nursing Practice.

The processes for review and confirmation of a theoretical model, its translation into current clinical practice, and the evaluation of outcomes will be presented. The authors' experience at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance in Washington illustrates the value and relevance of theoretical models in oncology care.