"As long as that place stays open, I'll stay alive": Accessing injectable opioid agonist treatment during dual public health crises.

BACKGROUND: Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, overdose rates in North America have continued to rise, with more than 100,000 drug poisoning deaths in the past year. Amidst an increasingly toxic drug supply, the pandemic disrupted essential substance use treatment and harm reduction services that reduce overdose risk for people who use drugs. In British Columbia, one such treatment is injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT), the supervised dispensation of injectable hydromorphone or diacetylmorphine for people with opioid use disorder. While evidence has shown iOAT to be safe and effective, it is intensive and highly regimented, characterized by daily clinic visits and provider-client interaction-treatment components made difficult by the pandemic. METHODS: Between April 2020 and February 2021, we conducted 51 interviews with 18 iOAT clients and two clinic nurses to understand how the pandemic shaped iOAT access and treatment experiences. To analyze interview data, we employed a multi-step, flexible coding strategy, an iterative and abductive approach to analysis, using NVivo software. RESULTS: Qualitative analysis revealed the ways in which the pandemic shaped clients' lives and the provision of iOAT care. First, client narratives illuminated how the pandemic reinforced existing inequities. For example, socioeconomically marginalized clients expressed concerns around their financial stability and economic impacts on their communities. Second, clients with health comorbidities recognized how the pandemic amplified health risks, through potential COVID-19 exposure or by limiting social connection and mental health supports. Third, clients described how the pandemic changed their engagement with the iOAT clinic and medication. For instance, clients noted that physical distancing guidelines and occupancy limits reduced opportunities for social connection with staff and other iOAT clients. However, pandemic policies also created opportunities to adapt treatment in ways that increased patient trust and autonomy, for example through more flexible medication regimens and take-home oral doses. CONCLUSION: Participant narratives underscored the unequal distribution of pandemic impacts for people who use drugs but also highlighted opportunities for more flexible, patient-centered treatment approaches. Across treatment settings, pandemic-era changes that increase client autonomy and ensure equitable access to care are to be continued and expanded, beyond the duration of the pandemic.

"COVID just kind of opened a can of whoop-ass": The rapid growth of safer supply prescribing during the pandemic documented through an environmental scan of addiction and harm reduction services in Canada.

OBJECTIVES: In the context of the ongoing overdose crisis, a stark increase in toxic drug deaths from the unregulated street supply accompanied the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT - hydromorphone or medical-grade heroin), tablet-based iOAT (TiOAT), and safer supply prescribing are emerging interventions used to address this crisis in Canada. Given rapid clinical guidance and policy change to enable their local adoption, our objectives were to describe the state of these interventions before the pandemic, and to document and explain changes in implementation during the early pandemic response (March-May 2020). METHODS: Surveys and interviews with healthcare providers comprised this mixed methods national environmental scan of iOAT, TiOAT, and safer supply across Canada at two time points. Quantitative data were summarized using descriptive statistics; interview data were coded and analyzed thematically. RESULTS: 103 sites in 6 Canadian provinces included 19 iOAT, 3 TiOAT and 21 safer supply sites on March 1, 2020; 60 new safer supply sites by May 1 represented a 285% increase. Most common substances were opioids, available at all sites; most common settings were addiction treatment programs and primary care clinics, and onsite pharmacies models. 79% of safer supply services were unfunded. Diversity in service delivery models demonstrated broad adaptability. Qualitative data reinforced the COVID-19 pandemic as the driving force behind scale-up. DISCUSSION: Data confirmed the capacity for rapid scale-up of flexible, community-based safer supply prescribing during dual public health emergencies. Geographical, client demographic, and funding gaps highlight the need to target barriers to implementation, service delivery and sustainability.

The changing landscape of pharmaceutical alternatives to the unregulated drug supply during COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The dual COVID-19 and overdose emergencies amplified strain on healthcare systems tasked with responding to both. One downstream consequence of the pandemic in the USA and Canada was a surge in drug overdoses resulting from public health-restricted access to services and an increasingly toxic unregulated drug supply. This study aimed to describe changes implemented by programs prescribing pharmaceutical alternatives to the drug supply during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: An environmental scan used surveys and qualitative interviews with service providers across Canada to examine pharmaceutical alternative prescribing practices and programs before and during the pandemic. This study summarized the nature, frequency, and reasons for pandemic-driven service delivery changes using directed content analysis, counts, and thematic analysis. RESULTS: Eighty-two of the 103 participating sites reported 1193 unique changes in physical space (368), client protocols (347), program operations (342), ancillary services (127), and staffing (90). Four qualitative themes describing the reasons for these changes emerged, namely (1) decreasing risk of COVID-19 infection; (2) decreasing risk of overdose; (3) prioritizing acute care of COVID-19 patients; and (4) improving client access to treatment. CONCLUSIONS: While most changes were aimed at decreasing risk of COVID-19 infection, some were found to be at odds with the measures needed to combat the overdose crisis; others met dual objectives of decreased risk of both overdose and infection. Further research should examine which changes should be kept or reversed once COVID-19-related public health measures are lifted.

Take home injectable opioids for opioid use disorder during and after the COVID-19 Pandemic is in urgent need: a case study.

BACKGROUND: In North America the opioid poisoning crisis currently faces the unprecedented challenges brought by the COVID-19 pandemic, further straining people and communities already facing structural and individual vulnerabilities. People with opioid use disorder (OUD) are facing unique challenges in response to COVID-19, such as not being able to adopt best practices (e.g., physical distancing) if they're financially insecure or living in shelters (or homeless). They also have other medical conditions that make them more likely to be immunocompromised and at risk of developing COVID-19. In response to the COVID-19 public health emergency, national and provincial regulatory bodies introduced guidance and exemptions to mitigate the spread of the virus. Among them, clinical guidance for prescribers were issued to allow take home opioid medications for opioid agonist treatment (OAT). Take Home for injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) is only considered within a restrictive regulatory structure, specific to the pandemic. Nevertheless, this risk mitigation guidance allowed carries, mostly daily dispensed, to a population that would not have access to it prior to the pandemic. In this case it is presented and discussed that if a carry was possible during the pandemic, then the carry could continue post COVID-19 to address a gap in our approach to individualize care for people with OUD receiving iOAT. CASE PRESENTATION: Here we present the first case of a patient in Canada with long-term OUD that received take home injectable diacetylmorphine to self-isolate in an approved site after being diagnosed with COVID-19 during a visit to the emergency room where he was diagnosed with cellulitis and admitted to receive antibiotics. CONCLUSION: In the present case we demonstrated that it is feasible to provide iOAT outside the community clinic with no apparent negative consequences. Improving upon and making permanent these recently introduced risk mitigating guidance during COVID-19, have the potential not just to protect during the pandemic, but also to address long-overdue barriers to access evidence-based care in addiction treatment.