"A Lot of Things Stopped with COVID": Screening Pregnant Patients for Opioid Use and Related Conditions During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: We explored the impact of COVID-19 on universal screening programs for opioid use and related conditions among practicing clinicians or staff who work with pregnant patients. METHODS: Semi-structured, in-depth qualitative interviews (n = 15) were conducted with practicing clinicians or staff in West-Central Florida between May and October 2020, representing both a range of professions and clinical settings that serve pregnant patients. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and reviewed for accuracy. Independent coders conducted thematic content analysis iteratively in MaxQDA to identify emergent themes. RESULTS: Four main themes were identified: worsening health and life conditions of pregnant patients, impaired patient-provider interactions, lack of priority and resources, and conducting opioid screening remotely. Pregnant patients often faced worsening mental health, lack of connection with health care providers, and socioenvironmental factors that increased the risk of overdose and intimate partner violence. Health care providers and facilities faced an infectious disease pandemic that simultaneously increased mental burden and reduced resources. Telehealth improved access to health care for many, but also came with implementation challenges such as inadequate technology, the need to address barriers to developing rapport with patients, and difficulty with certain social screens. CONCLUSION: These themes describe facilitators of and barriers to implementing opioid and related screening programs during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as the increasing urgency of screening because of socioenvironmental factors. Patients, health care providers, and health practices may benefit from emergency plans that anticipate screening challenges given their increased importance during times of heightened risk, including disasters and epidemics.

Evaluation of workplace opioid prevention and response training for union and employer instructors and leadership.

OBJECTIVE: Opioids and the Workplace Prevention and Response (OWPR) Train-the-Trainer (TTT) and Leadership programs were piloted to improve trainees' abilities to conduct opioid awareness training and to introduce policies and programs in their workplaces. METHODS: The TTT (N = 54) and Leadership (N = 19) pilot trainees were administered voluntary pre- and post-training surveys and observed for discussion on knowledge and confidence regarding teaching and on workplace policies and workplace injury prevention related to opioids. RESULTS: Percentage agreement with correct responses for all TTT and 10 out of 14 (71.4 percent) Leadership knowledge and confidence questions increased significantly from pre- to post-test. CONCLUSION: We found some evidence that the OWPR TTT and Leadership training programs and materials were effective in improving trainee's abilities to conduct opioid awareness training and to introduce policies and programs to address opioids and the workplace.

Clients' experiences on North America's first take-home injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) program: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: To support public health measures during the COVID-19 pandemic, oral opioid agonist treatment (OAT) take-home doses were expanded in Western countries with positive results. Injectable OAT (iOAT) take-home doses were previously not an eligible option, and were made available for the first time in several sites to align with public health measures. Building upon these temporary risk-mitigating guidelines, a clinic in Vancouver, BC continued to offer two of a possible three daily doses of take-home injectable medications to eligible clients. The present study explores the processes through which take-home iOAT doses impacted clients' quality of life and continuity of care in real-life settings. METHODS: Three rounds of semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted over a period of seventeen months beginning in July 2021 with eleven participants receiving iOAT take-home doses at a community clinic in Vancouver, British Columbia. Interviews followed a topic guide that evolved iteratively in response to emerging lines of inquiry. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and then coded using NVivo 1.6 using an interpretive description approach. RESULTS: Participants reported that take-home doses granted them the freedom away from the clinic to have daily routines, form plans, and enjoy unstructured time. Participants appreciated the greater privacy, accessibility, and ability to engage in paid work. Furthermore, participants enjoyed greater autonomy to manage their medication and level of engagement with the clinic. These factors contributed to greater quality of life and continuity of care. Participants shared that their dose was too essential to divert and that they felt safe transporting and administering their medication off-site. In the future, all participants would like more accessible treatment such as access longer take-home prescriptions (e.g., one week), the ability to pick-up at different and convenient locations (e.g., community pharmacies), and a medication delivery service. CONCLUSIONS: Reducing the number of daily onsite injections from two or three to only one revealed the diversity of rich and nuanced needs that added flexibility and accessibility in iOAT can meet. Actions such as licencing diverse opioid medications/formulations, medication pick-up at community pharmacies, and a community of practice that supports clinical decisions are necessary to increase take-home iOAT accessibility.

Struggling With Recovery From Opioids: Who Is at Risk During COVID-19?

OBJECTIVES: Individuals in recovery from opioid use disorder (OUD) are vulnerable to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Recent findings suggest increased relapse risk and overdose linked to COVID-19-related stressors. We aimed to identify individual-level factors associated with COVID-19-related impacts on recovery. METHODS: This observational study (NCT04577144) enrolled 216 participants who previously partook in long-acting buprenorphine subcutaneous injection clinical trials (2015-2017) for OUD. Participants indicated how COVID-19 affected their recovery from substance use. A machine learning approach Classification and Regression Tree analysis examined the association of 28 variables with the impact of COVID-19 on recovery, including demographics, substance use, and psychosocial factors. Ten-fold cross-validation was used to minimize overfitting. RESULTS: Twenty-six percent of the sample reported that COVID-19 had made recovery somewhat or much harder. Past-month opioid use was higher among those who reported that recovery was harder compared with those who did not (51% vs 24%, respectively; P < 0.001). The final classification tree (overall accuracy, 80%) identified the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) as the strongest independent risk factor associated with reporting COVID-19 impact. Individuals with a BDI-II score ≥10 had 6.45 times greater odds of negative impact (95% confidence interval, 3.29-13.30) relative to those who scored <10. Among individuals with higher BDI-II scores, less progress in managing substance use and treatment of OUD within the past 2 to 3 years were also associated with negative impacts. CONCLUSIONS: These findings underscore the importance of monitoring depressive symptoms and perceived progress in managing substance use among those in recovery from OUD, particularly during large-magnitude crises.

Pregnancy, Opioid Use Disorder and COVID-19: An Evaluation of Acute Care Presentations During a Pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: The opioid epidemic has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in increased acute care opioid-related and overdose visits. We sought to assess how the pandemic may have impacted an obstetric cohort impacted by opioid misuse in the acute care context. METHODS: A retrospective review of acute care presentations of patients with concomitant pregnancy (Z33.1) and opioid-related diagnostic codes (T10 codes and/or F11) was conducted over a 24-month period (pre-COVID = March 2019 through February 2020, post-COVID = March 2020 through February 2021). Descriptive statistics and χ2 analysis of pre- versus post-COVID presentations were performed. RESULTS: A total of 193 individuals, 104 (53.9%) pre- and 89 (46.1%) post-COVID, accounting for 292 total encounters, 160 (54.8%) pre- and 132 (45.2%) post-COVID, were seen for acute care visits ( P = 0.84). Age ( P = 0.15), race ( P = 0.59), and insurance status ( P = 0.17) were similar pre- versus post-COVID. The majority of presentations, pre- (40.4%) and post-COVID (44.9%), were for opioid withdrawal ( P = 0.74). Although post-COVID individuals were more likely to lack prenatal care (48.3% versus 39.4% pre-COVID), this trend was not significant ( P = 0.19). Similar proportions of individuals were affected by pregnancy complications (51.9% pre-, 44.9% post-COVID; P = 0.30). Similar proportions of individuals were affected by adverse pregnancy outcomes (44.2% pre-, 48.3% post-COVID; P = 0.64). CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic did not have a statistically significant effect on opioid-related acute care presentations or outcomes for obstetric patients. In this acute care cohort, however, opioid misuse had significant general impact on pregnancy complications and outcomes, suggesting unmet needs in this population.

Deimplementation in the provision of opioid agonist treatment to achieve equity of care for people engaged in treatment: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Deimplementation, the removal or reduction of potentially hazardous approaches to care, is key to progressing social equity in health. While the benefits of opioid agonist treatment (OAT) are well-evidenced, wide variability in the provision of treatment attenuates positive outcomes. During the COVID-19 pandemic, OAT services deimplemented aspects of provision which had long been central to treatment in Australia; supervised dosing, urine drug screening, and frequent in-person attendance for review. This analysis explored how providers considered social inequity in health of patients in the deimplementation of restrictive OAT provision during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Between August and December 2020, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 29 OAT providers in Australia. Codes relating to the social determinants of client retention in OAT were clustered according to how providers considered deimplementation in relation to social inequities. Normalisation Process Theory was then used to analyse the clusters in relation to how providers understood their work during the COVID-19 pandemic as responding to systemic issues that condition OAT access. RESULTS: We explored four overarching themes based on constructs from Normalisation Process Theory: adaptive execution, cognitive participation, normative restructuring, and sustainment. Accounts of adaptive execution demonstrated tensions between providers' conceptions of equity and patient autonomy. Cognitive participation and normative restructuring were integral to the workability of rapid and drastic changes within the OAT services. Key transformative actors included communities of practice and "thought leaders" who had long supported deimplementation for more humane care. At this early stage of the pandemic, providers had already begun to consider how this period could inform sustainment of deimplementation. When considering a future, post-pandemic period, several providers expressed discomfort at operating with "evidence-enough" and called for narrowly defined types of data on adverse events (e.g. overdose) and expert consensus on takeaway doses. CONCLUSIONS: The possibilities for achieving social equity in health are limited by the divergent treatment goals of providers and people receiving OAT. Sustained and equitable deimplementation of obtrusive aspects of OAT provision require co-created treatment goals, patient-centred monitoring and evaluation, and access to a supportive community of practice for providers.

Clinics Optimizing MEthadone Take-homes for opioid use disorder (COMET): Protocol for a stepped-wedge randomized trial to facilitate clinic level changes.

INTRODUCTION: Regulatory changes made during the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE) that relaxed criteria for take-home dosing (THD) of methadone offer an opportunity to improve quality of care with a lifesaving treatment. There is a pressing need for research to study the long-term effects of the new PHE THD rules and to test data-driven interventions to promote more effective adoption by opioid treatment programs (OTPs). We propose a two-phase project to develop and test a multidimensional intervention for OTPs that leverages information from large State administrative data. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We propose a two-phased project to develop then test a multidimensional OTP intervention to address clinical decision making, regulatory confusion, legal liability concerns, capacity for clinical practice change, and financial barriers to THD. The intervention will include OTP THD specific dashboards drawn from multiple State databases. The approach will be informed by the Health Equity Implementation Framework (HEIF). In phase 1, we will employ an explanatory sequential mixed methods design to combine analysis of large state administrative databases-Medicaid, treatment registry, THD reporting-with qualitative interviews to develop and refine the intervention. In phase 2, we will conduct a stepped-wedge trial over three years with 36 OTPs randomized to 6 cohorts of a six-month clinic-level intervention. The trial will test intervention effects on OTP-level implementation outcomes and patient outcomes (1) THD use; 2) retention in care; and 3) adverse healthcare events). We will specifically examine intervention effects for Black and Latinx clients. A concurrent triangulation mixed methods design will be used: quantitative and qualitative data collection will occur concurrently and results will be integrated after analysis of each. We will employ generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) in the analysis of stepped-wedge trials. The primary outcome will be weekly or greater THD. The semi-structured interviews will be transcribed and analyzed with Dedoose to identify key facilitators, barriers, and experiences according to HEIF constructs using directed content analysis. DISCUSSION: This multi-phase, embedded mixed methods project addresses a critical need to support long-term practice changes in methadone treatment for opioid use disorder following systemic changes emerging from the PHE-particularly for Black and Latinx individuals with opioid use disorder. By combining findings from analyses of large administrative data with lessons gleaned from qualitative interviews of OTPs that were flexible with THD and those that were not, we will build and test the intervention to coach clinics to increase flexibility with THD. The findings will inform policy at the local and national level.

Estimated Reductions in Opioid Overdose Deaths With Sustainment of Public Health Interventions in 4 US States.

Importance: In 2021, more than 80 000 US residents died from an opioid overdose. Public health intervention initiatives, such as the Helping to End Addiction Long-term (HEALing) Communities Study (HCS), are being launched with the goal of reducing opioid-related overdose deaths (OODs). Objective: To estimate the change in the projected number of OODs under different scenarios of the duration of sustainment of interventions, compared with the status quo. Design, Setting, and Participants: This decision analytical model simulated the opioid epidemic in the 4 states participating in the HCS (ie, Kentucky, Massachusetts, New York, and Ohio) from 2020 to 2026. Participants were a simulated population transitioning from opioid misuse to opioid use disorder (OUD), overdose, treatment, and relapse. The model was calibrated using 2015 to 2020 data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and other sources for each state. The model accounts for reduced initiation of medications for OUD (MOUDs) and increased OODs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Exposure: Increasing MOUD initiation by 2- or 5-fold, improving MOUD retention to the rates achieved in clinical trial settings, increasing naloxone distribution efforts, and furthering safe opioid prescribing. An initial 2-year duration of interventions was simulated, with potential sustainment for up to 3 additional years. Main Outcomes and Measures: Projected reduction in number of OODs under different combinations and durations of sustainment of interventions. Results: Compared with the status quo, the estimated annual reduction in OODs at the end of the second year of interventions was 13% to 17% in Kentucky, 17% to 27% in Massachusetts, 15% to 22% in New York, and 15% to 22% in Ohio. Sustaining all interventions for an additional 3 years was estimated to reduce the annual number of OODs at the end of the fifth year by 18% to 27% in Kentucky, 28% to 46% in Massachusetts, 22% to 34% in New York, and 25% to 41% in Ohio. The longer the interventions were sustained, the better the outcomes; however, these positive gains would be washed out if interventions were not sustained. Conclusions and Relevance: In this decision analytical model study of the opioid epidemic in 4 US states, sustained implementation of interventions, including increased delivery of MOUDs and naloxone supply, was found to be needed to reduce OODs and prevent deaths from increasing again.

We need to talk: The urgent conversation on chronic pain, mental health, prescribing patterns and the opioid crisis.

The opioid crisis' pathways from first exposure onwards to eventual illnesses and fatalities are multiple, intertwined and difficult to dissect. Here, we offer a multidisciplinary appraisal of the relationships among mental health, chronic pain, prescribing patterns worldwide and the opioid crisis. Because the opioid crisis' toll is especially harsh on young people, emphasis is given on data regarding the younger strata of the population. Because analgesic opioid prescription constitute a recognised entry point towards misuse, opioid use disorder, and ultimately overdose, prescribing patterns across different countries are examined as a modifiable hazard factor along these pathways of risk. Psychiatrists are called to play a more compelling role in this urgent conversation, as they are uniquely placed to provide synthesis and lead action among the different fields of knowledge and care that lie at the crossroads of the opioid crisis. Psychiatrists are also ideally positioned to gauge and disseminate the foundations for diagnosis and clinical management of mental conditions associated with chronic pain, including the identification of hazardous and protective factors. It is our hope to spark more interdisciplinary exchanges and encourage psychiatrists worldwide to become leaders in an urgent conversation with interlocutors from the clinical and basic sciences, policy makers and stakeholders including clients and their families.

Community partner perspectives on the implementation of a novel safer supply program in Canada: a qualitative study of the MySafe Project.

BACKGROUND: The adulteration of the illicit drug supply with fentanyl and its analogues is driving the ongoing overdose crisis in North America. While various harm reduction interventions address overdose-related risks, there is growing interest in safer supply programs, including the MySafe Project which utilizes a biometric dispensing machine that provides pharmaceutical opioid alternatives to the toxic drug supply. However, the experiences and perspectives of professional community partners on program implementation remain unexplored. This study aims to examine professional community partner perspectives on the feasibility, as well as barriers and facilitators to the implementation of the MySafe program. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 17 professional community partners involved in program implementation across four pilot locations in Canada. Thematic analysis of interviews focused on perspectives on safer supply, barriers and facilitators faced during program implementation, and recommendations to inform future scale-up of low-barrier safer supply models across Canada. RESULTS: Participants identified a variety of barriers, including the dependence on clinician buy-in, coupled with regulatory and logistical constraints. In addition, some participants perceived hydromorphone to be an inadequate substitute to the increasingly toxic street opioid supply. Lastly, technical difficulties were described as barriers to service uptake and delivery. Conversely, having political and community buy-in, availability of wrap-around services, and collaborative communication from the MySafe team served as facilitators to program implementation. Though community partners preferred establishing MySafe machines into existing community organizations, they also discussed benefits of housing-based MySafe programs. The potential role of this program in mid-sized to rural cities was also emphasized. CONCLUSIONS: To address the overdose crisis, there is an urgent need to implement and evaluate novel solutions that address supply drivers of crisis. Community partner-informed research plays an integral role in ensuring program acceptability and proper implementation. Our findings identify current gaps and facilitators underlying the efficacy of one such model, together with future directions for improvement. Participant recommendations included a diversification of medications offered and types of locations for MySafe programs, a streamlined national approach to prescribing guidelines coupled with more robust training for healthcare professionals, and an emphasis on service delivery within an integrated services model. Our findings underscore a potential gap between the goals of healthcare providers in ensuring comprehensive care and the necessity for low-barrier models such as MySafe that can function both within and outside of integrated service models.

Smoking identified as preferred mode of opioid safe supply use; investigating correlates of smoking preference through a 2021 cross-sectional study in British Columbia.

BACKGROUND: The increasing number of illicit drug toxicity deaths in British Columbia (BC) has led to calls for a regulated (pharmaceutical grade) supply of substances ("safe supply"). In order to inform safe supply recommendations, we aimed to identify why people currently smoke opioids and assess the preferred mode of consumption if people who use opioids were provided with opioid safe supply. METHODS: The BC Harm Reduction Client Survey (HRCS) is an annual survey that gathers information about people who use drugs' (PWUD) substance use characteristic with the goal of contributing to evidence-based policy. This study utilized data from the 2021 HRCS. The outcome variable was "prefer smoking opioid safe supply" ('yes/no'). Explanatory variables included participants' demographics, drug use, and overdose characteristics. Bivariate and hierarchical multivariable logistic regressions were conducted to identify factors associated with the outcome. RESULTS: Of 282 total participants who indicated a preference for a mode of consumption for opioid safe supply, 62.4% preferred a smokable option and 19.9% preferred to inject if provided with opioid safe supply. Variables significantly associated with the outcome (preferred smoking) included: being 19-29 years old (AOR=5.95, CI =1.93 - 18.31) compared to >50 years old, having witnessed an overdose in the last 6 months (AOR=2.26, CI=1.20 - 4.28), having smoked opioids in the last 3 days (AOR=6.35, CI=2.98 - 13.53) and having a preference to smoke stimulants safe supply (AOR=5.04, CI=2.53 - 10.07). CONCLUSION: We found that over half of participants prefer smokable options when accessing opioid safe supply. Currently in BC, there are limited smokable opioid safe supply options as alternatives to the toxic street supply. To reduce overdose deaths, safe supply options should be expanded to accommodate PWUD that prefer smoking opioids.

The incidence of new and persistent benzodiazepine use after surgery.

BACKGROUND: It is possible that a portion of new and new persistent use of benzodiazepines is among individuals who start using the medications before or after surgery. We studied the incidence of new and new persistent benzodiazepine use among patients undergoing surgery. METHODS: Retrospective, single-center, population-based cohort of all individuals ≥18 years undergoing first surgery between January 2, 2006 and December 31, 2018 with a year of follow-up for filled medications. Benzodiazepine-naïve patients were defined as not filling a prescription from a year to 31 days before surgery. Patients with new use were naïve patients who filled a prescription between 30 days before and 14 days after surgery, and patients with new persistent use were patients with new use who filled a prescription between 15 days and a year after surgery. Patient and procedural characteristics and prescription filling patterns between the groups were compared. RESULTS: A total of 55,997 patients (32,136 women [57.4%]; median [interquartile range] age, 55 [39, 69] years) were included. The incidence of new use among naïve patients was 2.7% (95% confidence interval, 2.6%-2.8%; n = 1,311), and, of those, 43.7% (95% confidence interval, 41.0%-46.5%; n = 571) had new persistent benzodiazepine use. Approximately 10% of patients with new use filled a prescription for benzodiazepine in every 30-day window during the follow-up period. CONCLUSION: A small portion of surgical patients begin benzodiazepine use perioperatively, but subsequently half fill criteria for persistent use. This highlights the importance of identifying strategies to minimize both new use and the progression of new use into persistent use in surgical patients.

Considerations for the design of overdose education and naloxone distribution interventions: results of a multi-stakeholder workshop.

INTRODUCTION: Opioid overdose epidemic is a public health crisis that is impacting communities around the world. Overdose education and naloxone distribution programs equip and train lay people to respond in the event of an overdose. We aimed to understand factors to consider for the design of naloxone distribution programs in point-of-care settings from the point of view of community stakeholders. METHODS: We hosted a multi-stakeholder co-design workshop to elicit suggestions for a naloxone distribution program. We recruited people with lived experience of opioid overdose, community representatives, and other stakeholders from family practice, emergency medicine, addictions medicine, and public health to participate in a full-day facilitated co-design discussion wherein large and small group discussions were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using thematic approaches. RESULTS: A total of twenty-four participants participated in the multi-stakeholder workshop from five stakeholder groups including geographic and setting diversity. Collaborative dialogue and shared storytelling revealed seven considerations for the design of naloxone distribution programs specific to training needs and the provision of naloxone, these are: recognizing overdose, how much naloxone, impact of stigma, legal risk of responding, position as conventional first aid, friends and family as responders, support to call 911. CONCLUSION: To create an naloxone distribution program in emergency departments, family practice and substance use treatment services, stigma is a central design consideration for training and naloxone kits. Design choices that reference the iconography, type, and form of materials associated with first aid have the potential to satisfy the need to de-stigmatize overdose response.

Public transport access to drug treatment before and during COVID-19: Implications for the opioid epidemic.

Public transport disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic had wide-ranging impacts on the ability of individuals to access health care. Individuals with opioid use disorder represent an especially vulnerable population due to the necessity of frequent, supervised doses of opioid agonists. Focused on Toronto, a major Canadian city suffering from the opioid epidemic, this analysis uses novel realistic routing methodologies to quantify how travel times to individuals\220 nearest clinics changed due to public transport disruptions from 2019 to 2020. Individuals seeking opioid agonist treatment face very constrained windows of access due to the need to manage work and other essential activities. We find that thousands of households in the most materially and socially deprived neighbourhoods crossed 30 and 20-minute travel time thresholds to their nearest clinic. As even small changes to travel times can lead to missed appointments and heighten the chances of overdose and death, understanding the distribution of those most impacted can help inform future policy measures to ensure adequate access to care.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on chronic pain and opioid use in marginalized populations: A scoping review.

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a variable effect on vulnerable populations, including patients with chronic pain who rely on opioid treatment or have comorbid opioid use disorder. Limited access to care due to isolation measures may lead to increased pain severity, worse mental health symptoms, and adverse opioid-related outcomes. This scoping review aimed to understand the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the dual epidemics of chronic pain and opioids in marginalized communities worldwide. Methods: Searches of primary databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and PsycINFO were performed in March 2022, restricting the publication date to December 1, 2019. The search yielded 685 articles. After title and abstract screening, 526 records were screened by title and abstract, 87 through full-text review, of which 25 articles were included in the final analysis. Results: Our findings illuminate the differential distribution of pain burden across marginalized groups and how it serves to heighten existing disparities. Service disruptions due to social distancing orders and infrastructural limitations prevented patients from receiving the care they needed, resulting in adverse psychological and physical health outcomes. Efforts to adapt to COVID-19 circumstances included modifications to opioid prescribing regulations and workflows and expanded telemedicine services. Conclusion: Results have implications for the prevention and management of chronic pain and opioid use disorder, such as challenges in adopting telemedicine in low-resource settings and opportunities to strengthen public health and social care systems with a multidisciplinary and multidimensional approach.

COVID-19-Related Changes to Drug-Selling Networks and Their Effects on People Who Use Illicit Opioids.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly affected people's ability to buy, sell, and obtain items that they use in their daily lives. It may have had a particularly negative effect on the ability of people who use illicit opioids to obtain them because the networks they relied on are illicit and not part of the formal economy. Our objective in this research was to examine if, and how, disruptions related to COVID-19 of illicit opioid markets have affected people who use illicit opioids. METHOD: We collected 300 posts--including replies to posts--related to the intersection of COVID-19 and opioid use from Reddit.com, a forum that has several discussion threads (i.e., subreddits) dedicated to opioids. We then coded posts from the two most popular opioid subreddits during the early pandemic period (March 5, 2020-May 13, 2020) using an inductive/deductive approach. RESULTS: We found two themes related to active opioid use during the early pandemic: (a) changes in drug supply and difficulty obtaining opioids, and (b) buying less-trustworthy drugs from lesser-known sources. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that COVID-19 has created market conditions that place people who use opioids at risk of adverse outcomes, such as fatal overdose.

Acceptability of a Fentanyl Vaccine to Prevent Opioid Overdose and Need for Personalized Decision-Making.

BACKGROUND: The opioid epidemic worsened during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Synthetic opioids (primarily fentanyl) comprise the most common drugs involved in overdose (OD) death. A vaccine that blocks fentanyl from reaching the brain to prevent OD is under development, and insight is needed into its acceptability. METHODS: Using a semi-structured interview guide, persons with opioid use disorder (OUD), family, professionals, and the public were interviewed about attitudes and concerns regarding a fentanyl vaccine. Reactions to fictional clinical vignettes of persons at risk of OUD because of pain and/or substance use histories were collected, analyzed, and quantified for favorability. Interviews were transcribed, coded, and analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Among N = 64 participants, (70.3% female, average age 32.4 years), attitudes were favorable toward a fentanyl vaccine, with preference for lifelong durability (76% of n = 55 asked). Perceived benefits centered on the potential for a life-saving intervention, suffering averted, healthcare dollars saved, and the utility of a passive harm reduction strategy. Concerns centered on uncertainty regarding vaccine safety, questions about efficacy, worry about implications for future pain management, stigma, and need for supportive counseling and guidance to personalize decision making. Reactions to vignettes revealed complex attitudes toward fentanyl vaccination when considering recipient age, health history, and future risks for addiction and pain. CONCLUSIONS: Positive responses to a fentanyl vaccine were found along with appreciation for the complexity of a vaccine strategy to prevent OD in the setting of pain and uncertain durability. Further research is needed to elucidate operational, ethical, and communications strategies to advance the model.

The increase in benzodiazepine-laced drugs and related risks in Canada: The urgent need for effective and sustainable solutions.

The overdose crisis in Canada has continuously evolved and is increasingly challenging to contain, while efforts from governments and policymakers to address it have often fallen short and resulted in unintended consequences. One of the main repercussions has been an unprecedented rise in adulterants in the illegal drug supply, including a wide array of pharmacological and psychoactive compounds and chemicals, which has resulted in a progressively toxic drug supply. Most recently, there has been a stark increase in synthetic benzodiazepine-laced opioids (i.e., 'benzodope') in some Canadian jurisdictions. This unique combination carries distinct and amplified risks for people who use drugs including fatal and non-fatal overdoses, increased dependence and withdrawal symptoms, and places them in extremely vulnerable positions. The emergence of benzodiazepines within the illicit drug supply has substantially contributed to drug-related morbidity and mortality in Canada, and has further complicated current public health initiatives and overdose prevention efforts. This reality underscores the need for effective and sustainable policy solutions to address the evolving overdose epidemic including increased knowledge and education on the specific harms of opioid and benzodiazepine co-use (especially in regards to the complexity of opioid/benzodiazepine overdoses), scaling-up harm reduction measures, and eliminating the toxic drug supply altogether.