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.

Neuromodulation and Opioid Use Disorder: Ethical Opportunities for Canada.

Despite increased efforts of government and non-government organisations to intervene via harm reduction and education initiatives, the opioid crisis has continued to worsen and has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. In British Columbia, Canada, opioid overdose deaths in 2021 are the highest ever recorded. Neuromodulation procedures such as deep brain stimulation and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation have gained traction as treatments for opioid use disorder in various countries such as Germany, the Netherlands, the United States and China. However, these treatment options have been met with apprehension from both clinicians and patients, likely owing to fear, stigma and reluctance to label addiction as a brain disorder. Further complicating this landscape are socio-demographic factors, as marginalised communities are disproportionately burdened by addiction, while having poor access to care and a history of distrust in the health system. This multifactorial challenge involving many sociocultural factors requires culturally sensitive, interdisciplinary approaches to ensure direct-to-brain innovations are implemented ethically and equitably. This review summarises the state of the science for using neuromodulation to treat opioid use disorder, as well as the available ethical discourse surrounding the expansion of clinical trials and eventual widespread clinical implementation. Additional ethics discussions highlight opportunities for the engineering and clinical evolution of neuromodulation for opioid use disorder trials.

Experiences of patients at high risk of opioid overdose accessing emergency department and behavioral health interventions: a qualitative analysis in an urban emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Emergency Departments (EDs) have become critical 'touchpoints' for the identification and early engagement of patients at risk of overdose or who have an opioid use disorder (OUD). Our objectives were to examine patients' ED experiences, identify barriers and facilitators of service uptake in ED settings, and explore patients' experiences with ED staff. METHODS: This qualitative study was part of a randomized controlled trial that evaluated the effectiveness of clinical social workers and certified peer recovery specialists in increasing treatment uptake and reducing opioid overdose rates for people with OUD. Between September 2019 and March 2020, semi-structured interviews were conducted 19 participants from the trial. Interviews sought to assess participants' ED care experiences across intervention type (i.e., clinical social worker or peer recovery specialist). Participants were purposively sampled across intervention arm (social work, n = 11; peer recovery specialist, n = 7; control, n = 1). Data were analyzed thematically with a focus on participant experiences in the ED and social and structural factors shaping care experiences and service utilization. RESULTS: Participants reported varied ED experiences, including instances of discrimination and stigma due to their substance use. However, participants underscored the need for increased engagement of people with lived experience in ED settings, including the use of peer recovery specialists. Participants highlighted that ED provider interactions were critical drivers of shaping care and service utilization and needed to be improved across EDs to improve post-overdose care. CONCLUSIONS: While the ED provides an opportunity to reach patients at risk of overdose, our results demonstrate how ED-based interactions and service provision can impact ED care engagement and service utilization. Modifications to care delivery may improve experiences for patients with OUD or at high risk for overdose. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trial registration: NCT03684681.

Telemedicine in the treatment of addictions.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this update is to provide an overview of recent research publications (January 2020-January 2022) on real-time telemedicine solutions for the management of addictions (alcohol, tobacco, opioids, and other drugs). RECENT FINDINGS: Motivational interviewing by real-time telemedicine showed effectiveness in youth and adults for risky alcohol use and alcohol use disorders, even when a concurrent mental health disorder exists. Live telemedicine is well accepted for managing tobacco use disorders. The range of interventions for treating opioid use disorder by real-time telemedicine is large and has been increased due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic (prescription of opioid agonists, peer-to-peer support, counseling, and group therapy). SUMMARY: The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the implementation of real-time telemedicine and, in parallel, research has been conducted to test its effectiveness. Videoconferencing and telephone interventions are supported by solid evidence for risky alcohol use and alcohol use disorder, tobacco use disorder and opioid use disorder. The Integration of other types of telemedicine (asynchronous telemedicine and remote monitoring) and with the entire health system is lacking. Many areas and vulnerable populations (e.g., homeless, elderly, and cannabis use disorders) need more attention.

Telehealth for management of chronic non-cancer pain and opioid use disorder in safety net primary care.

BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic increased use of telehealth for the management of opioid use disorder and chronic non-cancer pain in primary care safety net clinical systems. Significant barriers to telehealth exist, little is known about how these barriers impact urban safety net, primary care providers and their patients. The objective of this study was to qualitatively assess the benefits and challenges of telehealth for management of chronic non-cancer pain, opioid use disorder, and multi-morbidity in primary care, safety net clinical systems. METHODS: We interviewed patients with chronic non-cancer pain and history of substance use (n = 22) and their primary care clinicians (n = 7) in the San Francisco Bay Area, March-July 2020. We recorded, transcribed, coded, and content analyzed interviews. RESULTS: COVID-19 shelter-in-place orders contributed to increases in substance use and uncontrolled pain, and posed challenges for monitoring opioid safety and misuse through telehealth. None of the clinics used video visits due to low digital literacy/access. Benefits of telehealth included decreased patient burden and missed appointments and increased convenience and control of some chronic conditions (e.g., diabetes, hypertension). Telehealth challenges included loss of contact, greater miscommunication, and less comprehensive care interactions. CONCLUSIONS: This study is one of the first to examine telehealth use in urban safety net primary care patients with co-occurring chronic non-cancer pain and substance use. Decisions to continue or expand telehealth should consider patient burden, communication and technology challenges, pain control, opioid misuse, and medical complexity.

Telemedicine Use and Quality of Opioid Use Disorder Treatment in the US During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Little is known about the potential implications of the rapid transition to telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic for treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD). Objective: To examine the association between telemedicine adoption during the COVID-19 pandemic and indicators of OUD treatment quality. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study analyzed deidentified administrative claims data from OptumLabs Data Warehouse. Claims for telemedicine visits were included for both the prepandemic period (March 14, 2019, to March 13, 2020) and pandemic period (March 14, 2020, to March 13, 2021). Patients with OUD and continuous enrollment in either commercial insurance or Medicare Advantage plans were included. Clinicians who provided office-based OUD care were included and categorized into low, medium, or high telemedicine use groups. Patients were attributed to the clinician (and corresponding telemedicine use group) from whom they received a plurality of OUD visits. Main Outcomes and Measures: The 4 outcomes were all outpatient visits, OUD visits (in person vs telemedicine) within 90 days of an index visit, medications for OUD (MOUD) prescribing, and OUD-related clinical events (including drug overdose, inpatient detoxification and rehabilitation center stay, or injection drug use-related infections). Results: The analysis included 11 801 patients (mean [SD] age, 53.9 [15.7] years; 5902 males [50.0%]) who were treated by 1768 clinicians. Clinicians with low vs high telemedicine use conducted a mean (SD) of 2.1% (2.5%) vs 69.5% (18.6%) of their office visits virtually in the pandemic period. While telemedicine use for OUD increased significantly from the prepandemic to pandemic periods, total OUD visit volume (in person plus telemedicine) per patient episode remained stable among both high (2.6 to 2.7 visits per patient episode) and low (3.1 to 3.3 visits per patient episode) telemedicine use groups. In adjusted analyses comparing the prepandemic with pandemic periods, there was no differential change in MOUD initiation (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.00; 95% CI, 0.84-1.19), MOUD days' supply (differential change in days' supply, -0.27; 95% CI, -1.84 to 1.30), or OUD-related clinical events (adjusted OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.73-1.24) among patients who were treated by clinicians in low vs high telemedicine use groups. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this study revealed that clinical outcomes were similar among patients who were treated by clinicians with high and low telemedicine use during the COVID-19 pandemic, suggesting that telemedicine is a comparable alternative to in-person OUD care. There was no evidence that telemedicine was associated with increased access to or improved quality of OUD treatment.

Outcomes of patients with COVID-19 in the setting of chronic opioid use disorder.

BACKGROUND: There are limited studies regarding the effects of COVID-19 in patients with a concurrent diagnosis of opioid use disorder (OUD). Due to the rapidly developing nature and consequences of this disease, it is important to identify patients at an increased risk for serious illness. The aim of this study was to identify whether COVID-19 patients with OUD are at an increased risk of hospitalization and other adverse outcomes. METHODS: This retrospective chart review compared clinical parameters from patients with positive COVID-19 status as identified by a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test and diagnosed OUD at the University of Utah Health. The primary outcome variables were hospitalization for COVID-19, length of hospital stay, and the presence of comorbidities in the OUD patient population. Descriptive statistics and prevalence ratios (PRs) were generated. Log binomial models generated PRs adjusted by age, sex, and race, and comorbidities of asthma, pneumonia, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes. RESULTS: COVID-19 patients with OUD were significantly more likely than patients without OUD to have asthma (p < 0.01), diabetes (p < 0.01), hypertension (p < 0.01), cardiovascular disease (p < 0.01), and chronic pneumonia (p < 0.01), and to be hospitalized (27.9 percent vs 3.6 percent; p < 0.01), admitted to the intensive care unit (11.5 percent vs 1.5 percent; p < 0.01), and receive mechanical ventilation (30.5 percent vs 0.1 percent; p < 0.01). After adjusting for age, sex, race, asthma, pneumonia, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, and diabetes, patients with OUD continued to be at increased risk for inpatient hospitalization (aPR = 4.27, 95 percent confidence interval [CI] = 1.66-10.94). Patients with OUD also averaged longer stays in the hospital than those without OUD (9.53 days vs 0.70 days, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients with a diagnosis of OUD in the presence of COVID-19 are more likely to be hospitalized, have underlying health issues, and have longer hospital inpatient stays compared to patients without OUD.

Healthcare Utilization of Patients with Opioid Use Disorder in US Hospitals from 2016 to 2019: Focusing on Racial and Regional Variances.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of US population-based research on healthcare utilization differences caused by opioid misuse. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore disparities in healthcare utilization by type of opioid use disorder, race, region, and other patient factors for a more targeted prevention and treatment program. METHODS: The National Inpatient Sample of the United States was used to identify patients with opioid use disorder (n = 101,231, weighted n = 506,155) from 2016 to 2019. Type of opioid use disorder was defined as opioid dependence/unspecified use, adverse effects of opioids, opioid misuse, and opioid poisoning (also known as overdose). We examined the sample characteristics and the association between type of disorder, racial and regional variables, and healthcare utilization, measured by hospital charges and length of stay. The multivariate survey linear regression model was used. RESULTS: Among 506,155 patients, most were categorized as opioid dependence/unspecified use (56.3%) and opioid poisoning (42.7%). The number of opioid use disorder patients during the study decreased; however, overall total charges and length of stay continuously increased. Survey linear results showed that opioid poisoning, adverse effects, and abuse were associated with higher hospital charges than opioid dependence; however, length of stay was significantly lower for these groups. White patients compared with minorities, and West, Northeast, and South regions were associated with higher hospital charges and length of stay. CONCLUSION: Significant differences in healthcare utilization exist between type of disorder, race, and region. Such findings illustrate that tailored treatment regimens are required to bridge the gaps in care and combat the opioid crisis. Minorities with opioid use disorder utilize healthcare the least, possibly because of affordability, and need culturally sensitive and financially feasible treatment options.

Intersecting substance use treatment and harm reduction services: exploring the characteristics and service needs of a community-based sample of people who use drugs.

BACKGROUND: Substance use treatment and harm reduction services are essential components of comprehensive strategies for reducing the harms of drug use and overdose. However, these services have been historically siloed, and there is a need to better understand how programs that serve people who use drugs (PWUD) are integrating these services. In this study, we compared treatment and harm reduction services offered by a multistate sample of substance use service providers and assessed how well they align with characteristics and needs of clients they serve early in the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We recruited a convenience sample of programs that deliver harm reduction and/or treatment services in ten US states. Program directors participated in a survey assessing the services offered at their program. We also recruited clients of these programs to participate in a survey assessing a range of sociodemographic and health characteristics, substance use behaviors, and health service utilization. We then cross-compared client characteristics and behaviors relative to services being offered through these programs. RESULTS: We collected and analyzed data from 511 clients attending 18 programs that we classified as either offering treatment with medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) (N = 6), syringe service programs (SSP) (N = 8), or offering both MOUD and SSP (N = 4). All programs delivered a range of treatment and harm reduction services, with MOUD & SSP programs delivering the greatest breadth of services. There were discrepancies between services provided and characteristics and behaviors reported by clients: 80% of clients of programs that offered MOUD without SSP actively used drugs and 50% injected drugs; 40% of clients of programs that offered SSP without MOUD sought drug treatment services. Approximately half of clients were unemployed and unstably housed, but few programs offered direct social services. CONCLUSIONS: In many ways, existing programs are not meeting the service needs of PWUD. Investing in innovative models that empower clients and integrate a range of accessible and flexible treatment, harm reduction and social services can pave the way for a more effective and equitable service system that considers the long-term health of PWUD.

Cancer pain during an epidemic and a pandemic.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: As our global population ages, cancer has become more prevalent. Thankfully, oncologic treatments are highly effective, leading to significantly improved rates of long-term survival. However, many of these therapies are associated with persistent pain syndromes. Clinicians caring for people with cancer must understand how the influence of the current epidemic of opioid misuse and the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have complicated cancer pain management. Creative solutions can emerge from this knowledge. RECENT FINDINGS: Persistent pain due to cancer and its treatment can be managed through multimodal care, although efforts to mitigate the opioid misuse epidemic have created challenges in access to appropriate treatment. Isolation measures associated with the COVID-19 pandemic have limited access to nonpharmacologic therapies, such as physical therapy, and have exacerbated mental health disorders, including anxiety and depression. SUMMARY: Cancer pain treatment requires more nuanced assessment and treatment decisions as patients live longer. Societal factors multiply existing challenges to cancer pain relief. Research is needed to support safe and effective therapies.

Impact of Coronavirus Disease-2019 on Hospital Care for Neonatal Opioid Withdrawal Syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: To compare prenatal exposures, hospital care processes, and hospitalization outcomes for opioid-exposed newborns before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. STUDY DESIGN: In this multicenter retrospective analysis, data were collected from 19 Massachusetts hospitals, including 5 academic and 14 community hospitals. The pre-COVID-19 cohort was defined as births occurring during March 1, 2019-February 28, 2020, and the COVID-19 cohort was defined as births occurring during March 1, 2020-December 31, 2020. Opioid-exposed newborns born at ≥35 weeks of gestation were included. Differences in prenatal substance exposures, hospital care processes, and neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome (NOWS) outcomes, including pharmacologic treatment for NOWS (PharmTx), length of stay (LOS), and as-needed (prn) treatment failure rates, were evaluated. RESULTS: There were 663 opioid-exposed newborns in the pre-COVID-19 group and 476 in the COVID-19 group. No between-group differences were seen in prenatal substance exposures or the need for PharmTx. Compared with the pre-COVID-19 group, in the COVID-19 group there was less rooming-in after maternal discharge (53.8% vs 63.0%; P = .001) and less care in the pediatric unit setting (23.5% vs 25.3%; P = .001), longer LOS (adjusted risk ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.08), and a higher rate of breast milk receipt at discharge (aOR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.22-3.39). Within the subset of academic centers, more infants failed prn treatment in the COVID-19 group (53.8% vs 26.5%, P = .02; aOR, 3.77; 95% CI, 0.98-14.5). CONCLUSIONS: Among the hospitals in our collaborative, hospital processes for NOWS, including care setting, rooming-in, and LOS were negatively impacted in the COVID-19 group, particularly in academic medical centers.

Opioids in the United Kingdom: safety and surveillance during COVID-19.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Opioid use is prevalent in the United Kingdom and prior to the COVID-19 pandemic it had been recognized that the safety of opioids was an important issue to be monitored by the UK medicines regulatory agency. With the emergence of COVID-19, this requirement has been even greater. This review was undertaken to determine the impact of the pandemic on safety and surveillance of opioids in the United Kingdom. RECENT FINDINGS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the surveillance of opioids in the United Kingdom continued, although primary research was often conducted with data prior to the pandemic. Of those studies that were conducted while the pandemic was ongoing, access to opioids (or opioid substitution therapy) and the subsequent effect on patient safety was the main theme. SUMMARY: In the United Kingdom, changes in accessibility to the healthcare system and how healthcare providers operated during the COVID-19 pandemic may have had unintended consequences on use and safety of opioids, due to the shift in focus to preventing COVID-19 from overwhelming the healthcare system. The findings from this review support the need to continue surveillance in the United Kingdom, including the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on opioid utilization and safety.

Treatment of Hepatitis C virus among people who inject drugs at a syringe service program during the COVID-19 response: The potential role of telehealth, medications for opioid use disorder and minimal demands on patients.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare delivery was disrupted during the COVID-19 pandemic, requiring minimized in-person contact between patients and clinicians. During the pandemic, people with opioid use disorder (OUD) were not only at elevated risk for COVID-19, but had markedly reduced access to treatment for OUD, Hepatitis C virus (HCV) and HIV due to recommended decreased in-person visits. METHODS: From March 15-June 15, 2020 at the syringe services program (SSP) in New Haven, Connecticut, USA, a differentiated care model evolved with reduced clinical demands on people who inject drugs (PWID) to ensure screening and treatment for HCV, HIV and OUD, with a focus on HCV treatment. This model involved a single, bundled screening, evaluation, testing (SET) and monitoring strategy for all three conditions, minimal in-person visits, followed by tele-health communication between patients, outreach workers and clinicians. In-person visits occurred only during induction onto methadone and phlebotomy at baseline and phlebotomy 12 weeks post-treatment for HCV to measure sustained virological response (SVR). Patients received supportive texts/calls from outreach workers and clinicians. RESULTS: Overall, 66 actively injecting PWID, all with OUD, underwent bundled laboratory screening; 35 had chronic HCV infection. Participants were 40 years (mean), mostly white (N = 18) men (N = 28) and 12 were unstably housed. Two were lost to-follow-up and 2 were incarcerated, leaving 31 who started pan-genotypic direct-acting antivirals (DAAs). The mean time from referral to initial phlebotomy and initiation of DAAs was 6.9 and 9.9 days, respectively. Fourteen additional patients were newly started on buprenorphine and 6 started on methadone; three and four, respectively, were on treatment at baseline. Overall, 29 (93.5%) PWID who initiated DAAs achieved SVR; among unstably housed persons the SVR was 83.3%. CONCLUSIONS: In response to COVID-19, an innovative differentiated care model for PWID at an SSP evolved that included successful co-treatment for HCV, HIV and OUD using a client-centered approach that reduces treatment demands on patients yet supports ongoing access to evidence-based treatments.

Pandemic-Related Disruptions in Nursing Education: Zooming Out for an Innovative Interprofessional Simulation.

When the COVID-19 global pandemic began, many higher education systems had to restructure their educational delivery system and transition to online learning. This posed a challenge for students in health professions education programs as it impacted their ability to participate in hands-on learning regarding patient care. As a result, the University of Cincinnati College of Nursing developed and implemented simulation-based learning experiences to allow graduate-level social worker, counselor, and psychiatric-mental health nurse practitioner students the opportunity to learn as an interdisciplinary team in a virtual format. The Opioid Use Disorder Simulation Case Study discussed in this article was developed as part of the Serving At-risk Youth Fellowship Experience Training program with the overarching aim to prepare culturally competent providers to deliver direct patient care and education around prevention and recovery services to individuals with substance use disorders.

Experiences with substance use disorder treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic: Findings from a multistate survey.

BACKGROUND: Drug overdoses surged during the COVID-19 pandemic, underscoring the need for expanded and accessible substance use disorder (SUD) treatment. Relatively little is known about the experiences of patients receiving treatment during the pandemic. METHODS: We worked with 21 harm reduction and drug treatment programs in nine states and the District of Columbia from August 2020 to January 2021. Programs distributed study recruitment cards to clients. Clients responded to the survey by calling a study hotline and providing a unique study identification number. Our survey included detailed questions about use of SUD treatment prior to and since the COVID-19 pandemic. We identified settings where individuals received treatment and, for those treated for opioid use disorder, we examined use of medications for opioid use disorder. Individuals also reported whether they had received telehealth treatment and pandemic related treatment changes (e.g., more take-home methadone). We calculated p-values for differences pre and since COVID-19. RESULTS: We interviewed 587 individuals of whom 316 (53.8%) were in drug treatment both before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Individuals in treatment reported substantial reductions in in-person service use since the start of the pandemic, including a 27 percentage point reduction (p<.001) in group counseling sessions and 28 percentage point reduction in mutual aid group participation (p<.001). By contrast, individuals reported a 21 percentage point increase in receipt of overdose education (p<.001). Most people receiving medications for opioid use disorder reported taking methadone and had high continuity of treatment (86.1% received methadone pre-COVID and 87.1% since-COVID, p=.71). Almost all reported taking advantage of new policy changes such as counseling by video/phone, increased take-home medication, or fewer urine drug screens. Overall, respondents reported relatively high satisfaction with their treatment and with telehealth adaptations (e.g., 80.2% reported "I'm able to get all the treatment that I need"). CONCLUSIONS: Accommodations to treatment made under the federal public health emergency appear to have sustained access to treatment in the early months of the pandemic. Since these changes are set to expire after the official public health emergency declaration, further action is needed to meet the ongoing need.

Treating an Epidemic During a Pandemic: Experience Treating Opioid Use Disorder at the Baltimore Convention Center Field Hospital.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, access to addiction treatment has plummeted. At the same time, patients with opioid use disorder are at higher risk of COVID-19 infection and experience worse outcomes. The Baltimore Convention Center Field Hospital (BCCFH), a state-run COVID-19 disaster hospital operated by Johns Hopkins Medicine and the University of Maryland Medical System, continues to operate 14 months into the pandemic to serve as an overflow unit for the state's hospitals. BCCFH staff observed the demand for opioid use disorder care and developed admission criteria, a pharmacy formulary, and case management procedures to meet this need. This article describes generalized lessons from the BCCFH experience treating substance use disorder during a pandemic.