Changes to methadone maintenance therapy in the United States, Canada, and Australia during the COVID-19 pandemic: A narrative review.

INTRODUCTION: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, countries across the world made adaptations to policies regulating the provision of methadone maintenance therapy (MMT) to facilitate social distancing for health care providers and people in treatment. Many countries issued guidance about increasing take-home methadone doses after the onset of the pandemic. METHODS: In this review, we compare the regulation of MMT prior to the pandemic in the United States, Canada, and Australia, analyze changes to treatment policy in the context of COVID-19, and review emerging data on treatment outcomes. RESULTS: The United States only permits the prescription and disbursement of methadone for MMT treatment at federally designated opioid treatment programs (OTPs). Conversely, Australia and Canada operate on a community pharmacy-based distribution model, where patients can access methadone doses either in participating pharmacies or in some methadone clinics. CONCLUSION: Given reports of similar treatment outcomes and increased patient satisfaction since the pandemic-related policy changes, some changes including increased receipt of take-home doses should be considered for incorporation into post-pandemic treatment policies and regulations.

Availability of timely methadone treatment in the United States and Canada during COVID-19: a census tract-level analysis☆

Objectives We sought to compare timely access to methadone treatment in the United States (US) and Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study of census tracts and aggregated dissemination areas (used for rural Canada) within 14 US and 3 Canadian jurisdictions in 2020. We excluded census tracts or areas with a population density of less than one person per square km. Data from a 2020 audit of timely medication access was used to determine clinics accepting new patients within 48 hours. Unadjusted and adjusted linear regressions were performed to examine the relationship between area population density and sociodemographic covariates and three outcome variables: 1) driving distance to the nearest methadone clinic accepting new patients, 2) driving distance to the nearest methadone clinic accepting new patients for medication initiation within 48 hours, and 3) the difference in the driving distance between the first and second outcome. Results We included 17,611 census tracts and areas with a population density greater than one person per square kilometer. After adjusting for area covariates, US jurisdictions were a median of 11.6 miles (p value <0.001) further from a methadone clinic accepting new patients and 25.1 miles (p value <0.001) further from a clinic accepting new patients within 48 hours than Canadian jurisdictions. Conclusions These results suggest that the more flexible Canadian regulatory approach to methadone treatment is associated with a greater availability of timely methadone treatment and reduced urban-rural disparity in availability, compared to the US.

Availability of timely methadone treatment in the United States and Canada during COVID-19: A census tract-level analysis.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to compare timely access to methadone treatment in the United States (US) and Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of census tracts and aggregated dissemination areas (used for rural Canada) within 14 US and 3 Canadian jurisdictions in 2020. We excluded census tracts or areas with a population density of less than one person per square km. Data from a 2020 audit of timely medication access was used to determine clinics accepting new patients within 48 h. Unadjusted and adjusted linear regressions were performed to examine the relationship between area population density and sociodemographic covariates and three outcome variables: 1) driving distance to the nearest methadone clinic accepting new patients, 2) driving distance to the nearest methadone clinic accepting new patients for medication initiation within 48 h, and 3) the difference in the driving distance between the first and second outcome. RESULTS: We included 17,611 census tracts and areas with a population density greater than one person per square kilometer. After adjusting for area covariates, US jurisdictions were a median of 11.6 miles (p value <0.001) further from a methadone clinic accepting new patients and 25.1 miles (p value <0.001) further from a clinic accepting new patients within 48 h than Canadian jurisdictions. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the more flexible Canadian regulatory approach to methadone treatment is associated with a greater availability of timely methadone treatment and reduced urban-rural disparity in availability, compared to the US.

Racial and socioeconomic inequities in breast cancer screening before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: analysis of two cohorts of women 50 years + .

BACKGROUND: Routine screening mammography at two-year intervals is widely recommended for the prevention and early detection of breast cancer for women who are 50 years + . Racial and other sociodemographic inequities in routine cancer screening are well-documented, but less is known about how these long-standing inequities were impacted by the disruption in health services during the COVID-19 pandemic. Early in the pandemic, cancer screening and other prevention services were suspended or delayed, and these disruptions may have had to disproportionate impact on some sociodemographic groups. We tested the hypothesis that inequities in screening mammography widened during the pandemic. METHODS: A secondary analysis of patient data from a large state-wide, non-profit healthcare system in Washington State. Analyses were based on two mutually exclusive cohorts of women 50 years or older. The first cohort (n = 18,197) were those women screened in 2017 who would have been due for repeat screening in 2019 (prior to the pandemic's onset). The second cohort (n = 16,391) were women screened in 2018 due in 2020. Explanatory variables were obtained from patient records and included race/ethnicity, age, rural or urban residence, and insurance type. Multivariable logistic regression models estimated odds of two-year screening for each cohort separately. Combining both cohorts, interaction models were used to test for differences in inequities before and during the pandemic. RESULTS: Significant sociodemographic differences in screening were confirmed during the pandemic, but these were similar to those that existed prior. Based on interaction models, women using Medicaid insurance and of Asian race experienced significantly steeper declines in screening than privately insured and white women (Odds ratios [95% CI] of 0.74 [0.58-0.95] and 0.76 [0.59-0.97] for Medicaid and Asian race, respectively). All other sociodemographic inequities in screening during 2020 were not significantly different from those in 2019. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings confirm inequities for screening mammograms during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic and provide evidence that these largely reflect the inequities in screening that were present before the pandemic. Policies and interventions to tackle long-standing inequities in use of preventive services may help ensure continuity of care for all, but especially for racial and ethnic minorities and the socioeconomically disadvantaged.

COVID-19 and inequities in colorectal and cervical cancer screening and diagnosis in Washington State.

INTRODUCTION: Studies have shown that cancer screenings dropped dramatically following the onset of the coronavirus diseases 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. In this study, we examined differences in rates of cervical and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and diagnosis indicators before and during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODOLOGY: We used retrospective data from a large healthcare system in Washington State. Targeted screening data included completed cancer screenings for both CRC (colonoscopy) and cervical cancer (Papanicolaou test (Pap test)). We analyzed and compared the rate of uptake of colorectal (colonoscopies) and cervical cancer (Pap) screenings done pre-COVID-19 (April 1, 2019-March 31, 2020) and during the pandemic (April 1, 2020-March 31, 2021). RESULTS: A total of 26,081 (12.7%) patients underwent colonoscopies in the pre-COVID-19 period, compared to only 15,708 (7.4%) patients during the pandemic, showing a 39.8% decrease. A total of 238 patients were referred to medical oncology for CRC compared to only 155 patients during the first year of the pandemic, a reduction of 34%. In the pre-COVID-19 period, 22,395 (10.7%) women were administered PAP tests compared to 20,455 (9.6%) women during the pandemic, for a 7.4% reduction. period 1780 women were referred to colposcopy, compared to only 1680 patients during the pandemic, for a 4.3% reduction. CONCLUSION: Interruption in screening and subsequent delay in diagnosis during the pandemic will likely lead to later-stage diagnoses for both CRC and cervical cancer, which is known to result in decreased survival. IMPACT: The results emphasize the need to prioritize cancer screening, particularly for those at higher risk.

The impact of relaxation of methadone take-home protocols on treatment outcomes in the COVID-19 era.

BACKGROUND: Background: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) allowed for an increase in methadone take-home doses for the treatment of Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) in March 2020. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of the SAMSHA exemption on methadone adherence and OUD-related outcomes. METHODS: A convenience sample of 183 clients (58% female) were recruited from a methadone clinic in the fall of 2019 for a cross-sectional survey. Survey data was linked to clinical records, including urine drug testing (UDT) results for methadone and emergency department (ED) visits at the local hospital. Participants were on stable methadone dosing for 9 months prior to and following March 2020. Methadone adherence was assessed by UDTs; OUD-related outcomes were assessed by overdose events and ED visits. Logistic regression was used to assess the association between change in take-home methadone doses and outcomes. RESULTS: Mean take-home doses increased nearly 200% (11.4 doses/30 days pre-COVID-19 vs. 22.3 post-SAMHSA exemption). ED visits dropped from 74 (40.4%) pre-COVID-19 to 56 (30.6%) post-SAMHSA exemption (p = <0.001). No significant changes were observed in either the number of clients experiencing overdose or those who experienced one or more methadone negative UDTs in the post-SAMHSA exemption period. Adjusted models did not show a significant association between changes in take-home doses and associated outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a near-doubling of take-home methadone doses during the COVID-19 exemption period, the increase in take-home doses was not associated with negative treatment outcomes in methadone-adherent clients.

Changes in methadone take-home dosing before and after COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, a federal exemption allowed stable and less stable patients greater take-home doses of methadone. We assessed the adoption of increased take-home medication during COVID-19 and whether increased take-home doses is associated with clients' characteristics. METHODOLOGY: We completed a pre-post study of adults receiving methadone for OUD from an OTP in Spokane, Washington. Our outcome was the change in the number of take-home methadone doses three months before and three months after the March 2020 take-home medication exemption. Clients' characteristics included age, gender, ethnicity, education level, homelessness, spatial access to the clinic, and methamphetamine use. RESULTS: The study included 194 clients in treatment for a median of three years. All study participants experienced an average increase in take-home medication of 41.4 in the three-month period after the COVID-19 exemption. In the final adjusted models, clients who reported using methamphetamine in the last 30 days experienced a significantly larger increase in take-home dosage (55.6 days) compare to clients who did not use methamphetamine (p ≤0.001). Most of the clients who reported using methamphetamine were also likely to be homeless. All other variables were not associated with a change in take-home doses. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that the Spokane OTP quickly expanded take-home medication dosing in response to the COVID-19 exemption and broadly expanded take-home dosing among established clients. Clients with concurrent methamphetamine use were allowed fewer take-home doses prior to COVID-19, but after the exemption the clinic provided them the same number of take-home doses as clients who had not used methamphetamine.

Media Exposure and Substance Use Increase during COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Lockdown measures because of COVID-19 are likely to result in deteriorating physical and mental health. In this study, our aim was to assess the impact of media exposure on increases in substance use during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A nationally representative online survey of 1264 adults was collected during the pandemic in the United States. Logistic regression was used to explore the association between an increase in substance use since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic and exposure to cable news or social media together with COVID-19 knowledge, while controlling for covariates. RESULTS: In the multivariable-adjusted models, participants with the highest exposure to social media (at least daily) and low knowledge of COVID-19 were 9.9 times more likely to experience an increase in substance use since the pandemic began (OR = 9.90, 95% CI = 4.27-23.06). Participants with the highest exposure to cable news and low knowledge of COVID-19 were over 11 times more likely to experience an increase in substance use (OR = 11.64, 95% CI = 4.01-24.45). CONCLUSION: Based on our findings, we recommend that media organizations should aim to reduce uncertainty and also provide positive coverage to counter the negative information associated with pandemics.

The need for GIScience in mapping COVID-19.

Since first being tracked in China in late 2019, the effects of the COVID-19 coronavirus have shaped global patterns of morbidity and mortality, as well as exposed the strengths and limitations of health care systems and social safety nets. Without question, reporting of its impact has been bolstered in large part through near real-time daily mapping of cases and fatalities. Though these maps serve as an effective political and social tool in communicating disease impact, most visualizations largely over-emphasize their usefulness for tracking disease progression and appropriate responses. Messy and inconsistent health data are a big part of this problem, as is a paucity of high-resolution spatial data to monitor health outcomes. Another issue is that the ease of producing out-of-the box products largely out paces the response to the core challenges inherent in the poor quality of most geo-referenced data. Adopting a GIScience approach, and in particular, making use of location-based intelligence tools, can improve the shortcomings in data reporting and more accurately reveal how COVID-19 will have a long-term impact on global health.