Drug and alcohol positivity of traumatically injured patients related to COVID-19 stay-at-home orders.

Background: COVID-19 related stay-at-home (SAH) orders created many economic and social stressors, possibly increasing the risk of drug/alcohol abuse in the community and trauma population.Objectives: Describe changes in alcohol/drug use in traumatically injured patients after SAH orders in California and evaluate demographic or injury pattern changes in alcohol or drug-positive patients.Methods: A retrospective analysis of 11 trauma centers in Southern California (1/1/2020-6/30/2020) was performed. Blood alcohol concentration, urine toxicology results, demographics, and injury characteristics were collected. Patients were grouped based on injury date - before SAH (PRE-SAH), immediately after SAH (POST-SAH), and a historical comparison (3/19/2019-6/30/2019) (CONTROL) - and compared in separate analyses. Groups were compared using chi-square tests for categorical variables and Mann-Whitney U tests for continuous variables.Results: 20,448 trauma patients (13,634 male, 6,814 female) were identified across three time-periods. The POST-SAH group had higher rates of any drug (26.2% vs. 21.6% and 24.7%, OR = 1.26 and 1.08, p < .001 and p = .035), amphetamine (10.4% vs. 7.5% and 9.3%, OR = 1.43 and 1.14, p < .001 and p = .023), tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) (13.8% vs. 11.0% and 11.4%, OR = 1.30 and 1.25, p < .001 and p < .001), and 3,4-methylenedioxy methamphetamine (MDMA) (0.8% vs. 0.4% and 0.2%, OR = 2.02 and 4.97, p = .003 and p < .001) positivity compared to PRE-SAH and CONTROL groups. Alcohol concentration and positivity were similar between groups (p > .05).Conclusion: This Southern California multicenter study demonstrated increased amphetamine, MDMA, and THC positivity in trauma patients after SAH, but no difference in alcohol positivity or blood concentration. Drug prevention strategies should continue to be adapted within and outside of hospitals during a pandemic.

The Opioid Epidemic Within the COVID-19 Pandemic: Drug Testing in 2020.

The convergence of the opioid epidemic and the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has created new health care challenges. The authors analyzed changes in clinical drug testing patterns and results at a national clinical laboratory, comparing data obtained before and during the pandemic. Testing for prescription and illicit drugs declined rapidly during the pandemic, with weekly test volumes falling by approximately 70% from the baseline period to the trough (the week beginning March 29) before rising in subsequent weeks. Among individuals tested, positivity increased by 35% for non-prescribed fentanyl and 44% for heroin during the pandemic. Positivity for non-prescribed fentanyl increased significantly among patients positive for other drugs: by 89% for specimens positive for amphetamines; 48% for benzodiazepines; 34% for cocaine; and 39% for opiates (P < 0.01 for all comparisons). These findings suggest significant increases in dangerous drug combinations. Positivity for non-prescribed use of many other drugs remained consistent or declined for some drugs, relative to pre-pandemic patterns. Models adjusting for potential confounding variables, including medication-assisted treatment and treatment at a substance use disorder facility indicated that the risk for non-prescribed fentanyl positivity rose by more than 50% during the pandemic. In summary, these findings demonstrate decreased drug testing overall, with increased positivity for high-risk drugs and dangerous drug combinations. The convergence of the drug abuse epidemic and COVID-19 pandemic has led to an increased need for health care and public health resources dedicated to supporting vulnerable patients and addressing the underlying causes of these disturbing trends.

Why Are Patients With COVID-19 at Risk for Drug-Drug Interactions?

The goal of this column is to provide information to health care professionals about drug-drug interactions (DDIs) and why DDIs are important to consider in those at serious risk of illness with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Important considerations discussed in this column include the frequency and complexity of multiple medication use, particularly important for the older patient who often has multiple comorbid illnesses. The column covers the following issues: (1) Why patients at high risk for serious illness from COVID-19 are also at high risk for DDIs. (2) Application of results of pharmacoepidemiological studies to the population at risk for serious COVID-19 illness. (3) Mechanisms underlying DDIs, frequency and potential complexity of DDIs, and how DDIs can present clinically. (4) Methods for preventing or mitigating DDIs. (5) An introduction to the University of Liverpool drug interaction checker as a tool to reduce the risk of adverse DDIs while treating patients for COVID-19. Commentary is also provided on issues related to specific psychiatric and nonpsychiatric medications a patient may be taking. A subsequent column will focus on DDIs between psychiatric medications and emerging COVID-19 treatments, as a detailed discussion of that topic is beyond the scope of this column.

Treatment of opioid use disorder during COVID-19: Experiences of clinicians transitioning to telemedicine.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic has transformed care delivery for patients with opioid use disorder (OUD); however, little is known about the experiences of front-line clinicians in the transition to telemedicine. This study described how, in the context of the early stages of the pandemic, clinicians used telemedicine for OUD in conjunction with in-person care, barriers encountered, and implications for quality of care. METHODS: In April 2020, we conducted semistructured interviews with clinicians waivered to prescribe buprenorphine. We used maximum variation sampling. We used standard qualitative analysis techniques, consisting of both inductive and deductive approaches, to identify and characterize themes. RESULTS: Eighteen clinicians representing 10 states participated. Nearly all interview participants were doing some telemedicine, and more than half were only doing telemedicine visits. Most participants reported changing their typical clinical care patterns to help patients remain at home and minimize exposure to COVID-19. Changes included waiving urine toxicology screening, sending patients home with a larger supply of OUD medications, and requiring fewer visits. Although several participants were serving new patients via telemedicine during the early weeks of the pandemic, others were not. Some clinicians identified positive impacts of telemedicine on the quality of their patient interactions, including increased access for patients. Others noted negative impacts including less structure and accountability, less information to inform clinical decision-making, challenges in establishing a connection, technological challenges, and shorter visits. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of the pandemic, buprenorphine prescribers quickly transitioned to providing telemedicine visits in high volume; nonetheless, there are still many unknowns, including the quality and safety of widespread use of telemedicine for OUD treatment.