Virtual Overdose Response for People Who Use Opioids Alone: Protocol for a Feasibility and Clinical Trial Study.

BACKGROUND: A recent quarterly report released by Alberta Health reports that on average 2.5 Albertans die every day from accidental overdose deaths, and that between April 1, 2020, and June 30, 2020, the province lost a total of 301 people. In Canada, between January 2016 and March 2020, a total of 16,364 people died due to opioid-related overdose. The World Health Organization reports that 70% of the 0.5 million deaths worldwide caused by drugs are related to opioid overdose. Although supervised consumption sites or safe injection sites have been shown to be effective in reducing the harms associated with the use of illicit substances and increasing uptake of addiction treatment and other health services, there is still significant stigma associated with them, and it is unlikely that all of the people who would benefit from supervised consumption service will ever access a site. OBJECTIVE: To help prevent deaths in populations that cannot or will not access physical safer consumption services in Alberta, we propose to provide virtual (telephone-based) overdose response services, staffed by people with lived experience.The primary outcome for this study is uptake of the service as measured by the number of calls to the service. Secondary outcomes will include patterns of use of the phone line (days of the week and time of calls) and outcomes from the calls (number of emergency medical services dispatches for overdoses from the service and the results of those dispatches). METHODS: This phase 1 clinical study is set to officially launch in early May 2020. The service will be available to up to 15 participants who self-disclose as using opioids unobserved and have given informed consent for both data collection and interviews. This group will have access to a toll-free telephone number and be invited to call when they plan to use opioids alone. RESULTS: The analysis will include mixed methods. To improve the design of the service and ensure safety of all involved, quantitative data will be collected on phone calls and participant health care usage, while qualitative data will be collected from both participants and virtual overdose response operators. CONCLUSIONS: This clinical trial aims to test the feasibility of a service that provides virtual overdose response in order to help prevent deaths in populations that cannot or will not access physical supervised consumption services in Alberta. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04391192; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04391192. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/20183.

Service delivery models for injectable opioid agonist treatment in Canada: 2 sequential environmental scans.

BACKGROUND: Injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) is an emerging evidence-based option in the continuum of care for opioid use disorder in parts of Canada. Our study objective was to identify and describe iOAT programs operating during the ongoing opioid overdose crisis. METHODS: We conducted 2 sequential environmental scans. Programs were eligible to participate if they were in operation as of Sept. 1, 2018, and Mar. 1, 2019. Information was collected over 2-3 months for each scan (September-October 2018, March-May 2019). Programs that participated in the first scan and newly established programs were invited to participate in the second scan. The scans included questions about location, service delivery model, clinical and operational characteristics, numbers and demographic characteristics of clients, and program barriers and facilitators. Descriptive analysis was performed. RESULTS: We identified 14 unique programs across the 2 scans. Eleven programs located in urban centres in British Columbia and Ontario participated in the first scan. At the time of the second scan, 2 of these programs were on hold and 2 of 3 newly established programs were in Alberta. The total capacity of all participating programs was 420 clients at most. Four service delivery models were identified; iOAT was most commonly integrated within existing health and social services. All programs offered hydromorphone, and 1 program also offered diacetylmorphine. In the first scan, 73% of clients (133/183) were male; the mean age of clients was 47 years. Limited capacity, pharmacy operations and lack of diacetylmorphine access were among the most frequently reported barriers. The most commonly reported facilitators included client-centred care, client relationships and access to other health and social support. INTERPRETATION: Evidence indicates that iOAT can be successfully implemented using diverse service delivery models. Future work should facilitate scale-up of this evidence-based treatment where gaps persist in high-risk communities.

Depression Outcomes in Adults Attending Family Practice Were Not Improved by Screening, Stepped-Care, or Online CBT during a 12-Week Study when Compared to Controls in a Randomized Trial.

There is uncertainty regarding possible benefits of screening for depression in family practice, as well as the most effective treatment approach when depression is identified. Here, we examined whether screening patients for depression in primary care, and then treating them with different modalities, was better than treatment-as-usual (TAU) alone. Screening was carried out for depression using the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), with a score of ≥10 indicating significant depressive symptoms. PHQ-9 scores were given to family physicians prior to patients being seen (except for the Control group). Patients (n = 1,489) were randomized to one of four groups. Group #1 were controls (n = 432) in which PHQ-9 was administered, but results were not shared. Group #2 was screening followed by TAU (n = 426). Group #3 was screening followed by both TAU and the opportunity to use an online cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) treatment program (n = 440). Group #4 utilized an evidence-based Stepped-care pathway for depression (n = 191, note that this was not available at all clinics). Of the study sample 889 (60%) completed a second PHQ-9 rating at 12 weeks. There were no statistically significant differences in baseline PHQ-9 scores between these groups. Compared to baseline, mean PHQ-9 scores decreased significantly in the depressed patients over 12 weeks, but there were no statistically significant differences between any groups at 12 weeks. Thus, for those who were depressed at baseline Control group (Group #1) scores decreased from 15.3 ± 4.2 to 4.0 ± 2.6 (p < 0.001), Screening group (Group #2) scores decreased from 15.5 ± 3.9 to 4.6 ± 3.0 (p < 0.001), Online CBT group (Group #3) scores decreased from 15.4 ± 3.8 to 3.4 ± 2.7 (p < 0.01), and the Stepped-care pathway group (Group #4) scores decreased from 15.3 ± 3.6 to 5.4 ± 2.8 (p < 0.05). In conclusion, these findings from this controlled randomized study do not suggest that using depression screening tools in family practice improves outcomes. They also suggest that much of the depression seen in primary care spontaneously resolves and do not support suggestions that more complex treatment programs or pathways improve depression outcomes in primary care. Replication studies are required due to study limitations.