Rapid Access Addiction Medicine Clinics for People With Problematic Opioid Use.

Importance: New approaches are needed to provide care for individuals with problematic opioid use (POU). Rapid access addiction medicine (RAAM) clinics offer a flexible, low-barrier, rapid access care model for this population. Objective: To assess the associations of RAAM clinics with emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, and mortality for people with POU. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cohort study involving a matched control group was performed using health administrative data from Ontario, Canada. Anonymized data from 4 Ontario RAAM clinics (cities of Ottawa, Toronto, Oshawa, and Sudbury) were linked with health administrative data. Analyses were performed on a cohort of individuals who received care at participating RAAM clinics and geographically matched controls who did not receive care at a RAAM clinic. All visits occurred between October 2, 2017, and October 30, 2019, and data analyses were completed in spring 2023. A propensity score-matching approach was used to balance confounding factors between groups, with adjustment for covariates that remained imbalanced after matching. Exposures: Individuals who initiated care through the RAAM model (including assessment, pharmacotherapy, brief counseling, harm reduction, triage to appropriate level of care, navigation to community services and primary care, and related care) were compared with individuals who did not receive care through the RAAM model. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite measure of ED visits for any reason, hospitalization for any reason, and all-cause mortality (all measured up to 30 days after index date). Outcomes up to 90 days after index date, as well as outcomes looking at opioid-related ED visits and hospitalizations, were also assessed. Results: In analyses of the sample of 876 patients formed using propensity score matching, 440 in the RAAM group (mean [SD] age, 36.5 [12.6] years; 276 [62.7%] male) and 436 in the control group (mean [SD] age, 36.8 [13.8] years; 258 [59.2%] male), the pooled odds ratio (OR) for the primary, 30-day composite outcome of all-cause ED visit, hospitalization, or mortality favored the RAAM model (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.50-0.92). Analysis of the same outcome for opioid-related reasons only also favored the RAAM intervention (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.29-0.76). Findings for the individual events of hospitalization, ED visit, and mortality at both 30-day and 90-day follow-up also favored the RAAM model, with comparisons reaching statistical significance in most cases. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of individuals with POU, RAAM clinics were associated with reductions in ED visits, hospitalizations, and mortality. These findings provide valuable evidence toward a broadened adoption of the RAAM model in other regions of North America and beyond.

Cannabis companies and the sponsorship of scientific research: A cross-sectional Canadian case study.

Corporations across sectors engage in the conduct, sponsorship, and dissemination of scientific research. Industry sponsorship of research, however, is associated with research agendas, outcomes, and conclusions that are favourable to the sponsor. The legalization of cannabis in Canada provides a useful case study to understand the nature and extent of the nascent cannabis industry's involvement in the production of scientific evidence as well as broader impacts on equity-oriented research agendas. We conducted a cross-sectional, descriptive, meta-research study to describe the characteristics of research that reports funding from, or author conflicts of interest with, Canadian cannabis companies. From May to August 2021, we sampled licensed, prominent Canadian cannabis companies, identified their subsidiaries, and searched each company name in the PubMed conflict of interest statement search interface. Authors of included articles disclosed research support from, or conflicts of interest with, Canadian cannabis companies. We included 156 articles: 82% included at least one author with a conflict of interest and 1/3 reported study support from a Canadian cannabis company. More than half of the sampled articles were not cannabis focused, however, a cannabis company was listed amongst other biomedical companies in the author disclosure statement. For articles with a cannabis focus, prevalent topics included cannabis as a treatment for a range of conditions (15/72, 21%), particularly chronic pain (6/72, 8%); as a tool in harm reduction related to other substance use (10/72, 14%); product safety (10/72, 14%); and preclinical animal studies (6/72, 8%). Demographics were underreported in empirical studies with human participants, but most included adults (76/84, 90%) and, where reported, predominantly white (32/39, 82%) and male (49/83, 59%) participants. The cannabis company-funded studies included people who used drugs (37%) and people prescribed medical cannabis (22%). Canadian cannabis companies may be analogous to peer industries such as pharmaceuticals, alcohol, tobacco, and food in the following three ways: sponsoring research related to product development, expanding indications of use, and supporting key opinion leaders. Given the recent legalization of cannabis in Canada, there is ample opportunity to create a policy climate that can mitigate the harms of criminalization as well as impacts of the "funding effect" on research integrity, research agendas, and the evidence base available for decision-making, while promoting high-priority and equity-oriented independent research.

Peer support and online cognitive behavioural therapy for substance use concerns: protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Hazardous alcohol and drug use is associated with substantial morbidity, mortality and societal cost worldwide. Yet, only a minority of those struggling with substance use concerns receive specialised services. Numerous barriers to care exist, highlighting the need for scalable and engaging treatment alternatives. Online interventions have exhibited promise in the reduction of substance use, although studies to date highlight the key importance of patient engagement to optimise clinical outcomes. Peer support may provide a way to engage patients using online interventions. The goal of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of Breaking Free Online (BFO), an online cognitive-behavioural intervention for substance use, delivered with and without peer support. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A total of 225 outpatients receiving standard care will be randomised to receive clinical monitoring with group peer support, with BFO alone, or with BFO with individual peer support, in an 8-week trial with a 6-month follow-up. The primary outcome is substance use frequency; secondary outcomes include substance use problems, depression, anxiety, quality of life, treatment engagement and cost-effectiveness. Mixed effects models will be used to test hypotheses, and thematic analysis of qualitative data will be undertaken. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol has received approval by the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health Research Ethics Board. Results will help to optimise the effectiveness of structured online substance use interventions provided as an adjunct to standard care in hospital-based treatment programmes. Findings will be disseminated through presentations and publications to scholarly and knowledge user audiences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05127733.

Service-level barriers to and facilitators of access to services for the treatment of alcohol use disorder and problematic alcohol use: protocol for a scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, substance use health services for treatment of alcohol use disorder and problematic alcohol use (AUD/PAU) were fragmented and challenging to access. The pandemic magnified system weaknesses, often resulting in disruptions of treatment as alcohol use during the pandemic rose. When treatment services were available, utilisation was often low for various reasons. Virtual care was implemented to offset the drop in in-person care, however accessibility was not universal. Identification of the characteristics of treatment services for AUD/PAU that impact accessibility, as perceived by the individuals accessing or providing the services, will provide insights to enable improved access. We will perform a scoping review that will identify characteristics of services for treatment of AUD/PAU that have been identified as barriers to or facilitators of service access from the perspectives of these groups. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will follow scoping review methodological guidance from the Joanna Briggs Institute. Using the OVID platform, we will search Ovid MEDLINE including Epub Ahead of Print and In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Embase Classic+Embase, APA PsychInfo, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and CINAHL (Ebsco Platform). Multiple reviewers will screen citations. We will seek studies reporting data collected from individuals with AUD/PAU or providers of treatment for AUD/PAU on service-level factors affecting access to care. We will map barriers to and facilitators of access to AUD/PAU treatment services identified in the relevant studies, stratified by service type and key measures of inequity across service users. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This research will enhance awareness of existing evidence regarding barriers to and facilitators of access to services for the treatment of alcohol use disorder and problematic alcohol use. Findings will be disseminated through publications, conference presentations and a stakeholder meeting. As this is a scoping review of published literature, no ethics approval was required.

Evaluating comparative effectiveness of psychosocial interventions adjunctive to opioid agonist therapy for opioid use disorder: A systematic review with network meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend that individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) receive pharmacological and psychosocial interventions; however, the most appropriate psychosocial intervention is not known. In collaboration with people with lived experience, clinicians, and policy makers, we sought to assess the relative benefits of psychosocial interventions as an adjunct to opioid agonist therapy (OAT) among persons with OUD. METHODS: A review protocol was registered a priori (CRD42018090761), and a comprehensive search for randomized controlled trials (RCT) was conducted from database inception to June 2020 in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Established methods for study selection and data extraction were used. Primary outcomes were treatment retention and opioid use (measured by urinalysis for opioid use and opioid abstinence outcomes). Odds ratios were estimated using network meta-analyses (NMA) as appropriate based on available evidence, and in remaining cases alternative approaches to synthesis were used. RESULTS: Seventy-two RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Risk of bias evaluations commonly identified study limitations and poor reporting with regard to methods used for allocation concealment and selective outcome reporting. Due to inconsistency in reporting of outcome measures, only 48 RCTs (20 unique interventions, 5,404 participants) were included for NMA of treatment retention, where statistically significant differences were found when psychosocial interventions were used as an adjunct to OAT as compared to OAT-only. The addition of rewards-based interventions such as contingency management (alone or with community reinforcement approach) to OAT was superior to OAT-only. Few statistically significant differences between psychosocial interventions were identified among any other pairwise comparisons. Heterogeneity in reporting formats precluded an NMA for opioid use. A structured synthesis was undertaken for the remaining outcomes which included opioid use (n = 18 studies) and opioid abstinence (n = 35 studies), where the majority of studies found no significant difference between OAT plus psychosocial interventions as compared to OAT-only. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review offers a comprehensive synthesis of the available evidence and the limitations of current trials of psychosocial interventions applied as an adjunct to OAT for OUD. Clinicians and health services may wish to consider integrating contingency management in addition to OAT for OUD in their settings to improve treatment retention. Aside from treatment retention, few differences were consistently found between psychosocial interventions adjunctive to OAT and OAT-only. There is a need for high-quality RCTs to establish more definitive conclusions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration CRD42018090761.