Securing Safe Supply During COVID-19 and Beyond: Scoping Review and Knowledge Mobilization

Background Safe supply is defined as the legal and regulated provision of drugs with mind and/or body altering properties that have been typically accessible only through the illegal drug market. In response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and related social/physical distancing measures, efforts have been made to scale up and increase access to safe supply programs in an effort to reduce overdose and other drug- and drug policy-related risks. However, it remains unclear whether these efforts taken thus far have meaningfully mitigated the barriers to safe supply experienced by People Who Use Drugs (PWUD), both during and beyond the context of COVID-19. We thus undertook a scoping review to identify key concepts, strategies and gaps in evidence with respect to the provision of safe supply during pandemics and other emergencies. Methods We conducted three searches across Scopus, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) for peer-reviewed and grey literature articles to understand barriers/facilitators to both accessing and prescribing legal, pharmaceutical-grade drugs, including opioids, benzodiazepines, and/or stimulants during public health emergencies from January 1 2002 to June 30 2020. We also included opioid agonist therapies (OAT) during emergency conditions. All potential sources underwent title/abstract screening and duplicate full- text review to determine eligibility for inclusion. Three reviewers extracted characteristics and barriers/facilitators to accessing or prescribing drugs for each study, and these were then inductively analyzed to identify common themes. Key stakeholders (PWUD, prescribers, and policymakers/regulators) informed the search strategy and validated findings and interpretations. Input from PWUD and prescribers was gathered through Advisory Committee meetings and one-on-one consultations, respectively. Results We screened 9,839 references and included 169 studies (135 peer-reviewed articles and 36 grey literature reports). From 119 articles, we identified 35 themes related to barriers/facilitators to prescribing safe supply or OAT. Few studies (n=24) focused on emergency or pandemic contexts. Among the most frequently reported barriers were restrictive laws or policies (n= 33; 28%). The most frequently cited facilitator was temporary legal or regulatory exemptions (n= 16; 13%). Further stakeholder consultation identified barriers/facilitators to safe supply absent in the reviewed literature: PWUD reported barriers including lack of access to desired substances, concerns about child apprehension, and a lack of cultural competency within safe supply/OAT programs; prescribers reported barriers including regional differences in service delivery, colleague support, and a lack of, or disagreement between, clinical guidance documents. Conclusion We identified multiple barriers and facilitators to accessing and/or prescribing safe supply or OAT. With few peer-reviewed studies on safe supply models, particularly in the context of emergencies, input from PWUD and other stakeholders offered crucial insights not reflected in the existing literature. To address the overdose epidemic stemming from the criminalization of an unregulated drug supply, prescribers, regulators, and public health authorities should focus on scaling up, and then evaluating, diverse safe supply frameworks that address the facilitators and barriers we have identified

Assessing the quality of reports of randomized trials in pediatric complementary and alternative medicine

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the quality of reports of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the pediatric population. We also examined whether there was a change in the quality of reporting over time. METHODS: We used a systematic sample of 251 reports of RCTs that used a CAM intervention. The quality of each report was assessed using the number of CONSORT checklist items included, the frequency of unclear allocation concealment, and a 5-point quality assessment instrument. RESULTS: Nearly half (40%) of the CONSORT checklist items were included in the reports, with an increase in the number of items included. The majority (81.3%) of RCTs reported unclear allocation concealment with no significant change over time. The quality of reports achieved approximately 40% of their maximum possible total score as assessed with the Jadad scale with no change over time. Information regarding adverse events was reported in less than one quarter of the RCTs (22%) and information regarding costs was mentioned in only a minority of reports (4%). CONCLUSIONS: RCTs are an important tool for evidence based health care decisions. If these studies are to be relevant in the evaluation of CAM interventions it is important that they are conducted and reported with the highest possible standards. There is a need to redouble efforts to ensure that children and their families are participating in RCTs that are conducted and reported with minimal bias. Such studies will increase their usefulness to a board spectrum of interested stakeholders

Reducing the dimensions of psychotic illness

Objective: Psychotic disorders are highly heterogeneous. Understanding relationships between symptoms will be relevant to their underlying pathophysiology. We apply dimensionality-reduction methods to characterize the patterns of symptom clustering and how clusters relate to one another. Methods: We analyzed publicly-available data from 153 participants diagnosed with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder (fBIRN Data Repository and the Consortium for Neuropsychiatric Phenomics), as well as 636 first-episode psychosis (FEP) subjects from the Prevention and Early Intervention Program for Psychosis (PEPP-Montreal). In all subjects, the Scale for the Assessment of Positive Symptoms (SAPS) and Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms (SANS) were collected. Multidimensional scaling (MDS) combined with cluster analysis was applied to SAPS and SANS scores across these two groups of participants. Principal component analysis (PCA) was applied to hallucination and delusions items. Results: MDS revealed relationships between items of the SAPS and SANS. Our application of cluster analysis to these results identified: 1 cluster of disorganization symptoms, 2 clusters of hallucinations/delusions, and 2 negative symptom clusters. Despite being at an earlier stage of illness, symptoms in FEP presentations were similarly organized. PCA revealed 5 latent components: 1) passivity delusions, 2) auditory hallucinations, 3) other hallucinations, 4) paranoid/negative affect delusions, and 5) grandiose/religious delusions. Conclusions: While hallucinations and delusions commonly co-occur, we found that their specific themes and content sometimes travel together and sometimes apart. This has important implications, not only for treatment and prognosis, but also for experimental medicine. Our data should further inform the search for causal pathophysiological mechanisms