Overdose education and naloxone distribution program design informed by people who use drugs and naloxone distributors

People who use drugs (PWUD) are the most directly affected by the overdose epidemic. However, they are not often targets of overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND) programs. Instead, these programs target friends or family members of people prescribed opioids or general community members. This study aimed to understand the perspectives of PWUD and community naloxone distributors on OEND program design. We used a community-based participatory research model to elucidate participant perspectives on what OEND programs should look like in the context of each individual’s specific risk environment. We conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews with PWUD and naloxone distributors (n = 30) in New Brunswick and Newark, New Jersey between February and November of 2022. We analyzed interviews using thematic analysis and identified the following themes: increasing naloxone knowledge, peer-based naloxone access, increasing PWUD-informed OEND program design, and desired broader OEND program scope. All Participants knew what naloxone was and emphasized that naloxone needed to be ubiquitous in the community. Participants prioritized peer-based distribution, integrating distribution into community organizations, and addressing psychosocial issues related to naloxone administration and drug use. In summary, PWUD and community naloxone distributors emphasized peer-led community naloxone distribution that prioritized novel ways for PWUD to access naloxone. OEND program design should prioritize PWUD’s perspectives and direct community naloxone distribution

A survey of barriers and facilitators to the adoption of buprenorphine prescribing after implementation of a New Jersey-wide incentivized DATA-2000 waiver training program

Abstract Background Opioid-involved overdose deaths continue to rise in the US, despite availability of highly effective treatments for opioid use disorder (OUD), in part due to the insufficient number of treatment providers. Barriers include the need for providers to gain expertise and confidence in providing MOUD to their patients who need these treatments. To mitigate this barrier, New Jersey sponsored a buprenorphine training program with financial incentives for participation, which met the then existing requirement for the DATA-2000 waiver. In a 2019 follow-up survey, participants reported on barriers and facilitators to subsequent buprenorphine prescribing. Methods Participants in the training program completed a 10-min electronic survey distributed via email. The survey addressed demographics, practice characteristics, current buprenorphine prescribing, and barriers and facilitators to adoption and/or scale up of buprenorphine prescribing. Results Of the 440 attendees with a valid email address, 91 individuals completed the survey for a response rate of 20.6%. Of the 91 respondents, 89 were eligible prescribers and included in the final analysis. Respondents were predominantly female (n = 55, 59.6%) and physicians (n = 55, 61.8%); representing a broad range of specialties and practice sites. 65 (73%) of respondents completed the training and DEA-registration, but only 31 (34.8%) were actively prescribing buprenorphine. The most frequently cited barriers to buprenorphine prescribing were lack of access to support services such as specialists in addiction, behavioral health services, and psychiatry. The most frequently reported potential facilitators were integrated systems with direct access to addiction specialists and psychosocial services, easier referral to behavioral health services, more institutional support, and improved guidance on clinical practice standards for OUD treatment. Conclusion More than half (52.3%) of those who completed incentivized training and DEA registration failed to actively prescribe buprenorphine. Results highlight provider perceptions of inadequate availability of support for the complex needs of patients with OUD and suggest that broader adoption of buprenorphine prescribing will require scaling up support to clinicians, including increased availability of specialized addiction and mental health services

The Impact of COVID-19 on the Treatment of Opioid Use Disorder in Carceral Facilities: a Cross-sectional Study

While the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted healthcare delivery everywhere, persons with carceral system involvement and opioid use disorder (OUD) were disproportionately impacted and vulnerable to severe COVID-associated illness. Carceral settings and community treatment programs (CTPs) rapidly developed protocols to sustain healthcare delivery while reducing risk of COVID-19 transmission. This survey study assessed changes to OUD treatment, telemedicine use, and re-entry support services among carceral and CTPs participating in the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)-funded study, Long-Acting Buprenorphine vs. Naltrexone Opioid Treatments in Criminal Justice System-Involved Adults (EXIT-CJS) study. In December 2020, carceral sites (n = 6; median pre-COVID 2020 monthly census = 3468 people) and CTPs (n = 7; median pre-COVID 2020 monthly census = 550 patients) participating in EXIT-CJS completed a cross-sectional web-based survey. The survey assessed changes pre- (January–March 2020) and post- (April–September 2020) COVID-19 in OUD treatment, telemedicine use, re-entry supports and referral practices. Compared to January–March 2020, half of carceral sites (n = 3) increased the total number of persons initiating medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) from April–September 2020, while a third (n = 2) decreased the number of persons initiated. Most CTPs (n = 4) reported a decrease in the number of new admissions from April–September 2020, with two programs stopping or pausing MOUD programs due to COVID-19. All carceral sites with pre-COVID telemedicine use (n = 5) increased or maintained telemedicine use, and all CTPs providing MOUD (n = 6) increased telemedicine use. While expansion of telemedicine services supported MOUD service delivery, the majority of sites experienced challenges providing community support post-release, including referrals to housing, employment, and transportation services. During the COVID-19 pandemic, this small sample of carceral and CTP sites innovated to continue delivery of treatment for OUD. Expansion of telemedicine services was critical to support MOUD service delivery. Despite these innovations, sites experienced challenges providing reintegration supports for persons in the community. Pre-COVID strategies for identifying and engaging individuals while incarcerated may be less effective since the pandemic. In addition to expanding research on the most effective telemedicine practices for carceral settings, research exploring strategies to expand housing and employment support during reintegration are critical

Additional file 1 of A survey of barriers and facilitators to the adoption of buprenorphine prescribing after implementation of a New Jersey-wide incentivized DATA-2000 waiver training program

Additional file 1. Survey instruments

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health