No abstract

This article reconceptualizes our understanding of the opioid epidemic and proposes six strategies that address the epidemic's social roots. In order to successfully reduce drug‐related mortality over the long term, policymakers and public health leaders should develop partnerships with people who use drugs, incorporate harm reduction interventions, and reverse decades of drug criminalization policies. Context Drug overdose is the leading cause of injury‐related death in the United States. Synthetic opioids, predominantly illicit fentanyl and its analogs, surpassed prescription opioids and heroin in associated mortality rates in 2016. Unfortunately, interventions fail to fully address the current wave of the opioid epidemic and often omit the voices of people with lived experiences regarding drug use. Every overdose death is a culmination of a long series of policy failures and lost opportunities for harm reduction. Methods In this article, we conducted a scoping review of the opioid literature to propose a novel framework designed to foreground social determinants more directly into our understanding of this national emergency. The “continuum of overdose risk” framework is our synthesis of the global evidence base and is grounded in contemporary theories, models, and policies that have been successfully applied both domestically and internationally. Findings De‐escalating overdose risk in the long term will require scaling up innovative and comprehensive solutions that have been designed through partnerships with people who use drugs and are rooted in harm reduction. Conclusions Without recognizing the full drug‐use continuum and the role of social determinants, the current responses to drug overdose will continue to aggravate the problem they are trying to solve.

Purpose Methadone maintenance treatment is a life-saving treatment for people with opioid use disorders (OUD). The coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) has introduced many concerns surrounding access to opioid treatment. In March 2020, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) issued guidance allowing for the expansion of take-home methadone doses. We sought to describe changes to treatment experiences from the perspective of persons receiving methadone at outpatient treatment facilities for OUD. Methods We conducted an in-person survey among 104 persons receiving methadone from three clinics in central North Carolina in June and July 2020. Surveys collected information on demographic characteristics, methadone treatment history, and experiences with take-home methadone doses in the context of COVID-19 (i.e., before and since March 2020). Results Before COVID-19, the clinic-level percent of participants receiving any amount of days' supply of take-home doses at each clinic ranged from 56% to 82%, while it ranged from 78% to 100% since COVID-19. The clinic-level percent of participants receiving a take-homes days' supply of a week or longer (i.e., ≥6 days) since COVID-19 ranged from 11% to 56%. Among 87 participants who received take-homes since COVID-19, only four reported selling their take-home doses. Conclusions Our study found variation in experiences of take-home dosing by clinic and little diversion of take-home doses. While SAMSHA guidance should allow expanded access to take-home doses, adoption of these guidelines may vary at the clinic level. The adoption of these policies should be explored further, particularly in the context of benefits to patients seeking OUD treatment.

No abstract

Purpose: Methadone maintenance treatment is a life-saving treatment for people with opioid use disorders (OUD). The coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) introduces many concerns surrounding access to opioid treatment. In March 2020, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) issued guidance allowing the expansion of take-home methadone doses. We sought to describe changes to treatment experiences from the perspective of persons receiving methadone at outpatient treatment facilities for OUD. Methods: We conducted an in-person survey among 104 persons receiving methadone from three clinics in central North Carolina. Surveys collected information on demographic characteristics, methadone treatment history, and experiences with take-home methadone doses in the context of COVID-19 (i.e., before and since March 2020). Results: Before COVID-19, the clinic-level percent of participants receiving any amount of days supply of take-home doses at each clinic varied ranged from 56% to 82%, while it ranged from 78% to 100% since COVID-19. The clinic-level percent of participants receiving a take-homes days supply of a week or longer (i.e., ≥6 days) since COVID-19 ranged from 11% to 56%. Of the 87 participants who received take-homes since COVID-19 began, only four reported selling their take-home doses. Conclusions: Our study found variation in experiences of take-home dosing by clinic and little diversion of take-home doses. While SAMSHA guidance should allow expanded access to take-home doses, adoption of these guidelines may vary at the clinic level. The adoption of these policies should be explored further, particularly in the context of benefits to patients seeking treatment for OUD.

No abstract

No abstract

Introduction Bacterial and fungal infections, such as skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) and infective endocarditis (IE), are increasing among people who use drugs in the United States. Traditional healthcare settings can be inaccessible and unwelcoming to people who use drugs, leading to delays in getting necessary care. The objective of this study was to examine SSTI treatment experiences among people utilizing services from syringe services programs. This study was initiated by people with lived experience of drug use to improve quality of care. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional survey among participants of five syringe services programs in North Carolina from July through September 2020. Surveys collected information on each participant’s history of SSTIs and IE, drug use and healthcare access characteristics, and SSTI treatment experiences. We examined participant characteristics using counts and percentages. We also examined associations between participant characteristics and SSTI history using binomial linear regression models. Results Overall, 46% of participants reported an SSTI in the previous 12 months and 10% reported having IE in the previous 12 months. Those with a doctor they trusted with drug use-related concerns had 27 fewer (95% confidence interval = − 51.8, − 2.1) SSTIs per every 100 participants compared to those without a trusted doctor. Most participants with a SSTI history reported delaying (98%) or not seeking treatment (72%) for their infections. Concerns surrounding judgment or mistreatment by medical staff and self-treating the infection were common reasons for delaying or not seeking care. 13% of participants used antibiotics obtained from sources other than a medical provider to treat their most recent SSTI. Many participants suggested increased access to free antibiotics and on-site clinical care based at syringe service programs to improve treatment for SSTIs. Conclusions Many participants had delayed or not received care for SSTIs due to poor healthcare experiences. However, having a trusted doctor was associated with fewer people with SSTIs. Improved access to non-judgmental healthcare for people who use drugs with SSTIs is needed. Expansion of syringe services program-based SSTI prevention and treatment programs is likely a necessary approach to improve outcomes among those with SSTI and IE.