No abstract

Summary Background Methadone is an effective treatment for opioid dependence. When people who are receiving methadone maintenance treatment for opioid dependence are incarcerated in prison or jail, most US correctional facilities discontinue their methadone treatment, either gradually, or more often, abruptly. This discontinuation can cause uncomfortable symptoms of withdrawal and renders prisoners susceptible to relapse and overdose on release. We aimed to study the effect of forced withdrawal from methadone upon incarceration on individuals’ risk behaviours and engagement with post-release treatment programmes. Methods In this randomised, open-label trial, we randomly assigned (1:1) inmates of the Rhode Island Department of Corrections (RI, USA) who were enrolled in a methadone maintenance-treatment programme in the community at the time of arrest and wanted to remain on methadone treatment during incarceration and on release, to either continuation of their methadone treatment or to usual care—forced tapered withdrawal from methadone. Participants could be included in the study only if their incarceration would be more than 1 week but less than 6 months. We did the random assignments with a computer-generated random permutation, and urn randomisation procedures to stratify participants by sex and race. Participants in the continued-methadone group were maintained on their methadone dose at the time of their incarceration (with dose adjustments as clinically indicated). Patients in the forced-withdrawal group followed the institution’s standard withdrawal protocol of receiving methadone for 1 week at the dose at the time of their incarceration, then a tapered withdrawal regimen (for those on a starting dose >100 mg, the dose was reduced by 5 mg per day to 100 mg, then reduced by 3 mg per day to 0 mg; for those on a starting dose ≤100 mg, the dose was reduced by 3 mg per day to 0 mg). The main outcomes were engagement with a methadone maintenance-treatment clinic after release from incarceration and time to engagement with methadone maintenance treatment, by intention-to-treat and as-treated analyses, which we established in a follow-up interview with the participants at 1 month after their release from incarceration. Our study paid for 10 weeks of methadone treatment after release if participants needed financial help. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01874964. Findings Between June 14, 2011, and April 3, 2013, we randomly assigned 283 prisoners to our study, 142 to continued methadone treatment, and 141 to forced withdrawal from methadone. Of these, 60 were excluded because they did not fit the eligibility criteria, leaving 114 in the continued-methadone group and 109 in the forced-withdrawal group (usual care). Participants assigned to continued methadone were more than twice as likely than forced-withdrawal participants to return to a community methadone clinic within 1 month of release (106 [96%] of 110 in the continued-methadone group compared with 68 [78%] of 87 in the for...

No abstract

No abstract

Objectives Unpredictable fluctuations in the illicit drug market increase overdose risk. Drug checking, or the use of technology to provide insight into the contents of illicit drug products, is an overdose prevention strategy with an emerging evidence base. The use of portable spectrometry devices to provide point-of-service analysis of the contents of illicit drugs been adopted by harm reduction organizations internationally but is only emerging in the United States. This study aimed to identify barriers and facilitators of implementing drug checking services with spectrometry devices in an urban harm reduction organization and syringe service program serving economically marginalized people who use drugs in Boston, Massachusetts (USA). Methods In-vivo observations and semi-structured interviews with harm reduction staff and participants were conducted between March 2019 and December 2020. We used the consolidated framework for implementation research to identify implementation barriers and facilitators. Results This implementation effort was facilitated by the organization’s shared culture of harm reduction—which fostered shared implementation goals and beliefs about the intervention among staff persons—its horizontal organizational structure, strong identification with the organization among staff, and strong relationships with external funders. Barriers to implementation included the technological complexity of the advanced spectroscopy devices utilized for drug checking. Program staff indicated that commercially available spectroscopy devices are powerful but not always well-suited for drug checking efforts, describing their technological capacities as “the Bronze Age of Drug Checking.” Other significant barriers include the legal ambiguity of drug checking services, disruptive and oppositional police activity, and the responses and programmatic changes demanded by the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusions For harm reduction organizations to be successful in efforts to implement and scale drug checking services, these critical barriers—especially regressive policing policies and prohibitive costs—need to be addressed. Future research on the impact of policy changes to reduce the criminalization of substance use or to provide explicit legal frameworks for the provision of this and other harm reduction services may be merited.

Recently, incarcerated individuals are at increased risk of opioid overdose. Methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) is an effective way to address opioid use disorder and prevent overdose; however, few jails and prisons in the United States initiate or continue people who are incarcerated on MMT. In the current study, the 12 month outcomes of a randomized control trial in which individuals were provided MMT while incarcerated at the Rhode Island Department of Corrections (RIDOC) are assessed. An as-treated analysis included a total of 179 participants-128 who were, and 51 who were not, dosed with methadone the day before they were released from the RIDOC. The results of this study demonstrate that 12 months post-release individuals who received continued access to MMT while incarcerated were less likely to report using heroin and engaging in injection drug use in the past 30 days. In addition, they reported fewer non-fatal overdoses and were more likely to be continuously engaged in treatment in the 12-month follow-up period compared to individuals who were not receiving methadone immediately prior to release. These findings indicate that providing incarcerated individuals continued access to MMT has a sustained, long-term impact on many opioid-related outcomes post-release.

Maintaining study cohorts is a key element of longitudinal research. Participant attrition introduces the possibility of bias and limits the generalizability of a study's findings, but with appropriate planning it is possible to sustain contact with even the most transient participants. This paper reviews the essential elements of tracking and follow-up of marginalized populations, which are (1) collection of contact information, (2) thorough organization of tracking efforts, (3) attention to staff training and support, (4) use of phone and mail follow-up, (5) use of incentives, (6) establishing rapport with participants, (7) assurance of confidentiality, (8) use of agency tracking, (9) use of field tracking, and (10) attention to safety concerns. Diligent application of these tracking strategies allows researchers to achieve follow-up rates of 75 percent to 97 percent with vulnerable populations such as homeless, mentally ill adults, injection drug users, and runaway youth.

We report here on a feasibility study of initiating buprenorphine/naloxone prior to release from incarceration and linking participants to community treatment providers upon release. Study consisted of a small number of Rhode Island (RI) prisoners (N=44) diagnosed with opioid dependence. The study design is a single arm, open-label pilot study with a 6-month follow up interview conducted in the community. However, a natural experiment arose during the study comparing pre-release initiation of buprenorphone/naloxone to initiation post-release. Time to post-release prescriber appointment (mean days) for initiation of treatment Outside Rhode Island Department of Corrections (RIDOC) vs. Inside RIDOC was 8.8 and 3.9, respectively (p=.1). Median post release treatment duration (weeks) for Outside RIDOC vs. Inside RIDOC was 9 and 24, respectively (p=.007). We conclude that initiating buprenorphine/naloxone prior to release from incarceration may increase engagement and retention in community-based treatment.