Search

Objectives: Before the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, federal law required in-person evaluation before buprenorphine initiation. Regulatory changes during the pandemic allow for buprenorphine initiation by audio-only or audiovisual telehealth. Little is known about treatment engagement after buprenorphine initiation conducted via audio-only telehealth. Methods: A retrospective cohort study of 94 individuals who received initial treatment through an audio-only encounter between April 2020 and February 2021 was performed. Participant demographics, substance use history, withdrawal symptoms, 30-day treatment engagement, and adverse outcomes were determined by an electronic chart and REDcap database review. Subsequent buprenorphine prescriptions filled within 30 days of the initial encounter were tracked through the Rhode Island Prescription Drug Monitoring Program. Results: Buprenorphine was prescribed for 94 individuals. Most (92 of 94 [97.9%]) filled their prescription within 30 days. Most had previously taken buprenorphine, including prescribed (42 of 92 [45.7%]) and nonprescribed (58 of 92 [63.0%]). Two thirds were in opioid withdrawal at the time of the call (61 of 92 [66.3%]) with a mean Subjective Opioid Withdrawal Scale of 26.8 (range, 4–57). Four individuals experienced precipitated withdrawal (4 of 94 [4.3%]), and 2 reported persistent withdrawal at their follow-up visit (2 of 94 [2.1%]). More than 70% filled a subsequent prescription for buprenorphine within 30 days of the end of their hotline prescription (65 of 92 [70.7%]), on average of 5.88 days (range, 0–28) after completion of their telehealth prescription. Conclusions: Expanding telehealth-delivered buprenorphine care has the potential to address treatment gaps and facilitate delivery of on-demand services during peak motivation. This evaluation of audio-only buprenorphine initiation found high rates of unobserved buprenorphine initiation and treatment continuation with low rates of complications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Safe injection facilities (SIFs) have shown promise in reducing harms and social costs associated with injection drug use. Favorable evaluations elsewhere have raised the issue of their implementation in the United States. Recognizing that laws shape health interventions targeting drug users, we analyzed the legal environment for publicly authorized SIFs in the United States. Although states and some municipalities have the power to authorize SIFs under state law, federal authorities could still interfere with these facilities under the Controlled Substances Act. A state- or locally-authorized SIF could proceed free of legal uncertainty only if federal authorities explicitly authorized it or decided not to interfere. Given legal uncertainty, and the similar experience with syringe exchange programs, we recommend a process of sustained health research, strategic advocacy, and political deliberation. (Am J Public Health. 2008;98:231-237. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2006.103747)

Repeated measurements and mixed-effects models were used to analyze the effects of an intensive long-term street-level police intervention on syringe exchange program use. Utilization data for 9 months before and after the beginning of the intervention were analyzed. Use fell across all categories and time periods studied, with significant declines in use among total participants, male participants, and Black participants. Declines in use among Black and male participants were much more pronounced than decreases among White and female participants. (Am J Public Health. 2005;95:233-236. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2003.031310)