Search

Background and Aims: To prevent COVID‐19 transmission, some United States (US) federal regulations on substance use disorder (SUD) treatment were suspended in March 2020. This study aimed to quantify the extent of state‐level policy uptake and the potential number of people with SUD affected by these policy changes across the US, as well as to assess if policy uptake correlated with rates of people with SUD already in treatment or needing treatment. Design Cross‐sectional analysis of policies implemented as of April 13, 2020. Setting and Participants: A total of 50 US states and the District of Columbia Measurements State‐level implementation of: oral schedule II controlled substances emergency prescription, extended take‐home doses for medication for opioid use disorders (MOUD), home‐delivery of take‐home medications, telemedicine for schedule II‐IV prescriptions, telemedicine for buprenorphine prescribing initiation, and waiver of out‐of‐state Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) registration. Rates per 100 000 population of: adults in treatment for SUD, MOUD treatment at facilities with opioid treatment programs, SUD based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)‐IV criteria, and needing, but not receiving treatment. Findings Half of the states (n = 24) enacted no policies, leaving ~460 955 people in treatment and 114 370 people on MOUD pre‐pandemic uncovered by any policy expansion. Only telemedicine for buprenorphine initiation was marginally associated with pre‐pandemic rate of SUD treatment (OR = 1.003, 95% CI = [1.001, 1.006]) and rate of MOUD therapy (OR = 1.006, 95% CI = [1.002, 1.011]) in univariable analysis, but these associations were no longer significant when controlling for state‐level demographics. No policies were associated with state‐wide SUD prevalence or rate of unmet treatment need (P > 0.05). Conclusions: Twenty‐four United States states did not implement at least one federal policy for substance use disorder treatment expansion as of April 2020, leaving approximately half a million people in treatment pre‐pandemic potentially without access to treatment or risking exposure to COVID‐19 to continue in‐person therapies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Our study aims to define and identify correlates of social isolation among people living with HIV (PLHIV). The Longitudinal Investigation into Supportive and Ancillary health services (LISA) study provided a cross-sectional analytic sample of 996 PLHIV in British Columbia, Canada (sampled between 2007 and 2010). Individuals marginalized by socio-structural inequities were oversampled; sampling bias was addressed through inverse probability of participation weighting. Through latent class analysis, three groups were identified: Socially Connected (SC) (n = 364, 37%), Minimally Isolated (MI) (n = 540, 54%) and Socially Isolated (SI) (n = 92, 9%). Correlates of the SI and MI classes, determined through multivariable multinomial regression using the SC class as a reference, include: recent violence (aOR 1.61, 95%CI 1.28–2.02 [MI vs. SC]; aOR 2.04, 95%CI 1.41–2.96 [SI vs. SC]) and a mental health diagnosis (aOR 1.50, 95% CI 1.31–1.72 [MI vs. SC]; aOR 1.43, 95%CI 1.11–1.83 [SI vs. SC]). Women (aOR 0.47; 95%CI 0.32–0.68 [SI vs. SC]), individuals of Indigenous ancestry (aOR 0.59; 95%CI 0.40–0.87 [SI vs. SC]) and people identifying as gay or lesbian (aOR 0.37; 95%CI 0.26–0.52 [SI vs. SC]) were less likely to experience isolation. These findings highlight the importance of supporting communities fostering connectedness and identifies populations susceptible to isolation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]