Search

Background: Starting in the late 1990s, the pharmaceutical industry sought to increase prescribing of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain. Influencing the content of clinical practice guidelines may have been one strategy industry employed. In this study we assessed potential risk of bias from financial conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry in guidelines for opioid prescribing for chronic non-cancer pain published between 2007 and 2013, the peak of opioid prescribing. Methods: We used the Guideline Panel Review (GPR) to appraise the guidelines included in the 2014 systematic review and critical appraisal by Nuckols et al. These were English language opioid prescribing guidelines for adults with chronic non-cancer pain published between July 2007 and July 2013, the peak of opioid prescribing. The GPR assigns red flags to items known to introduce potential bias from financial conflicts of interest. We operationalized the GPR by creating specific definitions for each red flag. Two reviewers independently evaluated each guideline. Disagreements were resolved with discussion. We also compared our score to the critical appraisal scores for overall quality from the study by Nuckols et al. Results: We appraised 13 guidelines, which received 43 red flags in total. Guidelines had 3.3 red flags on average (out of a possible seven) with range from one to six. Four guidelines had missing information, so red flags may be higher than reported. The guidelines with the highest and second highest scores for overall quality in the 2014 critical appraisal by Nuckols et al. had five and three red flags, respectively. Conclusion: Our findings reveal that the guidelines for opioid prescribing chronic non-cancer pain from 2007 to 2013 were at risk of bias because of pervasive conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry and a paucity of mechanisms to address bias. Even highly-rated guidelines examined in a 2014 systematic review and critical appraisal had many red flags. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article analyzes cannabis legalization policies from the public health perspective in order to provide a resource for Canadian policy-makers seeking to reform cannabis laws. Topics covered include the high rate of cannabis use in Canada, the decision by many jurisdictions outside Canada to legalize cannabis for medical use and the tendency for policies prohibiting cannabis to cause harm. The cannabis policies of Uruguay, the Netherlands, Spain and some U.S. states are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors reflect on how cases of at-risk drinking and alcohol use disorders are being handled in Canada. Topics covered include how alcohol-related harms affect the Canadian health care system, details relating to the strategy and programs for screening and treating at-risk drinking and alcohol use disorders in Canada, and the highlights of a COMBINE study conducted to compare the primary care management model with specialize addiction care.

Background: Despite concerns surrounding high patient volumes in methadone clinics, little is known about the practice patterns of opioid maintenance therapy (OMT) providers in Ontario. We examined the distribution of these services and how physician characteristics differ based on prescribing volume.Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study among prescribers of methadone or buprenorphine to Ontario public drug beneficiaries in 2014 by stratifying physicians into low- (lower 50%), moderate- (51-89%) and high-volume (top 10%) prescribers. We summarized the distribution of OMT prescription days dispensed and urine drug screens (UDS) ordered using Lorenz curves and examined physician characteristics using descriptive statistics.Results: We identified 893 OMT prescribers in 2014. Physicians were mostly male (67.5%; N=603), and middle-aged (median was 50). High-volume methadone providers (N=57) prescribed approximately 56% (N=4,115,322) of the total days of methadone (Gini coefficient=0.76, 95% CI 0.74-0.79) while high-volume buprenorphine providers (N=64) prescribed 61% (N=589,463) of the total days of buprenorphine (Gini coefficient=0.78, 95% CI 0.75-0.80). On average, each high-volume methadone prescriber treated 435 OMT patients and billed 43 UDS per patient, while each high-volume buprenorphine prescriber treated 64 OMT patients and billed 22 UDS per patient. Daily OMT patient volume was on average 74 for high-volume methadone prescribers and 6 for high-volume buprenorphine prescribers.Conclusions: OMT services are highly concentrated among a small portion of OMT providers who carry high daily patient volumes. Future research should examine the quality of primary care received by their patients to better elucidate the possible consequences of this highly unequal distribution of services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: People who use drugs with life-limiting illnesses experience substantial barriers to accessing palliative care. Demand for palliative care is expected to increase during communicable disease epidemics and pandemics. Understanding how epidemics and pandemics affect palliative care for people who use drugs is important from a service delivery perspective and for reducing population health inequities. Aim: To explore what is known about communicable disease epidemics and pandemics, palliative care, and people who use drugs. Design: Scoping review. Data sources: We searched six bibliographic databases from inception to April 2021 as well as the grey literature. We included English and French records about palliative care access, programs, and policies and guidelines for people ⩾18 years old who use drugs during communicable disease epidemics and pandemics. Results: Forty-four articles were included in our analysis. We identified limited knowledge about palliative care for people who use drugs during epidemics and pandemics other than HIV/AIDS. Through our thematic synthesis of the records, we generated the following themes: enablers and barriers to access, organizational barriers, structural inequity, access to opioids and other psychoactive substances, and stigma. Conclusions: Our findings underscore the need for further research about how best to provide palliative care for people who use drugs during epidemics and pandemics. We suggest four ways that health systems can be better prepared to help alleviate the structural barriers that limit access as well as support the provision of high-quality palliative care during future epidemics and pandemics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Although opioid‐related harms have reached new heights across North America, the size of the gap in opioid agonist therapy (OAT) delivery for opioid‐related health problems is unknown in most jurisdictions. This study sought to characterize the gap in OAT treatment using a cascade of care framework, and determine factors associated with engagement and retention in treatment. Design: A population‐based retrospective cohort study. Setting: Ontario, Canada. Participants: Individuals who sought medical care for opioid‐related health problems or died from an opioid‐related cause between 2005 and 2019. Measurements: Monthly treatment status for buprenorphine/naloxone or methadone OAT between 2013 and 2019 (i.e. 'off OAT', 'retained on OAT < 6 months', 'retained on OAT ≥ 6 months'). Findings Of 122 811 individuals in the cohort, 97 516 (79.4%) received OAT at least once during the study period. There was decreasing 6‐month treatment retention over time. Model results indicated that males had higher odds of being on OAT each month [odds ratio (OR) = 1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.23–1.28] but lower odds of OAT retention (OR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.88–0.92), while the reverse was observed for older individuals (monthly: OR = 0.76 per 10‐year increase, 95% CI = 0.76–0.77; retention: OR = 1.36 per 10‐year increase, 95% CI = 1.34–1.38) and individuals with higher neighbourhood income (e.g. highest income quintile, monthly: OR = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.77–0.82; highest income quintile, retention: OR = 1.15, 95% CI = 1.11–1.20). Individuals residing in rural areas and with a history of mental health diagnoses had poorer outcomes overall, including lower odds of being on OAT each month (rural: OR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.73–0.78; mental health: OR = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.87–0.92) and OAT retention (rural: OR = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.77–0.82; mental health: OR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.78–0.83), as well as higher risk of starting/stopping OAT [rural, starting OAT: hazard ratio (HR) = 1.07, 95% CI = 1.05–1.10; mental health, starting OAT: HR = 1.20, 95% CI: 1.18–1.23; rural, stopping OAT: HR = 1.24, 95% CI: = 1.22–1.26; mental health, stopping OAT: HR = 1.11, 95% CI = 1.09–1.13]. Individuals with a history of mental health diagnoses also had a higher risk of death, regardless of OAT status (off OAT death: HR = 1.49, 95% CI = 1.33–1.66; on OAT death: HR = 1.20, 95% CI = 1.09–1.31). Conclusions: Factors influencing engagement and declining retention in treatment with opioid agonist therapy in Ontario's health system include age, sex and neighbourhood income, as well as mental health diagnoses or residing in rural regions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Clinically focused interventions for people living with pain, such as health professional education, clinical decision support systems, prescription drug monitoring programs, and multidisciplinary care to support opioid tapering, have all been promoted as important solutions to the North American opioid crisis. Yet none have so far delivered substantive beneficial opioid-related population health outcomes. In fact, while total opioid prescribing has leveled off or reduced in many jurisdictions, population-level harms from opioids have continued to increase dramatically. We attribute this failure partly to a poor recognition of the epistemic and ethical complexities at the interface of clinical and population health. We draw on a framework of knowledge networks in wicked problems to identify 3 strategies to help navigate these complexities: (1) designing and evaluating clinically focused interventions as complex interventions, (2) reformulating evidence to make population health dynamics apparent, and (3) appealing to the inseparability of facts and values to support decision-making in uncertainty. We advocate that applying these strategies will better equip clinically focused interventions as complements to structural and public health interventions to achieve the desired beneficial population health effects. (Am J Public Health. 2022;112(S1):S56–S65. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306500) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]