Measuring Treatment Attrition at Various Stages of Engagement in Opioid Agonist Treatment in Ontario Canada Using a Cascade of Care Framework

Background The cascade of care framework is an effective way to measure attrition at various stages of engagement in Opioid Agonist Treatment (OAT). The primary objective of the study was to describe the cascade of care for individuals who have accessed OAT from a network of specialized addiction clinics in Ontario, Canada. The secondary objectives were to evaluate correlates associated with retention in OAT at various stages and the impact of patients' location of the residence on retention in OAT. Design: A multi-clinic retrospective cohort study was conducted using electronic medical record (EMR) data from the largest network of OAT clinics in Canada (70 clinics) from 2014-2020. Study participants included all individuals who received OAT from the network of clinics during the study period. Measurements: In this study, four stages of the cascade of care framework were operationalized to identify treatment engagement patterns, including patients retained within 90 days, 90 to 365 days, one to two years, and more than two years. Correlates associated with OAT retention for 90 days, 90 to 365 days, one to two years, and more than two years were also evaluated and compared across rural and urban areas in northern and southern Ontario. Results A total of 32,487 individuals were included in the study. Compared to individuals who were retained in OAT for 90 days, individuals who were retained for 90 to 365 days, one to two years, or more than two years were more likely to have a higher number of treatment attempts, a higher number of average monthly urine drug screening and a lower proportion of positive urine drug screening results for other drug use. Conclusion Distinct sociodemographic and clinical factors are likely to influence treatment retention at various stages of engagement along the OAT continuum. Research is required to determine if tailored strategies specific to people at different stages of engagement have the potential to improve outcomes of OAT.

Acute limb ischaemia due to vasospasm: a rare presentation

A 30-year-old woman with active intravenous drug use presented with pain, blue discolouration, paresthesia and lack of grip strength of left hand for 1 week. Physical examination revealed blue discolouration, decreased sensation and cold to touch in the left hand. She had no palpable radial pulse. She admitted Heroin use only but the urine drug screen was also positive for amphetamine. CT angiogram of the left upper extremity was concerning for acute ischaemia due to arterial occlusion. The initial plan was for amputation. However, to salvage the limb with thrombolysis, an interventional radiology angiogram was performed. The angiogram demonstrated diffuse arterial spasm and response to nitroglycerin. She was treated with nitroglycerin drip and transitioned to a calcium channel blocker. She did improve significantly. To ensure no embolic sequelae, the patient was discharged with a month of oral anticoagulation.

The Urine Drug Screen in the Emergency Department

Urine drug screens (UDSs) are often performed in the emergency department (ED) as part of a standard ED order set in patients with significant altered mental status, trauma, or seizures usually without the patient’s knowledge or specified informed consent. In the ED the UDS has been included in the standard consent to treatment for routine testing along with blood studies, EKG, urinalysis and radiology. Many technical factors are known to effect UDS results.There is a lack of education among physicians regarding the clinical pitfalls of UDS interpretation. This article discusses the current state and issues associated with the UDS, and presents three clinical vignettes that illustrate the impact of false-positive UDS results on patient care and the potential for a patient becoming unknowingly and unfairly stigmatized. The article also offers suggestions including a requirement for either formal informed consent or an “opt out” screening process, as recommended by the CDC in HIV testing, designed to protect patient autonomy and confidentiality.

The Urine Drug Screen in the Emergency Department

Urine drug screens (UDSs) are often performed in the emergency department (ED) as part of a standard ED order set in patients with significant altered mental status, trauma, or seizures usually without the patient’s knowledge or specified informed consent. In the ED the UDS has been included in the standard consent to treatment for routine testing along with blood studies, EKG, urinalysis and radiology. Many technical factors are known to effect UDS results.There is a lack of education among physicians regarding the clinical pitfalls of UDS interpretation. This article discusses the current state and issues associated with the UDS, and presents three clinical vignettes that illustrate the impact of false-positive UDS results on patient care and the potential for a patient becoming unknowingly and unfairly stigmatized. The article also offers suggestions including a requirement for either formal informed consent or an “opt out” screening process, as recommended by the CDC in HIV testing, designed to protect patient autonomy and confidentiality.

Negative Impact of Amphetamine-Type Stimulant Use on Opioid Agonist Treatment Retention in Ontario, Canada

Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate epidemiological trends of co-use patterns of amphetamine-type stimulants and opioids and the impact of co-use patterns on Opioid Agonist Treatment (OAT) retention in Ontario, Canada. The secondary objective was to assess geographical variation in amphetamine-type stimulant use in Northern Rural, Northern Urban, Southern Rural and Southern Urban Areas of Ontario.Methods: A retrospective cohort study on 32,674 adults receiving OAT from ~70 clinics was conducted between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2020, in Ontario, Canada. Patients were divided into four groups base on the proportion of positive urine drug screening results for amphetamine-type stimulants during treatment: group 1 (0–25%), group 2 (25–50%), group 3 (50–75%), and groups 4 (75–100%). A Fractional logistic regression model was used to evaluate differences over time in amphetamine-type stimulant use with urine drug screening results. A Cox Proportional Hazard Ratio model was used to calculate the impact of amphetamine-type stimulant use on retention in OAT and adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics, drug use and clinical factors. Lastly, a logistic regression model was used on a subgroup of patients to assess the impact of geography on amphetamine-type stimulant use in Northern Rural, Northern Urban, Southern Rural and Southern Urban Areas of Ontario.Results: There were significant differences in amphetamine-type stimulant positive urine drug screening results year-over-year from 2015 to 2020. Significant differences were observed between amphetamine-type stimulant groups with regards to sociodemographic, clinical and drug use factors. Compared to those with no amphetamine-type stimulant use, the number of days retained in OAT treatment for amphetamine-type stimulant users was reduced (hazard ratio 1.19; 95% confidence interval = 1.07–1.17; p < 0.001). Lastly, an adjusted logistic regression model showed a significant increase in the likelihood of amphetamine-type stimulant use in Northern Rural regions compared to Southern Urban areas.Conclusion: There was a significant increase in amphetamine-type stimulant use among individuals in OAT from 2014 to 2020, associated with decreased OAT retention. Research is required to determine if tailored strategies specific to individuals in OAT who use amphetamine-type stimulants can improve OAT outcomes.