Skip to main content
Download PDF
Download ePub

Opioid agonist treatment take-home doses (‘carries’): Are current guidelines resulting in low treatment coverage among high-risk populations in Canada and the USA?

Harm Reduction Journal volume 19, Article number: 89 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Opioid agonist treatment (OAT) is the primary intervention for opioid use disorder (OUD) in Canada and the USA. Yet, a number of barriers contribute to sub-optimal treatment uptake and retention, including daily-supervised medication administration. Thus, clients are eventually granted access to take-home OAT doses (i.e., ‘carries’) to reduce this burden. However, this decision is based on physician discretion and whether patients can demonstrate stability in various life domains, many of which are inextricably linked to the social determinants of health (SDOH). Current Canadian and USA OAT carry guidance documents are not standardized and do not take the SDOH into consideration, resulting in the potential for inequitable access to OAT carries, which may be the case particularly among marginalized populations such as individuals with OUD who have been released from custody. This perspective article posits that current OAT guidelines contribute to inequities in access to OAT carries, and that these inequities likely result in disproportionately low coverage for OUD treatment among some high-risk groups, including individuals on release from incarceration in particular. Relevant impacts of COVID-19 and related policy changes are considered, and suggestions and recommendations to amend current OAT guidance documents are provided.

Introduction

Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a complex illness, commonly characterized by chronic, lifelong relapse episodes and is associated with significantly high rates of morbidity and mortality [1]. Individuals with OUD often have poor health status and high levels of involvement in the criminal justice system, particularly due to the criminalization of substance use [2,3,4,5,6]. As per various clinical guidelines in Canada and the USA, as well as elsewhere, the gold standard for OUD treatment is opioid agonist treatment (OAT) [7,8,9,10]. OAT is evidence-based, safe and effective [1, 8, 11] and is associated with improvements in health care and addiction treatment engagement [9] and reductions in opioid use and related harms including all-cause mortality, overdose and suicide [12, 13]. These benefits underscore the vast health benefits and utility of OAT access as a key public health intervention. This may be particularly important within the context of the dual public health crises of the opioid overdose epidemic and the novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, where opioid-related harms have been substantially amplified [14,15,16].

Although OAT is available in both Canada and the USA, the way that it is prescribed and delivered to patients vastly differs, and in both countries, regulations and availability of providers also varies by state and/or province [17]. In the USA, methadone is highly regulated and only available through federally certified and accredited opioid treatment programs (OTPs) (i.e., general healthcare professionals cannot provide methadone), while buprenorphine is more widely available through family physicians; yet, only providers who apply for and receive a federal buprenorphine waiver can provide it [10, 18, 19]. In Canada, both methadone and buprenorphine are available in several clinical contexts including addiction program clinics, physician’s offices or pharmacies, and since 2018 providers are no longer required to obtain a federal exemption to prescribe methadone; however, physicians and nurse practitioners are still required and/or encouraged to take a training course and become certified in order to prescribe OAT in most provinces [9, 20, 21].

Beyond discrepancies in prescribing practices (i.e., stringent provider regulations, particularly in certain jurisdictions) which may limit or hinder OAT uptake, a number of barriers contribute to suboptimal OAT engagement and retention rates, including strict program requirements [17, 19]. For instance, individuals initiating OAT are typically required to visit a clinic daily for supervised medication administration, and to provide frequent (e.g., weekly) urine specimens [9, 10, 20, 22]. Many individuals deem these requirements as overly burdensome as the need to attend the clinic daily prevents them from achieving health and life goals and often drives decisions to discontinue or avoid OAT [23, 24]. In order to mitigate burdensome clinic visits, OAT guidelines in Canada and the USA state that after a number (typically two to three) of consecutive months of treatment, patients should be gradually provided ‘take-home’ or ‘unwitnessed’ OAT doses (often colloquially called ‘carries,’ or ‘take-homes,’ with terminology varying by jurisdiction), whereby the patient is provided OAT medication to self-administer without any supervision or requirement to attend a clinic [9, 10, 25]. In Canada and the USA, it typically takes upwards of eight months to a year for a patient to achieve a full week’s worth of OAT carries [10, 20]. The relevant guidelines in both countries lay out strict rules for how long a patient must remain in treatment and demonstrate stability before receiving carries; however, whether these rules are evidence-based is uncertain.

The decision to provide a patient access to OAT carries is ultimately made by their OAT clinician, who assesses whether the benefits of providing carries outweigh the potential risks, such as toxicity from dosing errors, medication non-adherence, and diversion [9]. The decision is often contingent on whether patients can demonstrate clinical, economic, social, and psychological ‘stability,’ which includes consistent attendance at clinic visits combined with reduced illicit drug use (and ideally abstinence from non-prescribed opioids), as well as positive family/social relationships and behaviors (e.g., no criminal activity), and the ability to safely store OAT medication [9, 10]. Thus, many of the criteria for OAT carry access therefore depend on the broader social determinants of health (SDOH). For instance, the necessity of access to a safe space to store medication is inextricably linked to housing and financial stability, and those who are unstably housed or have difficulties demonstrating ‘stability’ in various socioeconomic domains may be denied access. Moreover, individuals who have co-occurring physical and mental health diagnoses (who arguably have an even greater need for health care and increased flexibility and support) may not be able to demonstrate stability and be excluded from accessing OAT carries. These factors emphasize the intrinsic yet circular role that the SDOH play in relation to individuals being able to meet eligibility criteria to obtain OAT carries, whereby individuals may not be able to obtain OAT carries if they have co-occurring illnesses and/or do not have income or housing, yet are forced to visit an OAT clinic daily which may compete with their ability to receive support and/or obtain housing and employment.

The discretionary nature of clinician decisions, combined with a lack of standardization and any consideration for the SDOH across guidance documents contributes to the potential of inequitable access to OAT carries. This inequity may disproportionately impact specific populations, such as individuals with OUD who have been released from incarceration, individuals living in remote areas, individuals experiencing homelessness, and others who cannot easily demonstrate ‘stability.’ In this commentary, we aim to discuss how current Canadian and USA OAT guidelines may be resulting in low treatment coverage and inequitable burden among some populations, focusing on people with OUD who have been released from custody to illustrate this likelihood.

Importance of access to OAT carries for individuals with OUD during community release

When individuals with OUD are released from incarceration into the community, they face heightened risks for adverse outcomes including relapse and overdose-related deaths, which are particularly common in the initial days and weeks post-release [26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33]. Providing OAT to these individuals pre-release combined with efforts to ensure continuity of care has been found to increase drug treatment entry and retention and reduce substance use, overdose, mortality, and recidivism [2, 34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41].

However, individuals face a variety of barriers to OAT access upon release that contribute to suboptimal treatment adherence and related consequences [42,43,44,45,46]. For instance, many are required to adhere to correctional release plans, which often include conditions such as obtaining employment and stable housing, undertaking correctional and/or addiction treatment programs, and attending frequent appointments with their probation/parole officers/other case managers [42, 47]. The literature has highlighted that during community reintegration, individuals have difficulties balancing conflicting priorities such as maintaining employment in conjunction with their OAT regimen, and often have to reschedule their workdays around daily OAT clinic visits and limited operational hours [43, 44, 46, 48]. This burden is heightened among those who reside in remote areas where they have to travel far distances in order to access a clinic [49].

To support community reintegration, access to take-home OAT carries is especially important for individuals post-release as it obviates daily clinic visit requirements, allows the freedom and flexibility to take medication at a convenient time, and eases the burden of having to balance competing priorities such as visits to OAT clinics and other release requirements. However, it is also likely that individuals on release experience inequitable access to OAT carries considering they already face distinct challenges in regard to the SDOH, many of which are known to contribute to negative health outcomes (e.g., employment, income, housing, etc.), yet are required to demonstrate ‘stability’ [50,51,52,53,54]. As a key example, upon release, some individuals are given a residency restriction which requires them to reside within a community-based residential facility (i.e., a ‘halfway house’), where they live temporarily while they reintegrate into the community [55]. This can intrinsically act as a barrier to obtaining OAT carries since, by nature, halfway houses are considered temporary housing as individuals only remain there for short periods of time (typically a few months up to a year) while they finish the remainder of their sentence under community supervision [55, 56]. In these facilities, individuals live in a group environment under strict rules where they must abide by stringent release conditions [56]. During this period, OAT clinicians may be hesitant to grant an individual OAT carries for a number of reasons, including the risk for medication diversion and the temporary (i.e., unstable) nature of their living environment.

Furthermore, halfway houses and staff are often poorly equipped to facilitate effective OUD treatment [57]. Access to medications is commonly constrained by structural and organizational factors, including restrictive policies that limit the circumstances under which an individual can become eligible to receive carries while residing on-site. For example, contracts between correctional institutions and halfway houses set out detailed requirements for the storage of medications [55]. In regard to OAT carries, some contracts indicate that carries will only be temporarily kept on-site during exceptional circumstances (e.g., when the clinic is closed) [58], forcing individuals residing at halfway houses to visit an OAT clinic even after they have shown clinical stability and would otherwise likely be granted access, if their living situation were different. Results from a longitudinal mixed-methods study examining experiences with OAT among individuals recently released from federal incarceration in Canada indicated that many individuals who were residing at halfway houses during their community reintegration period were prohibited from storing OAT carries on-site [59]. For instance, one individual stated “I don’t know why, but we can’t have [OAT carries] here [at the halfway house]…[I’d be eligible for carries] if I moved out tomorrow into my own spot…so it’s like being married to a drug store…I get my [OAT] at [clinic name], which takes me 45 min from here to get there on busses…and it’s really frustrating…it’d just be great if I didn’t have to go there every day.” These findings underscore the potential for current OAT policies and related structural barriers to impede access to OAT medication and hinder patient-centered care among individuals with OUD on release from incarceration and, thus, likely result in low treatment coverage.

COVID-19: special considerations and circumstances

The potential for individuals with OUD who have been released from incarceration to experience disproportionate access to OAT carries is even more concerning in light of COVID-19. Since the onset of the pandemic, OUD and related harms (i.e., opioid toxicity overdose deaths) have reached unprecedented heights [15, 16, 60, 61]. This situation underscores the need for increased access to OAT and highlights the specific utility of OAT carries during this time, which allows individuals the ability to stay home, physically distance, and mitigate the risk of exposure to the virus [62, 63]. Carries furthermore reduce access issues resulting from limited service capacity, scope, and hours, due to the implementation of required public health measures undertaken at many of the health and social services people who use drugs (PWUD) commonly use [64].

Recognizing this, amendments have been made to existent Canadian and USA OAT policies in order to facilitate access to and continuity of care for individuals on OAT during the pandemic [65,66,67,68,69]. The updated guidelines encourage a number of strategies to reduce the frequency of OAT clinic visits such as decreasing urine drug testing requirements and expanding virtual care and access to OAT carries, i.e., increasing the number of carries provided and loosening eligibility criteria [21]. Preliminary data highlight that those who were able to access OAT carries due to the revised policies benefitted from this change, particularly as access to carries permitted them to stabilize their routines, physically distance to reduce the risk of virus transmission, and subsequently decrease their substance use [18, 64, 68, 70,71,72]. For instance, in a US-based qualitative study emphasizing patient’s perspectives, many individuals acknowledged significant benefits of receiving carries during COVID-19 including experiencing feelings of normalcy and stability, improvements to recovery support, and increased time with family and work—benefits which increased their self-confidence and commitment to OAT adherence [73]. Early Canadian data further indicate that most people who received additional carries were no more likely to experience adverse outcomes (e.g., self-reported opioid overdoses, emergency department visits, etc.) than those who did not receive carries [74, 75]. However, most clinicians reported that they prescribed carries to patients only when they felt sure of the patient’s social and housing stability, which means that the perpetuation of inequitable access to OAT carries still exists for some high-risk populations, even during a period of loosened OAT carry prescription policies. Furthermore, while pre-COVID-19 OAT guidance included considerations for incarcerated individuals [9, 10], none of the updated guidance documents explicitly included this high-risk population in their amendments.

Whether or not the amendments to OAT guidelines led to easier access to OAT carries for individuals on community release remains unknown. Future research should evaluate potential inequities in access to OAT carries and related outcomes experienced by subpopulations, such as people on release from incarceration. Access and outcomes research could be used to inform the evidence-base for the equitable provision of OAT carries, including in the context of emergencies, and thus inform guidelines and policies which aim to address issues related to the SDOH and support increased treatment coverage. These policies would likely lead to better population health status for people with OUD, and particularly for those that have traditionally failed to meet OAT carry eligibility criteria due to their unique circumstances, including in relation to the SDOH.

Conclusion

Overall, available data indicate that access to OAT carries in Canada and the USA is inequitable, including during the COVID-19 pandemic when guidelines regarding the provision of OAT care have been amended to increase access. We posit that OAT guidelines have contributed to inequities in access to OAT carries, and that this is likely to result in disproportionately low coverage for OUD treatment in some high-risk populations. This includes individuals with OUD released from incarceration who are at a heightened risk of experiencing treatment barriers and thus have a greater need for access to OAT carries. This inequity poses risks to those attempting to manage their substance use, maintain treatment, adhere to conditions of release, and effectively reintegrate into society.

Current OAT guidelines should be amended and standardized to explicitly include provisions for granting high-risk populations (e.g., individuals on community release) access to OAT carries, and to take the SDOH into better consideration when coming to these decisions, while also not negating potential risks (e.g., diversion) and associated harms among these populations. Additionally, alternative pharmacotherapies such as extended-release injectable/implantable OAT formulations that require less frequent clinic visits, or the use of telehealth to monitor at-home OAT ingestion, as well as novel OAT carry storage options that use biometrics to allow access to stored medications and reduce the risk of medication diversion (e.g., MySafe) [76] are all avenues that should be explored. Explicitly, correctional settings should minimally ensure OAT continuity during community release periods through the use of extended OAT prescriptions that allow for carries, and halfway houses should allow the storage of OAT carries on-site. These policy recommendations could help alleviate many of the issues discussed and would help ensure that individuals can work toward community reintegration and reach their health and life goals, and are not inequitably denied access to treatment due to criteria that do not align with their unique health status and life circumstances. This would ultimately increase OAT treatment coverage for high-risk populations, which may be particularly important given the current dual public health crises.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

COVID-19:

Novel coronavirus 2019

OUD:

Opioid use disorder

OAT:

Opioid agonist treatment

SDOH:

Social determinants of health

PWUD:

People who use drugs

References

  1. Strang J, Volkow ND, Degenhardt L, et al. Opioid use disorder. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2020;6(1):3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bozinoff N, DeBeck K, Milloy MJ, et al. Utilization of opioid agonist therapy among incarcerated persons with opioid use disorder in Vancouver, Canada. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2018;193:42–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Bodkin C, Bondy S, Regenstreif L, Kiefer L, Kouyoumdjian F. Rates of opioid agonist treatment prescribing in provincial prisons in Ontario, Canada, 2015–2018: a repeated cross-sectional analysis. BMJ Open. 2021;11(11):e048944.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Correctional Service Canada. Opioid Agonist Treatment. Ottawa, Ontario: Correctional Service Canada; 2021.

  5. Caulkins JP, Gould A, Pardo B, Reuter P, Stein BD. Opioids and the criminal justice system: new challenges posed by the modern opioid epidemic. Annu Rev Criminol. 2021;4(1):353–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Winkelman TNA, Chang VW, Binswanger IA. Health, polysubstance use, and criminal justice involvement among adults with varying levels of opioid use. JAMA Netw Open. 2018;1(3):e180558.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. The British Columbia Centre on Substance Use (BCCSU). A guideline for the clinical management of opioid use disorder. Vancouver, BC: The British Columbia Centre on Substance Use (BCCSU); 2017.

  8. Bruneau J, Ahamad K, Goyer M-È, et al. Management of opioid use disorders: a national clinical practice guideline. Can Med Assoc J. 2018;190(9):E247–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH). Opioid agonist therapy: a synthesis of canadian guidelines for treating opioid use disorder. Toronto, Ontario: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH); 2021.

  10. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). Treatment improvement protocol 63: medications for opioid use disorder. US Department of Health and Human Services; 2021.

  11. Stotts AL, Dodrill CL, Kosten TR. Opioid dependence treatment: options in pharmacotherapy. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2009;10(11):1727–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Santo T, Clark B, Hickman M, et al. Association of opioid agonist treatment with all-cause mortality and specific causes of death among people with opioid dependence: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatry. 2021;78:979.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Pearce LA, Min JE, Piske M, et al. Opioid agonist treatment and risk of mortality during opioid overdose public health emergency: population based retrospective cohort study. BMJ. 2020;368:m772.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Ali F, Russell C, Nafeh F, Rehm J, LeBlanc S, Elton-Marshall T. Changes in substance supply and use characteristics among people who use drugs (PWUD) during the COVID-19 global pandemic: a national qualitative assessment in Canada. Int J Drug Policy. 2021;93:103237.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Government of Canada. Opioid related harms in Canada. Ottawa, Ontario: Government of Canada; 2020.

  16. Gomes T, Murray R, Kolla G, et al. Changing circumstances surrounding opioid-related deaths in Ontario during the COVID-19 pandemic. Toronto, Ontario: Public Health Ontario (PHO); 2021.

  17. Priest KC, Gorfinkel L, Klimas J, Jones AA, Fairbairn N, McCarty D. Comparing Canadian and United States opioid agonist therapy policies. Int J Drug Policy. 2019;74:257–65.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Davis CS, Samuels EA. Opioid policy changes during the COVID-19 pandemic - and beyond. J Addict Med. 2020;14(4):e4–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Davis CS, Carr DH. Legal and policy changes urgently needed to increase access to opioid agonist therapy in the United States. Int J Drug Policy. 2019;73:42–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Eibl JK, Morin K, Leinonen E, Marsh DC. The state of opioid agonist therapy in Canada 20 years after federal oversight. Can J Psychiatry. 2017;62(7):444–50.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Lam V, Sankey C, Wyman J, Zhang M. COVID-19 opioid agonist treatment guidance. Toronto, Ontario: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), Mentoring, Education, and Clinical Tools for Addiction Primary Care Hospital Integration (META-PHI), and the Ontario Medical Assocation (OMS); 2021.

  22. McEachern J, Adye-White L, Priest KC, et al. Lacking evidence for the association between frequent urine drug screening and health outcomes of persons on opioid agonist therapy. Int Jurnal of Drug Policy. 2019;64:30–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Frank D, Mateu-Gelabert P, Perlman DC, Walters SM, Curran L, Guarino H. “It’s like ‘liquid handcuffs”: The effects of take-home dosing policies on Methadone Maintenance Treatment (MMT) patients’ lives. Harm Reduct J. 2021;18(1):88.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Sharma A, Kelly SM, Mitchell SG, Gryczynski J, O’Grady KE, Schwartz RP. Update on barriers to pharmacotherapy for opioid use disorders. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2017;19(6):35.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). Federal guidelines for opioid treatment programs. Rockville, M.D.: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 2015.

  26. Binswanger IA, Stern M, Deyo R, et al. Release from prison: a high risk of death for former inmates. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(2):157–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Merrall EL, Kariminia A, Binswanger IA, et al. Meta-analysis of drug-related deaths soon after release from prison. Addiction. 2010;105(9):1545–54.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Binswanger IA, Blatchford PJ, Mueller SR, Stern MF. Mortality after prison release: opioid overdose and other causes of death, risk factors, and time trends from 1999 to 2009. Ann Intern Med. 2013;159(9):592–600.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Wakeman SE, Rich JD. Substance use disorders and avoidable mortality after prison. Lancet Psychiatry. 2015;2(5):369–70.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Madadi P, Hildebrandt D, Lauwers AE, Koren G. Characteristics of opioid-users whose death was related to opioid-toxicity: a population-based study in Ontario, Canada. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(4):e60600.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Groot E, Kouyoumdjian FG, Kiefer L, et al. Drug toxicity deaths after release from incarceration in Ontario, 2006–2013: review of coroner’s cases. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(7):e0157512.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Kouyoumdjian FG, Schuler A, Matheson FI, Hwang SW. Health status of prisoners in Canada. Can Fam Phys. 2016;62(3):215–22.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Kouyoumdjian FG, Kiefer L, Wobeser W, Gonzalez A, Hwang SW. Mortality over 12 years of follow-up in people admitted to provincial custody in Ontario: a retrospective cohort study. CMAJ Open. 2016;4(2):E153-161.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Perry AE, Neilson M, James M-S, et al. Pharmacological interventions for drug-using offenders. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;6.

  35. Malta M, Varatharajan T, Russell C, Pang M, Bonato S, Fischer B. Opioid-related treatment, interventions, and outcomes among incarcerated persons: a systematic review. PLoS Med. 2019;16(12):e1003002.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Sharma A, O’Grady KE, Kelly SM, Gryczynski J, Mitchell SG, Schwartz RP. Pharmacotherapy for opioid dependence in jails and prisons: research review update and future directions. Subst Abuse Rehabil. 2016;7:27–40.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Moore KE, Roberts W, Reid HH, Smith KMZ, Oberleitner LMS, McKee SA. Effectiveness of medication assisted treatment for opioid use in prison and jail settings: a meta-analysis and systematic review. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2019;99:32–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Green TC, Clarke J, Brinkley-Rubinstein L, et al. Postincarceration fatal overdoses after implementing medications for addiction treatment in a statewide correctional system. JAMA Psychiat. 2018;75(4):405–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Farrell MacDonald S, MacSwain M-A, Cheverie M, Tiesmaki M, Fischer B. Impact of methadone maintenance treatment on women offenders’ post-release recidivism. Eur Addict Res. 2014;20(4):192–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Gisev N, Bharat C, Larney S, et al. The effect of entry and retention in opioid agonist treatment on contact with the criminal justice system among opioid-dependent people: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet Public Health. 2019;4(7):e334–42.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Russolillo A, Moniruzzaman A, McCandless LC, Patterson M, Somers JM. Associations between methadone maintenance treatment and crime: a 17-year longitudinal cohort study of Canadian provincial offenders. Addiction. 2018;113(4):656–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Correctional Service Canada. Commissioner's Directive 712-4: Release Process. Ottawa, Ontario: Correctional Service Canada; 2019.

  43. Hu C, Jurgutis J, Edwards D, et al. “When you first walk out the gates… where do [you] go?” Barriers and opportunities to achieving continuity of health care at the time of release from a provincial jail in Ontario. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(4):e0231211.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Jamin D, Vanderplasschen W, Sys O, et al. “My first 48 hours out”: drug users’ perspectives on challenges and strategies upon release from prison. Harm Reduct J. 2021;18(1):32.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Velasquez M, Flannery M, Badolato R, et al. Perceptions of extended-release naltrexone, methadone, and buprenorphine treatments following release from jail. Addict Sci Clin Pract. 2019;14(1):37.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Owens MD, Chen JA, Simpson TL, Timko C, Williams EC. Barriers to addiction treatment among formerly incarcerated adults with substance use disorders. Addict Sci Clin Pract. 2018;13(1):19.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Correctional Service Canada (CSC). The correctional plan. Ottawa, Ontario: Correctional Service Canada; 2020.

  48. Dong KR, Must A, Tang AM, Beckwith CG, Stopka TJ. Competing priorities that rival health in adults on probation in Rhode Island: substance use recovery, employment, housing, and food intake. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):289.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Bunting AM, Oser CB, Staton M, Eddens KS, Knudsen H. Clinician identified barriers to treatment for individuals in Appalachia with opioid use disorder following release from prison: a social ecological approach. Addict Sci Clin Pract. 2018;13(1):23.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Fazel S, Hayes AJ, Bartellas K, Clerici M, Trestman R. Mental health of prisoners: prevalence, adverse outcomes, and interventions. Lancet Psychiatry. 2016;3(9):871–81.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Fazel S, Yoon IA, Hayes AJ. Substance use disorders in prisoners: an updated systematic review and meta-regression analysis in recently incarcerated men and women. Addiction. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.13877.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Fischer B, Butler A, Russell C. Commentary on Fazel et al. High levels of substance use disorders among correctional inmates—some implications for interventions of the review data from Fazel et al. Addiction. 2017;112(10):1740–41.

  53. Stewart LA, Nolan A, Thompson J, Power J. Social determinants of health among Canadian inmates. Int J Prison Health. 2018;14(1):4–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Sugarman OK, Bachhuber MA, Wennerstrom A, Bruno T, Springgate BF. Interventions for incarcerated adults with opioid use disorder in the United States: a systematic review with a focus on social determinants of health. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(1):e0227968.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Correctional Service Canada. Comunity-based residential facilities (CBRFs). Ottawa, Ontario: Correctional Service Canada; 2018.

  56. Maier KH. Half way to freedom: the role of halfway houses in Canada's Penal Landscape, University of Toronto (Canada); 2018.

  57. Kennedy-Hendricks A, Bandara S, Merritt S, Barry CL, Saloner B. Structural and organizational factors shaping access to medication treatment for opioid use disorder in community supervision. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2021;226:108881.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Executive Director Federal Halfway House in Ontario. Canadian Federal Halfway House OAT Medication Policies. Personal Communication; 2021.

  59. Russell C, Pang M, Nafeh F, et al. Barriers and facilitators to opioid agonist treatment (OAT) engagement among individuals released from federal incarceration into the community in Ontario, Canada. Int J Qual Stud Health Well-Being. 2021.

  60. Special Advisory Committee on the Epidemic of Opioid Overdoses. National Report: Opioid Related Harms in Canada. Ottawa, ON: Government of Canada and Public Health Agency of Canada; 2020.

  61. Kosten TR, Petrakis IL. The hidden epidemic of opioid overdoses during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. JAMA Psychiat. 2021;78(6):585–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. British Columbia Centre on Substance Use (BCCSU). Risk mitigation in the context of dual public health emergencies. Vancouver, B.C.: British Columbia Centre on Substance Use (BCCSU); 2020.

  63. Bruneau J, Rehm J, Wild TC, et al. Telemedicine support for addiction services: national rapid guidance document. Montreal, Quebec: Canadian Research Initiative in Substance Misuse; May 15th, 2020.

  64. Russell C, Ali F, Nafeh F, Rehm J, LeBlanc S, Elton-Marshall T. Identifying the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on service access for people who use drugs (PWUD): A national qualitative study. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2021;129:108374.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Sproule B, Zhang M. Update on opioid use disorder treatment. Ontario College of Pharmacists; 2021.

  66. College of Physicians and Surgeons Ontario (CPSO). Methadone maintenance treatment policy rescinded. Toronto, Ontario: College of Physicians and Surgeons Ontario (CPSO); 2021.

  67. Joudrey PJ, Adams ZM, Bach P, et al. Methadone access for opioid use disorder during the COVID-19 pandemic within the United States and Canada. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(7):e2118223.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Ghosh A, Naskar C, Roub F-E, Basu D. Review of the adaptations in opioid agonist treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic: focus on buprenorphine-based treatment. J Opioid Manag. 2021;17(7):119–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Government of Canada. Subsection 56(1) class exemption for patients, practitioners and pharmacists prescribing and providing controlled substances in Canada. Ottawa, Ontario: Government of Canada; 2021.

  70. Green TC, Bratberg J, Finnell DS. Opioid use disorder and the COVID 19 pandemic: a call to sustain regulatory easements and further expand access to treatment. Subst Abuse. 2020;41(2):147–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Samuels EA, Clark SA, Wunsch C, et al. Innovation during COVID-19: improving addiction treatment access. J Addict Med. 2020;14(4):e8–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Figgatt MC, Salazar Z, Day E, Vincent L, Dasgupta N. Take-home dosing experiences among persons receiving methadone maintenance treatment during COVID-19. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2021;123:108276.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Levander XA, Hoffman KA, McIlveen JW, McCarty D, Terashima JP, Korthuis PT. Rural opioid treatment program patient perspectives on take-home methadone policy changes during COVID-19: a qualitative thematic analysis. Addict Sci Clin Pract. 2021;16(1):1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Corace K, Suschinsky K, Wyman J, et al. Evaluating how has care been affected by the Ontario COVID-19 opioid agonist treatment guidance: patients’ and prescribers’ experiences with changes in unsupervised dosing. Int J Drug Policy. 2021;102:103573.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Gomes T, Campbell TJ, Kitchen SA, et al. Association between increased dispensing of opioid agonist therapy take-home doses and opioid overdose and treatment interruption and discontinuation. JAMA. 2022;327(9):846–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. My Safe Society. A call for a safer drug supply. https://mysafe.org/. Published 2022. Accessed 28 Mar 2022.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge funding from Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) for the Ontario CRISM Node Team (Grant #SMN-139150).

Funding

Ms. Russell and Dr. Ali recognize funding from Canadian Institutes for Health Research for the Ontario Node of the Canadian Research Initiative in Substance Misuse (CRISM) (Grant# SMN-139150). The funding source played no role in the design, interpretation, or writing of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Mental Health Policy Research, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), 33 Ursula Franklin St, Toronto, ON, M5S 2S1, Canada

    Cayley Russell, Shannon Lange & Farihah Ali

  2. Ontario Node, Canadian Research Initiative in Substance Misuse (CRISM), 33 Ursula Franklin St, ON, M5S 2S1, Toronto, Canada

    Cayley Russell & Farihah Ali

  3. Campbell Family Mental Health Research Institute, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), ON, Toronto, Canada

    Shannon Lange

  4. Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Shannon Lange

  5. Department of Family Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

    Fiona Kouyoumdjian & Amanda Butler

  6. Centre for Urban Health Solutions, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Fiona Kouyoumdjian

Authors
  1. Cayley Russell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shannon Lange
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Fiona Kouyoumdjian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Amanda Butler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Farihah Ali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

CR led the writing, reviewing, and editing. SL, AB, FK, and FA contributed to the writing, reviewing, and editing. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cayley Russell.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Russell, C., Lange, S., Kouyoumdjian, F. et al. Opioid agonist treatment take-home doses (‘carries’): Are current guidelines resulting in low treatment coverage among high-risk populations in Canada and the USA?. Harm Reduct J 19, 89 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-022-00671-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-022-00671-z

Keywords

Harm Reduction Journal

ISSN: 1477-7517