BACKGROUND: Expanding access to medications to treat opioid use disorder (OUD), such as buprenorphine, is an evidence-based response to the mounting drug overdose crisis. However, concerns about buprenorphine diversion persist and contribute to limited access. METHODS: To inform decisions about expanding access, a scoping review was conducted on publications describing the scope of, motivations for, and outcomes associated with diverted buprenorphine in the U.S. RESULTS: In the 57 included studies, definitions for diversion were inconsistent. Most studied use of illicitly-obtained buprenorphine. Across studies, the scope of buprenorphine diversion ranged from 0% to 100%, varying by sample type and recall period. Among samples of people receiving buprenorphine for OUD treatment, diversion peaked at 4.8%. Motivations for using diverted buprenorphine were self-treatment, management of drug use, to get high, and when drug of choice was unavailable. Associated outcomes examined trended toward positive or neutral, including improved attitudes toward and retention in MOUD. CONCLUSIONS: Despite inconsistent definitions of diversion, studies reported a low scope of diversion among people receiving MOUD, with inability to access treatment as a motivating factor for using diverted buprenorphine, and increased retention in MOUD as an outcome associated with use of diverted buprenorphine. Future research should explore reasons for diverted buprenorphine use in the context of expanded treatment availability to address persistent barriers to evidence-based treatment for OUD.

The Opioid Rapid Response Program (ORRP) is a federal program designed to support states in mitigating risks to patients who lose access to a prescriber of opioids or other controlled substances. Displaced patients might face risks of withdrawal, overdose, or other harms. Rapid response efforts to mitigate risks require coordination across multiple parts of the health care system. This case study describes an ORRP-coordinated event, including notification from law enforcement, information sharing with state health officials, state-coordinated response efforts, key observations, and lessons learned. Timely risk mitigation and care continuity required coordination between law enforcement and public health in advance of the disruption and throughout the state-led response. Patients' acute and prolonged health care needs were complex and highlight the importance of investing time and resources in coordinated, multisector state and local preparedness for these types of disruptions.

INTRODUCTION: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has administered the Prevention Research Centers Program since 1986. We quantified the number and reach of training programs across all centers, determined whether the centers' outcomes varied by characteristics of the academic institution, and explored potential benefits of training and technical assistance for academic researchers and community partners. We characterized how these activities enhanced capacity building within Prevention Research Centers and the community. METHODS: The program office collected quantitative information on training across all 33 centers via its Internet-based system from April through December 2007. Qualitative data were collected from April through May 2007. We selected 9 centers each for 2 separate, semistructured, telephone interviews, 1 on training and 1 on technical assistance. RESULTS: Across 24 centers, 4,777 people were trained in 99 training programs in fiscal year 2007 (October 1, 2006-September 30, 2007). Nearly 30% of people trained were community members or agency representatives. Training and technical assistance activities provided opportunities to enhance community partners' capacity in areas such as conducting needs assessments and writing grants and to improve the centers' capacity for cultural competency. CONCLUSION: Both qualitative and quantitative data demonstrated that training and technical assistance activities can foster capacity building and provide a reciprocal venue to support researchers' and the community's research interests. Future evaluation could assess community and public health partners' perception of centers' training programs and technical assistance.