Literature Collection

Opioid use is a major problem in India and has high morbidity and mortality with a prevalence of 2.06%. There is a huge treatment gap for opioid use disorders (OUDs). Due to limited mental health resources and limited psychiatric training of medical practitioners in OUDs, a significant proportion of patients do not receive appropriate medical intervention. This article demonstrates how a primary care doctor working in a remote opioid substitution therapy (OST) clinic received assistance from the optional opioid module of clinical schedule for primary care psychiatry (CSP) and collaborative video consultation (CVC) module to address specific difficulties of patients already on Buprenorphine OST and improve the quality of care, thereby reducing chances of relapses. CVC module is a part of one-year digitally driven primary care psychiatry program designed by National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS), Bengaluru. The opioid module was designed by NIMHANS, Bengaluru in collaboration with the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi These observations warrant replication of this approach across diverse settings and at a larger scale to explore and evaluate its impact and effectiveness.

Opioid use disorders (OUDs) are receiving significant attention in the U.S. as a public health crisis. Access to treatment for OUDs is essential and was expected to improve following implementation of the federal parity law and the Affordable Care Act. This study examines changes in coverage and management of treatments for OUDs (opioid treatment programs (OTPs) as a covered service benefit, buprenorphine as a pharmacy benefit) before, during, and after parity and ACA implementation. Data are from three rounds of a nationally representative survey conducted with commercial health plans regarding behavioral health services in benefit years 2003, 2010, and 2014. Data were weighted to be representative of health plans' commercial products in the continental United States (2003 weighted N = 7,469, 83% response rate; 2010 N = 8,431, 89% response rate; and 2014 N = 6,974, 80% response rate). Results showed treatment for OUDs was covered by nearly all health plan products in each year of the survey, but the types and patterns varied by year. Prior authorization requirements for OTPs have decreased over time. Despite the promise of expanded access to OUD treatment suggested by parity and the ACA, improved health plan coverage for treatment of OUDs, while essential, is not sufficient to address the opioid crisis.

INTRODUCTION: The micro-induction method of initiating buprenorphine is becoming a popular method for initiating buprenorphine in patients with Opioid Use Disorder, who are on full opioid agonists, either prescribed or non-prescribed, in order to avoid precipitated withdrawal. Given the rising concerns around illicit fentanyl use, this method of initiating buprenorphine has become another tool for clinicians to help patients with Opioid Use Disorder, even when multiple full opioid agonists are involved. While the process for initiating buprenorphine through this process is well studied, the characteristics of patients who are able to tolerate this initiation method in an outpatient setting is not. CASE(S): We present the cases of two patients with Opioid Use Disorder in a community-based methadone maintenance program in whom micro-induction methods were used to initiate buprenorphine without lowering the methadone dose. Both patients successfully transitioned to buprenorphine without precipitated withdrawal. One of the patients was also using fentanyl at the time of induction and was able to abstain from fentanyl use following the induction process. CONCLUSION: Initiating Buprenorphine using micro-induction strategies in a community based outpatient clinic in patients who are already on full opioid agonists is feasible, in these particular cases, the methadone dose or concurrent fentanyl use did not affect the outcome. We present the characteristics of the patient and the community clinic hoping that this helps more clinicians in replicating this induction strategy.

BACKGROUND: Substance use disorders are associated with poorer clinical outcomes in patients with schizophrenia. There is no specific treatment for amphetamine or cannabis use disorder, but methadone and buprenorphine are used as replacement therapy in the treatment of opioid dependence. Our aim was to study whether patients with schizophrenia have received opioid replacement therapy for their opioid use disorder. METHODS: The study sample consisted of 148 individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia who were in involuntary psychiatric treatment as forensic patients in Finland in 2012. The proportion of the study sample with comorbid opioid use disorder having received opioid replacement therapy prior to their forensic psychiatric treatment was compared to the available information of opioid dependent patients in general. The data were collected from forensic examination statements, patient files and other medical registers retrospectively. RESULTS: Of the study sample, 15.6% (23/148) had a history of opioid use disorder, of whom 8.7% (2/23) had received opioid replacement treatment (95% confidence interval (Cl): 1.1-28.0), even though opioid use disorder had been diagnosed in the treatment system. According the available information the corresponding proportion among patients with opioid use disorder and using substance use disorder services was 30.4% (565/1860, 95% Cl: 28.3-32.5). The fraction of patients receiving opioid replacement therapy was significantly lower among patients with schizophrenia (p = 0.022). CONCLUSIONS: Opioid replacement therapy was seldom used among schizophrenia patients who were later ordered to involuntary forensic psychiatric treatment. More attention should be paid to the possible use of opioids when planning treatment for patients with schizophrenia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Our study is not a randomized controlled trial (but a register-based study); thus the trial registration is not applicable.

BACKGROUND: Telemedicine-delivered buprenorphine (tele-buprenorphine) can potentially increase access to buprenorphine for patients with opioid use disorder (OUD), especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, but we know little about use in clinical care. METHODS: This study was a retrospective national cohort study of veterans diagnosed with opioid use disorder (OUD) receiving buprenorphine treatment from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) in fiscal years 2012-2019. The study examined trends in use of tele-buprenorphine and compared demographic and clinical characteristics in patients who received tele-buprenorphine versus those who received in-person treatment only. RESULTS: Utilization of tele-buprenorphine increased from 2.29% of buprenorphine patients in FY2012 (n = 187) to 7.96% (n = 1352) in FY2019 in VHA veterans nationally. Compared to patients receiving only in-person care, tele-buprenorphine patients were less likely to be male (AOR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.73-0.98) or Black (AOR = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.45-0.65). Tele-buprenorphine patients were more likely to be treated in community-based outpatient clinics rather than large medical centers (AOR = 2.91, 95% CI: 2.67-3.17) and to live in rural areas (AOR = 2.12, 95% CI:1.92-2.35). The median days supplied of buprenorphine treatment was 722 (interquartile range: 322-1459) among the tele-buprenorphine patients compared to 295 (interquartile range: 67-854) among patients who received treatment in-person. CONCLUSIONS: Use of telemedicine to deliver buprenorphine treatment in VHA increased 3.5-fold between 2012 and 2019, though overall use remained low prior to COVID-19. Tele-buprenorphine is a promising modality especially when treatment access is limited. However, we must continue to understand how practitioners and patient are using telemedicine and how these patients' outcomes compare to those using in-person care.

OBJECTIVE: Buprenorphine is a highly effective treatment for opioid use disorders, but its continuation in the perioperative setting remains controversial, unlike the accepted practice of perioperative methadone continuation. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study from 2006 to 2014 comparing post-cesarean section opioid analgesic requirements of women with opioid use disorders treated with methadone or buprenorphine. Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative opioid requirements (morphine equivalent dose [MED]), postoperative complications, and length of stay were compared between the methadone and buprenorphine groups. RESULTS: During the 9-year study period, there were 185 women treated with methadone (mean dose 93.7 mg, SD 2.6) and 88 women treated with buprenorphine (mean dose 16.1 mg, SD 7.8). There were no statistically significant differences in MED requirements in the methadone versus buprenorphine groups: preoperative MED (11.4 mg [SD 31.5] vs 20.0 mg [SD 15.1]; mean difference [MD] 8.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.9, 19.1), intraoperative MED (3.5 mg [SD 6.6] vs 5.2 mg [SD 13.7]; MD 1.8, 95% CI -1.1, 4.6), and postoperative MED during hospitalization (97.7 mg [SD 65.6] vs 85.1 mg [SD 73.0]; MD -12.6, 95% CI -31.1, 5.8). There were no statistically significant differences in postoperative complications or length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that buprenorphine treatment will not interfere more than methadone with pain management after a cesarean section with no significant differences in opioid analgesic requirements, postoperative complications, or length of hospital stay. Future studies should investigate the generalizability to other surgeries.