Literature Collection

IMPORTANCE: Although substantial evidence supports buprenorphine for treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) in controlled trials, prospective study of patient outcomes in clinical implementation of emergency department (ED) buprenorphine treatment is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between buprenorphine treatment in the ED and follow-up engagement in OUD treatment 1 month later. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This multisite cohort study was conducted in 7 California EDs participating in a statewide implementation project to improve access to buprenorphine treatment. The study population included ED patients aged at least 18 years identified with OUD between April 1, 2021, and June 30, 2022. Data analysis was performed in October 2023. EXPOSURE: All participants were offered buprenorphine treatment for OUD (either in ED administration, prescription, or both), the uptake of which was examined as the exposure of interest. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was engagement in OUD treatment 30 days after the ED visit, determined by patient report or clinical documentation. The association of ED buprenorphine treatment with subsequent OUD treatment engagement was estimated using hierarchical generalized linear models. RESULTS: This analysis included 464 ED patients with OUD. Their median age was 36.0 (IQR, 29.0-38.7) years, and most were men (343 [73.9%]). With regard to race and ethnicity, 64 patients (13.8%) self-identified as non-Hispanic Black, 183 (39.4%) as Hispanic, and 185 as non-Hispanic White (39.9%). Most patients (396 [85.3%]) had Medicaid insurance, and more than half (262 [57.8%]) had unstable housing. Self-reported fentanyl use (242 [52.2%]) and a comorbid mental health condition (328 [71.5%]) were common. Interest in buprenorphine treatment was high: 398 patients (85.8%) received buprenorphine treatment; 269 (58.0%) were administered buprenorphine in the ED and 339 (73.1%) were prescribed buprenorphine. With regard to OUD treatment engagement at 30 days after the ED visit, 198 participants (49.7%) who received ED buprenorphine treatment remained engaged compared with 15 participants (22.7%) who did not receive ED buprenorphine treatment. An association of ED buprenorphine treatment with subsequent OUD treatment engagement at 30 days was observed (adjusted risk ratio, 1.97 [95% CI, 1.27-3.07]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The findings of this cohort study suggest that among patients with OUD presenting to EDs implementing low-threshold access to medications for OUD, buprenorphine treatment was associated with a substantially higher likelihood of follow-up treatment engagement 1 month later. Future research should investigate techniques to optimize both the uptake and effectiveness of buprenorphine initiation in low-threshold settings such as the ED.

More than 20 million people in the United States have a substance use disorder (SUD), increasing their risk for overdose (OD). Patients arriving to emergency departments (EDs) with OD typically require lifesaving interventions, but inconsistencies exist regarding further intervention and discharge instructions. The purpose of the current integrative review was to determine best care practices for patients presenting to EDs with an illicit drug OD. A literature search included the databases PubMed, EBSCO Host, ProQuest Health and Medicine, and Google Scholar. Thirty-five articles outlined interventions for SUD/OD initiated in EDs; most for opioid OD. Best practice intervention components included psychiatric evaluations, SUD screening tools, buprenorphine initiation, naloxone distribution and training, OD prevention education, referrals to medication-assisted treatment, and harm reduction strategies. Barriers to implementation included legislation, insurance/costs, community resource availability, staffing, training, and potential stigma. With myriad approaches, nurses with SUD care experience can advocate for instituting best practices for patients in the ED and upon discharge. [Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services, 61(6), 18-24.].

Background: Clinic-imposed barriers can impede access to medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD). We evaluated a low-barrier buprenorphine program that is co-located with a syringe services program (SSP) in Seattle, Washington, USA. Methods: We analyzed medical record data corresponding to patients who enrolled into the buprenorphine program in its first year of operation. We used descriptive statistics and tests of association to longitudinally evaluate retention, cumulative number of days buprenorphine was prescribed, and toxicology results. Results: Demand for buprenorphine among SSP clients initially surpassed programmatic capacity. Of the 146 enrolled patients, the majority (82%) were unstably housed. Patients were prescribed buprenorphine for a median of 47 days (interquartile range [IQR] = 8-147) in the 180 days following enrollment. Between the first and sixth visits, the percentage of toxicology tests that was positive for buprenorphine significantly increased (33% to 96%, P < .0001) and other opioids significantly decreased (90% to 41%, P < .0001) and plateaued thereafter. Toxicology test results for stimulants, benzodiazepines, and barbiturates did not significantly change. Conclusions: SSP served as an effective point of entry for a low-barrier MOUD program. A large proportion of enrolled patients demonstrated sustained retention and reductions in opioid use, despite housing instability and polysubstance use.

BACKGROUND: The Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon began a Mobile Medication Unit (MMU) as part of their Great Circle Recovery Opioid Treatment Program (OTP) to address elevated rates of opioid use disorder (OUD) among American Indians and Alaska Natives in Oregon. The MMU provides methadone or buprenorphine for individuals with OUD, enrolled in the OTP, who are living either on the reservation or in surrounding rural communities. An implementation study describes the service through document review and qualitatively assesses patient and staff experiences and the perceived barriers and facilitators to mobile services. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews with patients (n = 11), MMU staff (n = 5), and the state opioid treatment authority (n = 1) gathered details on the initiative's development and operations. Provider interviews probed implementation experiences. Patient interviews focused on their experiences with the MMU and staff, changes in quality of life and recommendations for enhancing treatment. Interviews were transcribed and analysed using a Thematic Analysis approach. RESULTS: Staff themes identified two driving forces (i.e. staff desire for an inclusive approach to wellness that is accessible to all community members; the catalysts for the MMU), two steps toward MMU development (i.e. Tribal approvals and support; the construction and maintenance of community relationships) and two perspectives on MMU implementation and impact (i.e. initial implementation barriers; facilitators and observations of how the MMU reduced stigma associated with agonist therapy). Patients' themes noted the MMU's professional and 'caring' environment, accessible rural locations and general suggestions including culturally responsive ancillary services. CONCLUSION: The Great Circle MMU enhanced access to opioid agonist therapy for people with OUD (i.e. American Indians/Alaska Natives, and non-natives) living in rural communities. The Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde operates the first Tribally owned OTP MMU, grounded in cultural humility and committed to Tribal members and the great circle of the larger community.

IMPORTANCE: US primary care practitioners (PCPs) are the largest clinical workforce, but few provide addiction care. Primary care is a practical place to expand addiction services, including buprenorphine and harm reduction kits, yet the clinical outcomes and health care sector costs are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the long-term clinical outcomes, costs, and cost-effectiveness of integrated buprenorphine and harm reduction kits in primary care for people who inject opioids. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this modeling study, the Reducing Infections Related to Drug Use Cost-Effectiveness (REDUCE) microsimulation model, which tracks serious injection-related infections, overdose, hospitalization, and death, was used to examine the following treatment strategies: (1) PCP services with external referral to addiction care (status quo), (2) PCP services plus onsite buprenorphine prescribing with referral to offsite harm reduction kits (BUP), and (3) PCP services plus onsite buprenorphine prescribing and harm reduction kits (BUP plus HR). Model inputs were derived from clinical trials and observational cohorts, and costs were discounted annually at 3%. The cost-effectiveness was evaluated over a lifetime from the modified health care sector perspective, and sensitivity analyses were performed to address uncertainty. Model simulation began January 1, 2021, and ran for the entire lifetime of the cohort. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Life-years (LYs), hospitalizations, mortality from sequelae (overdose, severe skin and soft tissue infections, and endocarditis), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: The simulated cohort included 2.25 million people and reflected the age and gender of US persons who inject opioids. Status quo resulted in 6.56 discounted LYs at a discounted cost of $203 500 per person (95% credible interval, $203 000-$222 000). Each strategy extended discounted life expectancy: BUP by 0.16 years and BUP plus HR by 0.17 years. Compared with status quo, BUP plus HR reduced sequelae-related mortality by 33%. The mean discounted lifetime cost per person of BUP and BUP plus HR were more than that of the status quo strategy. The dominating strategy was BUP plus HR. Compared with status quo, BUP plus HR was cost-effective (ICER, $34 400 per LY). During a 5-year time horizon, BUP plus HR cost an individual PCP practice approximately $13 000. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This modeling study of integrated addiction service in primary care found improved clinical outcomes and modestly increased costs. The integration of addiction service into primary care practices should be a health care system priority.

OBJECTIVE:  This study aimed to evaluate the association between number of prenatal care visits and adverse perinatal outcome among pregnant individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD). STUDY DESIGN:  This is a retrospective cohort of singleton, nonanomalous pregnancies complicated by OUD that delivered from January 2015 to July 2020 at our academic medical center. Primary outcome was the presence of composite adverse perinatal outcome, defined as one or more of the following: stillbirth, placental abruption, perinatal death, neonatal respiratory distress syndrome, need for morphine treatment, and hyperbilirubinemia. Logistic and linear regression estimated the association between the number of prenatal care visits and the presence of adverse perinatal outcome. A Mann-Whitney U test evaluated the association between number of prenatal care visits and length of hospital stay for the neonate. RESULTS:  A total of 185 patients were identified, of which 35 neonates required morphine treatment for neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome. During pregnancy, most individuals were treated with buprenorphine 107 (57.8%), whereas 64 (34.6%) received methadone, 13 (7.0%) received no treatment, and 1 (0.5%) received naltrexone. The median number of prenatal care visits was 8 (interquartile range: 4-10). With each additional visit per 10 weeks of gestational age, the risk of adverse perinatal outcome decreased by 38% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.451-0.854). The need for neonatal intensive care and hyperbilirubinemia also significantly decreased with additional prenatal visits. Neonatal hospital stay decreased by a median of 2 days (95% CI: 1-4) for individuals who received more than the median of eight prenatal care visits. CONCLUSION:  Pregnant individuals with OUD who attend fewer prenatal care visits experience more adverse perinatal outcome. Future research should focus on barriers to prenatal care and interventions to improve access in this high-risk population. KEY POINTS: · Use of prenatal care affects newborn outcomes.. · More prenatal care shortens neonatal hospital stay.. · Prenatal care reduces certain adverse outcomes..

BACKGROUND: Care transitions represent vulnerable events for patients newly initiating medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD). Multidisciplinary primary care-based transition clinics may improve care linkage and retention in MOUD treatment. Additionally, these interventions may help primary care clinicians (PCPs) overcome barriers to adopting MOUD into practice. In this evaluation, we assessed the impact of a primary care-based transition clinic for patients newly initiating buprenorphine for opioid use disorder (OUD) in the emergency department. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective program evaluation within a single academic health system involving adults who newly initiated buprenorphine for OUD through an emergency department-based program and were referred to follow up in either a dedicated multidisciplinary primary care-based transition clinic (SPARC) vs referral to usual primary care (UPC). We performed descriptive analyses comparing patient demographics, referral volume, linkage to care, treatment retention, and markers of high-quality care between the 2 groups. A log-rank test was used to determine the difference in probabilities of retention between SPARC and UPC over 6 months. RESULTS: Over 12 months, the number of referrals to SPARC was greater than to UPC (N = 64 vs N = 26). About 58% of patients referred to SPARC attended an initial visit vs 38% referred to UPC. Treatment retention was consistently greater in SPARC than UPC (1 m: 90% vs 60%; 3 m: 76% vs 40%; 6 m: 60% vs 30%). Markers of care quality including naloxone provision (100% vs 80%) and infectious screening (81% vs 40%) were greater in SPARC clinic. SPARC was associated with a statistically significant increased probability of retention in treatment as compared to UPC (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: In this observational evaluation, a primary care-based multidisciplinary transition clinic for patients initiating buprenorphine MOUD was associated with expanded access to longitudinal OUD treatment and superior linkage to care, retention in care, and quality of care compared to referral to usual primary care. Further research using a more rigorous research design is required to further evaluate these findings.