Literature Collection

OBJECTIVE: Medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) improves treatment retention and reduces illicit opioid use. A-CHESS is an evidence-based smartphone intervention shown to improve addiction-related behaviors. The authors tested the efficacy of MOUD alone versus MOUD plus A-CHESS to determine whether the combination further improved outcomes. METHODS: In an unblinded parallel-group randomized controlled trial, 414 participants recruited from outpatient programs were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either MOUD alone or MOUD+A-CHESS for 16 months and were followed for an additional 8 months. All participants were on methadone, buprenorphine, or injectable naltrexone. The primary outcome was abstinence from illicit opioid use; secondary outcomes were treatment retention, health services use, other substance use, and quality of life; moderators were MOUD type, gender, withdrawal symptom severity, pain severity, and loneliness. Data sources were surveys comprising multiple validated scales, as well as urine screens, every 4 months. RESULTS: There was no difference in abstinence between participants in the MOUD+A-CHESS and MOUD-alone arms across time (odds ratio=1.10, 95% CI=0.90-1.33). However, abstinence was moderated by withdrawal symptom severity (odds ratio=0.95, 95% CI=0.91-1.00) and MOUD type (odds ratio=0.57, 95% CI=0.34-0.97). Among participants without withdrawal symptoms, abstinence rates were higher over time for those in the MOUD+A-CHESS arm than for those in the MOUD-alone arm (odds ratio=1.30, 95% CI=1.01-1.67). Among participants taking methadone, those in the MOUD+A-CHESS arm were more likely to be abstinent over time (b=0.28, SE=0.09) than those in the MOUD-alone arm (b=0.06, SE=0.08), although the two groups did not differ significantly from each other (∆b=0.22, SE=0.11). MOUD+A-CHESS was also associated with greater meeting attendance (odds ratio=1.25, 95% CI=1.05-1.49) and decreased emergency department and urgent care use (odds ratio=0.88, 95% CI=0.78-0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, MOUD+A-CHESS did not improve abstinence relative to MOUD alone. However, MOUD+A-CHESS may provide benefits for subsets of patients and may impact treatment utilization.

BACKGROUND: Office-based opioid treatment with buprenorphine has emerged as a popular evidence-based treatment for opioid use disorder. Unfortunately, psychosocial stress, anxiety, pain, and co-morbid substance use increase patients' risk for relapse. We designed this study to compare the effects of complementing buprenorphine treatment with 24 weeks of a live-online Mindful Recovery Opioid Care Continuum (M-ROCC) group to a time and attention-matched, live-online Recovery Support Group (RSG) active control condition. METHODS: We plan to enroll a maximum of N = 280 and randomize at least N = 192 patients prescribed buprenorphine through referrals from office-based and telemedicine buprenorphine treatment providers and social media advertisements. Participants will be randomly assigned to M-ROCC or RSG and will be blinded to their treatment condition. The primary outcome for this study will be biochemically confirmed periods of abstinence from illicit opioids, as measured by self-reported use and randomly collected, video-observed oral fluid toxicology testing during the final 12 weeks of study participation. Secondary outcomes include changes in Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) anxiety and pain interference scores between baseline and week 24. RESULTS: The trial was funded by the National Institutes of Health, HEAL Initiative through NCCIH (R33AT010125). Data collection is projected to end by September 2023, and we expect publication of results in 2024. CONCLUSION: If the M-ROCC intervention is found to be effective in this format, it will demonstrate that live-online mindfulness groups can improve outcomes and address common co-morbidities like anxiety and pain during buprenorphine treatment.

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.