Literature Collection

INTRODUCTION: Rural primary care clinics can expand their medication treatment for opioid use disorder (MOUD) capacity by coordinating care with external telemedicine (TM) vendors specializing in addiction medicine. This study used mixed methods to identify factors that influence patient referrals from rural primary care clinics to TM vendors for MOUD. METHODS: Between July/August 2020 and January/February 2021, 582 patients with OUD were identified across six primary care sites; that included 68 referred to an external TM vendor to receive MOUD. Mixed effects logistic regression identified individual and site-level factors associated with being referred to the TM vendor. Clinic providers and staff participated in in-depth interviews and focus groups to discuss their considerations for referring patients to the TM vendor. RESULTS: Patient referrals were positively associated with local household broadband coverage (OR = 2.55, p < 0.001) and negatively associated with local population density (OR = 0.01, p  =  0.003) and the number of buprenorphine prescribers in the county (OR = 0.85, p < 0.001). Clinic personnel expressed appreciation for psychiatric expertise and the flexibility to access MOUD brought by the TM vendor. Perceived concerns about TM referral included a lack of trust with external providers, uncertainty about TM service quality, workflow delays, and patients' technological and insurance challenges. CONCLUSION: This study revealed several clinic-level factors that may potentially influence patient referral to TM vendor services for MOUD. To facilitate the referral process and utilization of TM vendors, efforts should be made to foster open communication and trust between clinic providers and TM vendors, streamline workflows, and improve Internet access for patients.

BACKGROUND: Concerns have been raised that pharmacists sometimes act as barriers to patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) accessing buprenorphine treatment. The present research explores how community pharmacists' endorsement (vs non-endorsement) of stigmatizing beliefs about patients taking buprenorphine relate to intentions, comfort, and decisions regarding dispensing buprenorphine for OUD. In addition, we assessed attitudes toward risk in pharmacy practice as a novel correlate of dispensing intentions and decisions. METHODS: A sample of 207 active community-based pharmacists practicing in the United States responded to survey items measuring stigma, risk tolerance, and intentions to dispense buprenorphine. The survey included 2 vignettes in which patients presented to the pharmacy with a prescription for buprenorphine, and respondents rated their comfort with dispensing and decisions regarding dispensing in the vignette. RESULTS: Results suggest that both stigma toward patients taking buprenorphine to treat OUD and tolerance for risk in pharmacy settings are related to differences in pharmacists' intentions to and willingness to dispense buprenorphine for OUD. CONCLUSIONS: Findings support the need for interventions to reduce stigma associated with buprenorphine use among pharmacists and suggest that risk tolerance is an important determinant of pharmacists' behavior that merits further study.

Introduction: There are limited studies to date on telemedicine treatment outcomes for opioid use disorder (OUD) among rural populations. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of rural adults enrolled in telemedicine OUD treatment. Study outcomes were percent retained in care and adherence to buprenorphine assessed by urine drug screens at 1, 3, and 6 months. Results: From April 1, 2020, through January 31, 2022, 1,816 rural patients across 14 states attended an initial telemedicine visit and received a clinical diagnosis of OUD. Participants had the following characteristics: mean age 37.7 years (±8.6); 52.4% female; and 66.7% Medicaid. At 1, 3, and 6 months, 74.8%, 61.5%, and 52.3% of participants were retained in care, and 69.0%, 56.0%, and 49.2% of participants were adherent, respectively. Conclusions: Telemedicine is an effective approach for treating OUD in rural populations, with retention comparable to in-person treatment.

AIMS: American deaths from opioid overdose now approach 50,000 annually. While evidence shows that medications for addiction treatment (MAT) save lives, retaining patients in MAT programs is challenging. The U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, on behalf of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, commissioned a rapid evidence review on the effectiveness of interventions to promote a broader understanding of the published literature on MAT retention among adults with opioid use disorder (OUD). METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library from February 12, 2009, through June 16, 2019, for systematic reviews (SRs) and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We summarized evidence for six retention intervention types: care settings/services/logistical support, contingency management, health information technology (IT), extended-release (XR) medication-based treatment, psychosocial support, and financial support. Our primary outcome was retention, defined as continued medication engagement for at least 3 months after MAT initiation. Secondary outcomes included mortality and harms. FINDINGS: Key findings from 2 SRs and 39 primary studies include: 1. Most studies of MAT for OUD do not focus on retention as the primary outcome, are small (e.g., one to two trials per intervention), and have design flaws. 2. Care setting interventions that initiated MAT in soon-to-be-released incarcerated patients improved retention following release. 3. Contingency management improved retention when combined with antagonist MAT, but not with agonist forms of MAT. Applicability, however, may be limited due to implementation challenges. 4. Preliminary trials suggest that retention in MAT supported with health IT approaches may be no worse than in-person approaches. 5. Early studies suggest no difference in retention with XR-buprenorphine in either injectable or implant formulations compared with daily buprenorphine. There were conflicting results with XR-naltrexone injection compared with daily buprenorphine. 6. The addition of psychosocial interventions did not improve retention; however, many studies included some form of counseling in the control groups, potentially obscuring evidence of effectiveness. Harms were infrequently reported across studies except in studies of XR formulations. Similarly, few studies reported whether participant characteristics influenced retention. CONCLUSIONS: While patients who receive longer-term treatment with MAT have improved outcomes, fewer than half of the identified studies measured treatment retention as a primary outcome. Limited evidence suggests criminal justice prerelease MAT initiation and the use of contingency management for patients on antagonist forms of MAT may aid retention. XR and daily buprenorphine formulations appear to be equivalent for treatment retention and comparisons of XR-naltrexone versus daily buprenorphine showed conflicting results. Integrating MAT treatment with medical and social services and the use of health IT did not change retention. Some studies were conducted outside of the United States, where policies and practices differ, focused on highly selected populations and/or conditions that are not fully representative of the spectrum of OUD, or were studied in situations that may not be easily implemented in real-world conditions. There is a critical need for studies that use standardized definitions of retention, include measures of harms as well as benefits, and reflect the full spectrum of real-life conditions.

The prevalence of opioid use among pregnant people has been increasing over the past few decades, with a parallel increase in the rate of neonatal abstinence syndrome. Opioid agonist treatment (OAT) including methadone and buprenorphine is the recommended management method for opioid use disorders during pregnancy. Methadone has been extensively studied during pregnancy; however, buprenorphine was introduced in the early 2000s with limited data on the use of different preparations during pregnancy. Buprenorphine-naloxone has been incorporated into routine practice; however, only a few studies have investigated the use of this medication during pregnancy. To determine the safety and efficacy of this medication, we conducted a systematic review of maternal and neonatal outcomes among buprenorphine-naloxone-exposed pregnancies. The primary outcomes of interest were birth parameters, congenital anomalies, and severity of neonatal abstinence syndrome. Secondary maternal outcomes included the OAT dose and substance use at delivery. Seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Buprenorphine-naloxone doses ranged between 8 and 20 mg, and there was an associated reduction of opioid use during pregnancy. There were no significant differences in gestational age at delivery, birth parameters, or prevalence of congenital anomalies between buprenorphine-naloxone-exposed neonates and those exposed to methadone, buprenorphine monotherapy, illicit opioids, or no opioids. In studies comparing buprenorphine-naloxone to methadone, there were reduced rates of neonatal abstinence syndrome requiring pharmacotherapy. These studies demonstrate that buprenorphine-naloxone is a safe and effective opioid agonist treatment for pregnant people with OUD. Further large-scale, prospective data collection is required to confirm these findings. Patients and clinicians may be reassured about the use of buprenorphine-naloxone during pregnancy.