Literature Collection

OBJECTIVE: Due to increased risks of overdose fatalities and injuries associated with coprescription of opioids and benzodiazepines, healthcare systems have prioritized deprescribing this combination. Although prior work has examined providers' perspectives on deprescribing each medication separately, perspectives on deprescribing patients with combined use is unclear. We examined providers' perspectives on coprescribed opioids and benzodiazepines and identified barriers and facilitators to deprescribing. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semistructured interviews. SETTING: One multisite Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system in the United States of America. SUBJECTS: Primary care and mental health prescribers, key clinical leaders, clinical pharmacist specialists (N = 39). METHODS: Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using thematic analysis. Themes were identified iteratively, through a multidisciplinary team-based process. RESULTS: Analyses identified four themes related to barriers and facilitators to deprescribing: inertia, prescriber self-efficacy, feasibility of deprescribing/tapering, and promoting deprescribing, as well as a fifth theme, consequences of deprescribing. Results highlighted the complexity of deprescribing when multiple prescribers are involved, a need for additional support and time, and concerns about patients' reluctance to discontinue these medications. Facilitators included agreement with the goal of deprescribing and fear of negative consequences if medications are continued. Providers spoke to how deprescribing efforts impaired patient-provider relationships and informed their decisions not to start patients on these medications. CONCLUSIONS: Although providers agree with the goal, prescribers' belief in a limited deprescribing role, challenges with coordination among prescribers, concerns about insufficient time and patients' resistance to discontinuing these medications need to be addressed for efforts to be successful.

OBJECTIVE: Primary care physicians (PCPs) are positioned to mitigate opioid morbidity and mortality, but their engagement in primary, secondary, and tertiary opioid-related prevention behaviors is unclear. The objective of this study was to evaluate Tennessee PCPs' engagement in and intention to engage in multiple opioid-related prevention behaviors. METHODS: A survey instrument was developed, pretested, and pilot tested with practicing PCPs. Thereafter, a census of eligible Tennessee PCPs was conducted using a modified, four-wave tailored design method approach. Three patient scenarios were employed to assess physician intention to engage in 10 primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention behaviors. Respondents were asked to report, given 10 similar scenarios, the number of times (0-10) they would engage in prevention behaviors. Descriptive statistics were calculated using SPSS version 25. RESULTS: A total of 296 usable responses were received. Physician intention to engage in prevention behaviors varied across the 10 behaviors studied. Physicians reported frequently communicating risks associated with prescription opioids to patients (8.9 ± 2.8 out of 10 patients), infrequently utilizing brief questionnaires to assess for risk of opioid misuse (1.7 ± 3.3 out of 10 patients), and screening for current opioid misuse (3.1 ± 4.3 out of 10 patients). Physicians reported seldomly co-prescribing naloxone for overdose reversal and frequently discharging from practice patients presenting with an opioid use disorder. CONCLUSIONS: This study noted strengths and opportunities to increase engagement in prevention behaviors. Understanding PCPs' engagement in opioid-related prevention behaviors is important to effectively target and implement morbidity and mortality reducing interventions.

In response to rising numbers of opioid overdose deaths, primary care providers have been called on to play a greater role in delivering buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder. However, policy makers and providers have raised concerns that expanding treatment access may reduce treatment quality and that primary care providers are not well equipped to deliver buprenorphine treatment. We investigated two research questions in response to these concerns: How did buprenorphine treatment use and quality change in North Carolina Medicaid from 2014 to 2017, and how did buprenorphine treatment quality differ between primary care providers and specialists in North Carolina Medicaid during this period? We measured buprenorphine treatment quality as patients' retention in treatment and providers' adherence to treatment guidelines. We found that the number of enrollees receiving medication treatment for opioid use disorder increased substantially, but the percentage of enrollees with the disorder receiving treatment remained low. The quality of buprenorphine treatment increased during the study period, and primary care providers provided care of comparable or higher quality compared with that of other providers. Treatment quality for buprenorphine treatment is improving, but there remains room for improvement in both use and quality. Our results support the role of primary care providers in expanding treatment for opioid use disorder.

IMPORTANCE: Agonist medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), buprenorphine and methadone, in carceral settings might reduce the risk of postrelease opioid overdose but are uncommonly offered. In April 2019, the Massachusetts Department of Correction (MADOC), the state prison system, provided buprenorphine for incarcerated individuals in addition to previously offered injectable naltrexone. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate postrelease outcomes after buprenorphine implementation. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cohort study with interrupted time-series analysis used linked data across multiple statewide data sets in the Massachusetts Public Health Data Warehouse stratified by sex due to differences in carceral systems. Eligible participants were individuals sentenced and released from a MADOC facility to the community. The study period for the male sample was January 2014 to November 2020; for the female sample, January 2015 to October 2019. Data were analyzed between February 2022 and January 2024. EXPOSURE: April 2019 implementation of buprenorphine during incarceration. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Receipt of MOUD within 4 weeks after release, opioid overdose, and all-cause mortality within 8 weeks after release, each measured as a percentage of monthly releases who experienced the outcome. Segmented linear regression analyzed changes in outcome rates after implementation. RESULTS: A total of 15 225 individuals were included. In the male sample there were 14 582 releases among 12 688 individuals (mean [SD] age, 35.0 [10.8] years; 133 Asian and Pacific Islander [0.9%], 4079 Black [28.0%], 4208 Hispanic [28.9%], 6117 White [41.9%]), a rate of 175.7 releases per month; the female sample included 3269 releases among 2537 individuals (mean [SD] age, 34.9 [9.8] years; 328 Black [10.0%], 225 Hispanic [6.9%], 2545 White [77.9%]), a rate of 56.4 releases per month. Among male participants at 20 months postimplementation, the monthly rate of postrelease buprenorphine receipt was higher than would have been expected under baseline trends (21.2% vs 10.6% of monthly releases; 18.6 additional releases per month). Naltrexone receipt was lower than expected (1.0% vs 6.0%; 8.8 fewer releases per month). Monthly rates of methadone receipt (1.4%) and opioid overdose (1.8%) were not significantly different than expected. All-cause mortality was lower than expected (1.9% vs 2.8%; 1.5 fewer deaths per month). Among female participants at 7 months postimplementation, buprenorphine receipt was higher than expected (31.6% vs 9.5%; 12.4 additional releases per month). Naltrexone receipt was lower than expected (3.4% vs 7.2%) but not statistically significantly different. Monthly rates of methadone receipt (1.1%), opioid overdose (4.8%), and all-cause mortality (1.6%) were not significantly different than expected. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this cohort study of state prison releases, postrelease buprenorphine receipt increased and naltrexone receipt decreased after buprenorphine became available during incarceration.

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND: In response to the unprecedented rates of illicit drug use, including opioid addiction and overdose in Rhode Island, local healthcare institutions, led by the Warren Alpert Medical School (AMS) of Brown University, collaborated to present "Bridging Health Disparities to Address the Opioid Epidemic." This symposium sought to educate a wide array of healthcare providers and professionals around opioid use disorder, including the state of the opioid crisis in Rhode Island, national efforts around opioid misuse and how providers can work together to stem the opioid crisis in the state. DESIGN AND METHODS: The symposium included a keynote session which aimed to increase knowledge and decrease stigma. This was followed by two rounds of breakout sessions which focused on various components of opioid disorder treatment. We elicited feedback from participants in order to plan further interventions to educate providers in Rhode Island around the opioid epidemic. Primary Results: Initial feedback was positive. More importantly, this workshop allowed us to identify gaps in knowledge amongst healthcare providers in Rhode Island in order to plan further interventions for healthcare providers, including physicians, around opioid misuse, in Rhode Island. PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS: This symposium is one of the first steps that a consortium of healthcare institutions, including AMS, will take to address the opioid crisis in Rhode Island. Feedback from the event was elicited to identify gaps in healthcare provider knowledge and will be used to design and implement further interventions.

Background: There is emerging recognition of the unique benefits of implementing screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) in pharmacy settings to identify patients who can benefit from services and connecting them to those services.Objectives: This study describes Project Lifeline - a multipronged public health initiative to provide educational and technical support to rural community pharmacies implementing SBIRT for substance use disorder (SUD) and providing harm reduction support.Methods: Eight community pharmacies were recruited. Patients receiving a Schedule II prescription were invited to engage in SBIRT and offered naloxone. Patient screening data and key informant interviews with pharmacy staff on implementation strategy were analyzed.Results: Between 2018-2020, 4,601 adult patients were offered screens and 3,407 screens were completed on 2,881 unique adult patients (51.3% female; <0.01% nonbinary; 95.7% White). Of these unique screens, 107 patients were indicated for brief intervention, 31 accepted the brief intervention; and 12 were given a referral to SUD treatment. Patients who declined SBIRT or who did not want to reduce their use were offered access to naloxone (n = 372). Key informant interviews highlighted the importance of person-centered staff education, role-playing, anti-stigma training, and integrating activities into existing patient-care processes.Conclusion: While ongoing research is needed to characterize the full impact of Project Lifeline on patient outcomes, the reported findings help reinforce the benefits of multipronged public health initiatives that include community pharmacists to address the SUD crisis.

IMPORTANCE: The United States is experiencing a crisis of opioid overdose. In response, the US Department of Health and Human Services has defined a goal to reduce overdose mortality by 40% by 2022. OBJECTIVE: To identify specific combinations of 3 interventions (initiating more people to medications for opioid use disorder [MOUD], increasing 6-month retention with MOUD, and increasing naloxone distribution) associated with at least a 40% reduction in opioid overdose in simulated populations. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This decision analytical model used a dynamic population-level state-transition model to project outcomes over a 2-year horizon. Each intervention scenario was compared with the counterfactual of no intervention in simulated urban and rural communities in Massachusetts. Simulation modeling was used to determine the associations of community-level interventions with opioid overdose rates. The 3 examined interventions were initiation of more people to MOUD, increasing individuals' retention with MOUD, and increasing distribution of naloxone. Data were analyzed from July to November 2020. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Reduction in overdose mortality, medication treatment capacity needs, and naloxone needs. RESULTS: No single intervention was associated with a 40% reduction in overdose mortality in the simulated communities. Reaching this goal required use of MOUD and naloxone. Achieving a 40% reduction required that 10% to 15% of the estimated OUD population not already receiving MOUD initiate MOUD every month, with 45% to 60%% retention for at least 6 months, and increased naloxone distribution. In all feasible settings and scenarios, attaining a 40% reduction in overdose mortality required that in every month, at least 10% of the population with OUD who were not currently receiving treatment initiate an MOUD. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this modeling study, only communities with increased capacity for treating with MOUD and increased MOUD retention experienced a 40% decrease in overdose mortality. These findings could provide a framework for developing community-level interventions to reduce opioid overdose death.

With overdose deaths increasing, improving access to harm reduction and low barrier substance use disorder treatment is more important than ever. The Community Care in Reach(®) model uses a mobile unit to bring both harm reduction and clinical care for addiction to people experiencing barriers to office-based care. These mobile units provide many resources and services to people who use drugs, including safer consumption supplies, naloxone, medication for substance use disorder treatment, and a wide range of primary and preventative care. This protocol outlines the evaluation plan for the Community in Care(®) model in MA, USA. Using the RE-AIM framework, this evaluation will assess how mobile services engage new and underserved communities in addiction services and primary and preventative care.

BACKGROUND: Medication for Opioid Use Disorder (MOUD) has been shown to be a safe, cost-effective intervention that successfully lowers risk of opioid overdose. However, access to and use of MOUD has been limited. Our objective was to explore attitudes, opinions, and beliefs regarding MOUD among healthcare and social service providers in a community highly impacted by the opioid overdose epidemic. METHODS: As part of a larger ethnographic study examining neighborhoods in Allegheny County, PA, with the highest opioid overdose death rates, semi-structured qualitative in-person and telephone interviews were conducted with forty-five providers treating persons with opioid use disorders in these communities. An open coding approach was used to code interview transcripts followed by thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three major themes were identified related to MOUD from the perspectives of our provider participants. Within a variety of health and substance use service roles and settings, provider reflections revealed: (1) different opinions about MOUD as a transition to abstinence or as a long-term treatment; (2) perceived lack of uniformity and dissemination of accurate information of MOUD care, permitting differences in care, and (3) observed barriers to entry and navigation of MOUD, including referrals as a "word-of-mouth insider system" and challenges of getting patients MOUD services when they need it. CONCLUSIONS: Even in communities hard hit by the opioid overdose epidemic, healthcare providers' disagreement about the standard of care for MOUD can be a relevant obstacle. These insights can inform efforts to improve MOUD treatment and access for people with opioid use disorders.