Literature Collection

CADTH has previously reviewed the evidence for the use of buprenorphine formulations for the treatment of opioid use disorders (OUDs). One report was limited to pregnant populations, another was a qualitative review of patient preferences and perspectives, and the third was a summary of abstracts based on evidence available in 2017. The objective of the current report is to evaluate the comparative clinical effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness and evidencebased guidelines regarding various buprenorphine or combination product of buprenorphine with naloxone (BUP-NAL) formulations for the treatment of OUD.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) was expected to benefit patients with substance use disorders, including opioid use disorders (OUDs). This study examined buprenorphine use and health services utilization by patients with OUDs pre- and post-ACA in a large health care system. Using electronic health record data, we examined demographic and clinical characteristics (substance use, psychiatric and medical conditions) of two patient cohorts using buprenorphine: those newly enrolled in 2012 ("pre-ACA," N = 204) and in 2014 ("post-ACA," N = 258). Logistic and negative binomial regressions were used to model persistent buprenorphine use, and to examine whether persistent use was related to health services utilization. Buprenorphine patients were largely similar pre- and post-ACA, although more post-ACA patients had a marijuana use disorder (p < .01). Post-ACA patients were more likely to have high-deductible benefit plans (p < .01). Use of psychiatry services was lower post-ACA (IRR: 0.56, p < .01), and high-deductible plans were also related to lower use of psychiatry services (IRR: 0.30, p < .01). The relationship between marijuana use disorder and prescription opioid use is complex, and deserves further study, particularly with increasingly widespread marijuana legalization. Access to psychiatry services may be more challenging for buprenorphine patients post-ACA, especially for patients with deductible plans.

IMPORTANCE: Buprenorphine is underutilized as a treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD); state policies may improve buprenorphine access and utilization. OBJECTIVE: To assess buprenorphine prescribing trends following New Jersey Medicaid initiatives designed to improve access. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cross-sectional interrupted time series analysis included New Jersey Medicaid beneficiaries who were prescribed buprenorphine and had 12 months continuous Medicaid enrollment, OUD diagnosis, and no Medicare dual eligibility, as well as physician or advanced practitioners who prescribed buprenorphine to Medicaid beneficiaries. The study used Medicaid claims data from 2017 to 2021. EXPOSURE: Implementation of New Jersey Medicaid initiatives in 2019 that removed prior authorizations, increased reimbursement for office-based OUD treatment, and established regional Centers of Excellence. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Rate of buprenorphine receipt per 1000 beneficiaries with OUD; percentage of new buprenorphine episodes lasting at least 180 days; buprenorphine prescribing rate per 1000 Medicaid prescribers, overall and by specialty. RESULTS: Of 101 423 Medicaid beneficiaries (mean [SD] age, 41.0 [11.6] years; 54 726 [54.0%] male; 30 071 [29.6%] Black, 10 143 [10.0%] Hispanic, and 51 238 [50.5%] White), 20 090 filled at least 1 prescription for buprenorphine from 1788 prescribers. Policy implementation was associated with an inflection point in buprenorphine prescribing trend; after implementation, the trend increased by 36%, from 1.29 (95% CI, 1.02-1.56) prescriptions per 1000 beneficiaries with OUD to 1.76 (95% CI, 1.46-2.06) prescriptions per 1000 beneficiaries with OUD. Among beneficiaries with new buprenorphine episodes, the percentage retained for at least 180 days was stable before and after initiatives were implemented. The initiatives were associated with an increase in the growth rate of buprenorphine prescribers (0.43 per 1000 prescribers; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.51 per 1000 prescribers). Trends were similar across specialties, but increases were most pronounced among primary care and emergency medicine physicians (eg, primary care: 0.42 per 1000 prescribers; 95% CI, 0.32-0.53 per 1000 prescribers). Advanced practitioners accounted for a growing percentage of buprenorphine prescribers, with a monthly increase of 0.42 per 1000 prescribers (95% CI, 0.32-0.52 per 1000 prescribers). A secondary analysis to test for changes associated with non-state-specific secular trends in prescribing found that quarterly trends in buprenorphine prescriptions increased in New Jersey relative to all other states following initiative implementation. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this cross-sectional study of state-level New Jersey Medicaid initiatives designed to expand buprenorphine access, implementation was associated with an upward trend in buprenorphine prescribing and receipt. No change was observed in the percentage of new buprenorphine treatment episodes lasting 180 or more days, indicating that retention remains a challenge. Findings support implementation of similar initiatives but highlight the need for efforts to support long-term retention.

BACKGROUND: For a decade, experts have suggested integrating mental health care into primary care to help bridge mental health Treatment Gap. General Practitioners (GPs) are the first port-of-call for many patients with mental ill-health. In Indonesia, the WHO mhGAP is being systematically introduced to its network of 10,000 primary care clinics as an add-on mental health training for pairs of GPs and Nurses, since the end of 2015. In one of 34 provinces, there exists an integrated care model: the co-location of clinical psychologists in primary care clinics. This trial evaluates patient outcomes among those provided mental health care by GPs with those treated by clinical psychologists in primary care. METHODS: In this partially-randomised, pragmatic, two-arm cluster non-inferiority trial, 14 primary care clinics were assigned to receive the WHO mhGAP training and 14 clinics with the co-location framework were assigned to the Specialist arm. Participants (patients) were blinded to the existence of the other pathway, and outcome assessors were blinded to group assignment. All adult primary care patients who screened positive for psychiatric morbidity were eligible. GPs offered psychosocial and/or pharmacological interventions and Clinical Psychologists offered psychosocial interventions. The primary outcome was health and social functioning as measured by the HoNOS and secondary outcomes include disability measured by WHODAS 2.0, health-related quality of life measured by EQ-5D-3L, and resource use and costs evaluated from a health services perspective, at six months. RESULTS: 153 patients completed the outcome assessment following GP care alongside 141 patients following Clinical Psychologists care. Outcomes of GP care were proven to be statistically not inferior to Clinical Psychologists in reducing symptoms of social and physical impairment, reducing disability, and improving health-related quality of life at six months. Economic analyses indicate lower costs and better outcomes in the Specialist arm and suggest a 50% probability of WHO mhGAP framework being cost-effective at the Indonesian willingness to pay threshold per QALY. CONCLUSION: General Practitioners supported by nurses in primary care clinics could effectively manage mild to moderate mental health issues commonly found among primary care patients. They provide non-stigmatising mental health care within community context, helping to reduce the mental health Treatment Gap. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02700490.