Literature Collection

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND: Video directly observed therapy (video-DOT) through a mobile health platform may improve buprenorphine adherence and decrease diversion. This pilot study tested the acceptability and feasibility of using this technology among patients receiving buprenorphine in an office-based setting. METHODS: Participants were instructed to record videos of themselves taking buprenorphine. Data were collected from weekly in-person visits over a 4-week period; assessments included self-report of medication adherence, substance use, satisfaction with treatment and use of the application, and also urine drug testing. Open-ended questions at the final visit solicited feedback on patients' experiences using the mobile health application. RESULTS: The sample consisted of 14 patients; a majority were male (86%) and White (79%). All participants except 1 (93%) were able to use the application successfully to upload videos. Among those who successfully used the application, the percentage of daily videos uploaded per participant ranged from 18% to 96%; on average, daily videos were submitted by participants 72% of the time. Most participants (10/14; 71%) reported being "very satisfied" with the application; of the remaining 4 participants, 2 were "satisfied" and 2 were "neutral." Participants reported liking the accountability and structure of the application provided and its ease of use. Negative feedback included minor discomfort at viewing one's self during recording and the time required. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these results, use of a mobile health application for video-DOT of buprenorphine appears feasible and acceptable for patients who are treated in an office-based setting. Further research is needed to test whether use of such an application can improve treatment delivery and health outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Naloxone co-prescription is recommended for patients on long-term opioids for pain, yet there are few data on the practice. OBJECTIVE: To explore naloxone co-prescribing acceptability among primary care providers for patients on long-term opioids. DESIGN: We surveyed providers at six safety-net primary care clinics in San Francisco that had initiated naloxone co-prescribing. Providers were encouraged to offer naloxone to patients on long-term opioids or otherwise at risk of witnessing or experiencing an overdose. Surveys were administered electronically 4 to 11 months after co-prescribing began. KEY RESULTS: One hundred eleven providers (69 %) responded to the survey, among whom 41.4 % were residents; 40.5 % practiced internal medicine and 55.0 % practiced family medicine. Most (79.3 %) prescribed naloxone, to a mean of 7.7 patients; 99.1 % were likely to prescribe naloxone in the future. Providers reported they were likely to prescribe naloxone to most patients, including those on low doses, defined as /=65 years old (83.9 %), with no overdose history (80.7 %), and with no substance use disorder (73.6 %). Most providers felt that prescribing naloxone did not affect their opioid prescribing, 22.5 % felt that they might prescribe fewer opioids, and 3.6 % felt that they might prescribe more. Concerns about providing naloxone were largely administrative, relating to time and pharmacy or payer logistics. Internists (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 0.49, 95 % CI = 0.26-0.93, p = 0.029), those licensed for 5-20 years (IRR = 2.10, 95 % CI = 1.35-3.25, p = 0.001), and those with more patients prescribed long-term opioids (IRR = 1.10, 95 % CI = 1.05-1.14, p <0.001) were independently more likely to prescribe a greater number of naloxone compared to participants without these exposures. CONCLUSIONS: Naloxone co-prescription is considered acceptable among primary care providers. Barriers such as time and dispensing logistics may be alleviated by novel naloxone formulations intended for laypersons recently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

IMPORTANCE: Office-based opiate agonist therapy has dramatically expanded access to medication-assisted treatment over the past decade but has also led to increased buprenorphine diversion. OBJECTIVE: Our study sought to characterize physicians who participate in office-based therapy (OBT) to assess patient access to OBT in Ohio 10 years after its introduction. DESIGN/SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional telephone survey of Drug Addiction Treatment Act-waivered physicians in Ohio listed by the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT). MAIN OUTCOMES: This study sought to determine what proportion of eligible physicians are actively prescribing buprenorphine, whether they accept insurance for OBT, and whether they accept insurance for non-OBT services. In addition, we evaluated what physician characteristics predicted those primary outcomes. We hypothesized that a significant minority of eligible physicians are not active prescribers of buprenorphine. In addition, we expected that a significant minority of OBT prescribers do not accept insurance, further restricting patient access. We further hypothesized that a large subset of OBT prescribers accept insurance in their regular practices but do not take insurance for OBT. RESULTS: Of the 466 listed physicians, 327 (70.2%) practice representatives were reached for interview. Thirty-three physicians were excluded, with a true response rate of 75.5%. In total, 80.7% of providers reached were active OBT prescribers. Of these, 52.7% accepted insurance for OBT, 20.8% accepted insurance for non-OBT services but not for OBT, and 26.5% did not accept insurance for any services. Practices who did not accept insurance were more likely among dedicated addiction clinics located outside of Ohio's 6 major cities. Practices who normally accepted insurance but did not for OBT services were more likely in urban locations and were not associated with dedicated addiction practices. Neither business practice was associated with physician specialty. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Access to OBT in Ohio is far lower than what the 466 listed physicians suggests. Nearly 1 in 5 of those physicians are not active OBT prescribers, and 1 in 2 active prescribers do not accept insurance for OBT. Further research is needed to determine whether practices who do not accept insurance provide care consistent with CSAT guidelines and whether such practice patterns contribute to buprenorphine diversion.

BACKGROUND: Improving access to treatment for opioid use disorder is a national priority, but little is known about the barriers encountered by patients seeking buprenorphine-naloxone ("buprenorphine") treatment. OBJECTIVE: To assess real-world access to buprenorphine treatment for uninsured or Medicaid-covered patients reporting current heroin use. DESIGN: Audit survey ("secret shopper" study). SETTING: 6 U.S. jurisdictions with a high burden of opioid-related mortality (Massachusetts, Maryland, New Hampshire, West Virginia, Ohio, and the District of Columbia). PARTICIPANTS: From July to November 2018, callers contacted 546 publicly listed buprenorphine prescribers twice, posing as uninsured or Medicaid-covered patients seeking buprenorphine treatment. MEASUREMENTS: Rates of new appointments offered, whether buprenorphine prescription was possible at the first visit, and wait times. RESULTS: Among 1092 contacts with 546 clinicians, schedulers were reached for 849 calls (78% response rate). Clinicians offered new appointments to 54% of Medicaid contacts and 62% of uninsured-self-pay contacts, whereas 27% of Medicaid and 41% of uninsured-self-pay contacts were offered an appointment with the possibility of buprenorphine prescription at the first visit. The median wait time to the first appointment was 6 days (interquartile range [IQR], 2 to 10 days) for Medicaid contacts and 5 days (IQR, 1 to 9 days) for uninsured-self-pay contacts. These wait times were similar regardless of clinician type or payer status. The median wait time from first contact to possible buprenorphine induction was 8 days (IQR, 4 to 15 days) for Medicaid and 7 days (IQR, 3 to 14 days) for uninsured-self-pay contacts. LIMITATION: The survey sample included only publicly listed buprenorphine prescribers. CONCLUSION: Many buprenorphine prescribers did not offer new appointments or rapid buprenorphine access to callers reporting active heroin use, particularly those with Medicaid coverage. Nevertheless, wait times were not long, implying that opportunities may exist to increase access by using the existing prescriber workforce.

The aim of this study was to assess the availability of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) and other services for pregnant people in jails in counties heavily impacted by opioid overdose in the United States. Counties were selected based on absolute number and population rate of opioid-overdose fatalities. Structured interviews were completed with representatives from 174 jails that house pregnant women. Descriptive statistics examine MOUD availability and differences in service provision and community-level characteristics based on MOUD availability. Most jails in the study sample (84.5%) had MOUD available for pregnant people; however, less than half of these jails ensured continuity of care. Jails without MOUD available are more likely to provide non-MOUD substance use services. These jails are more often located in smaller, rural counties in the Midwest and have higher rates of White residents and lower rates of Hispanic and African American residents. Gaps in MOUD availability in jails and continuity of care violate medical guidelines for treatment of pregnant patients with opioid use disorder and increase their risk of overdose. In addition, there are disparities across communities in access to MOUD for pregnant people in jails.