Literature Collection

Understanding the impact of medications for opioid use disorder on health related quality of life (QOL) may help to explain why few individuals with legal involvement remain in treatment, specifically those receiving opioid antagonists. QOL is an established predictor of treatment retention and has been shown to improve with some treatment for opioid use disorder. Yet limited research has examined QOL with opioid antagonists. We examined the impact of extended release naltrexone (XR-NTX) on QOL and retention in treatment in a randomized, multi-site trial of individuals with legal involvement. Methods: The participants were 308 community-dwelling adults with current or recent legal involvement with opioid dependence at five site across United States. They were randomized to receive XR-NTX or treatment as usual for 6 months. QOL was measured every 2 weeks using Euro QOL individual items, summary index score, and health state today metric. Results: No significant difference in QOL scores were observed between the two groups at the completion of active treatment or on follow up at 52 and 78 weeks. There were no time effects of treatment on scores. Contrary to expectation, baseline and average QOL did not predict retention in treatment. Conclusion: In contrast to prior research, our findings did not demonstrate significant changes (improvements or decreases) in QOL associated with XR-NTX treatment. Clinicians may consider that individuals receiving XR-NTX may not experience changes in perceived well-being in response to treatment and consider discussing with patients that they may not necessarily perceive improvement in their QOL. This may help to ground patient's expectations about the effects of treatment and potentially reduce attrition from treatment with opioid antagonists.

OBJECTIVES: There has been a rapid increase in the presence of illicitly manufactured fentanyl in the heroin drug supply. Buprenorphine is an effective treatment for heroin and prescription opioid use disorder; however, little is known about treatment outcomes among people using fentanyl. We compared 6-month treatment retention and opioid abstinence among people initiating buprenorphine treatment who had toxicology positive for heroin compared to fentanyl at baseline. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of 251 adult patients initiating office-based buprenorphine treatment who had available toxicology testing across an academic health system between August 2016 and July 2017. Exposure was assessed at baseline before initiating buprenorphine and was categorized as negative toxicology (n = 184) versus fentanyl positive toxicology (n = 48) versus heroin positive toxicology (n = 19). RESULTS: Six-month treatment retention rates were not different between the fentanyl positive and heroin positive groups [38% (n = 18) vs 47% (n = 9); P = 0.58], or between the fentanyl positive and the negative toxicology group [38% (n = 18) vs 51% (n = 93); P = 0.14]. Opioid abstinence at 6 months among those who had testing did not differ between the fentanyl positive and the heroin positive group [55% (n = 6) vs 60% (n = 6); P = 0.99]. The fentanyl positive group had a lower abstinence rate at 6 months compared to those with negative toxicology at baseline [55% (n = 6) vs 93% (n = 63); P = 0.004]. Mean initial buprenophine dosage did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Buprenorphine treatment retention and abstinence among those retained in treatment is not worse between people using fentanyl compared to heroin at treatment initiation. Both groups have lower abstinence rates at 6 months compared to individuals with negative toxicology at baseline. These findings suggest that people exposed to fentanyl still benefit from buprenorphine treatment.

OBJECTIVE: The aim is to assess the impact of long-acting buprenorphine (LAI-BNP) on frequency of methamphetamine (MA) use. METHODS: We undertook an observational, descriptive, retrospective cohort study of patients of a public, tertiary, community-based Alcohol and Other Drug Service (AODS) with opioid use disorder (OUD) treated with LAI-BNP who are current or past users of MA. We assessed the changes of frequency of use in their MA use at start (baseline), 3 and 6 months of LAI-BNP. RESULTS: Study included 59 participants. Based on their MA use at the commencement of LAI-BNP, the sample was further sub-grouped as active users (n = 30) and past users (n = 29). At 6 months of LAI-BNP, all the past users remained abstinent from MA use. 70% (n = 21) of participants with active MA use had reduced or ceased their MA use while 17% (n = 5) increased their MA use at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: The results favour the use of LAI-BNP as a potential treatment for MA use.