Health care-seeking experiences for people who inject drugs with hepatitis C: Qualitative explorations of stigma

INTRODUCTION

People who inject drugs (PWID) have complex health needs and often experience poor health outcomes. For PWID, intersectional experiences of stigma and other social vulnerabilities may influence their experiences navigating medical care. We conducted a targeted subanalysis of qualitative interview data collected to inform development of a community-pharmacist care model for hepatitis C (HCV) among PWID to explore intersectional influences on health care-seeking experiences.

METHODS

The study recruited participants from community organizations in Seattle, Washington, and participants were eligible if they reported injection drug use within 3 months and having HCV. Study staff conducted semi-structured interviews and two independent coders transcribed and initially analyzed them using a Rapid Assessment Process, guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Themes emerged regarding intersections of stigma and social vulnerabilities; thus, we conducted a targeted subanalysis guided by Fundamental Cause Theory and Earnshaw et al.'s Stigma Framework.

RESULTS

Forty participants (65% male; 47% non-white) reported multiple social vulnerabilities (e.g., regarding unstable housing and food insecurity). Qualitative analysis identified that receiving health care in the context of social vulnerability is challenging and burdensome (Theme 1); health care interactions are fraught with stigma stemming from intersectional vulnerabilities (Theme 2); and the belief that abstaining from drug use is needed to prove worthiness for care (Theme 3). PWID described experiencing multiple social vulnerabilities (e.g., unmet basic needs) that made seeking health care burdensome. Interactions with health care teams further reinforced participants' feelings of shame about their drug use, which influenced how participants expressed their care preferences and felt heard by providers. And as PWID navigated health care, they felt that their status as an active drug user was used to control and sometimes coerce their access to services, discouraging PWID from seeking needed care.

CONCLUSIONS

Stigma and social vulnerabilities play a pervasive and intersecting role in the health care-seeking experiences of PWID and negatively impact their ability to navigate and receive care they need. Evidence-based stigma reduction interventions at multiple levels, coupled with person-centered approaches to care delivery, may help to mitigate negative impacts.

A collaborative care intervention to improve opioid prescribing among providers caring for persons with HIV: Impact on satisfaction, confidence, and trust

BACKGROUND

HIV clinicians report low confidence and satisfaction prescribing chronic opioid therapy (COT). We hypothesized that the Targeting Effective Analgesia in Clinics for HIV (TEACH) intervention [a system-level improvement to increase guideline concordant care for COT] would improve satisfaction, confidence, and trust among PWH and their clinicians.

METHODS

We conducted a two-arm, unblinded cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT) to assess the TEACH intervention. Clinicians were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either the TEACH intervention (an IT-enabled nurse care manager, opioid education, academic detailing, and access to addiction specialists) or usual care. Outcomes were the following: clinician satisfaction (primary); confidence prescribing COT; patient satisfaction with COT; and trust in clinician. Intention-to-treat analyses were conducted using linear and logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Clinicians (n = 41) were randomized and their 114 patients assessed. At 12 months, the adjusted mean difference in satisfaction with COT was 1.11 points for intervention vs control clinicians (Scale 1-10; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.04 to 2.26, p = 0.06). The adjusted mean confidence with prescribing COT was 1.01 points higher among intervention clinicians (Scale 1-10; 95% CI: 0.05-1.96, p = 0.04). There were no significant differences in patient satisfaction with COT (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 1.17, 95% CI: 0.50-2.76, p = 0.72) or trust in provider (AOR 1.63, 95% CI: 0.65-4.09, p = 0.30).

CONCLUSIONS

TEACH did not significantly affect prescriber satisfaction, patient satisfaction with pain management or patient trust; however, it did improve prescriber confidence. TEACH is a promising strategy to improve provider prescribing of COT for PWH without adverse patient satisfaction or trust in provider.

Cervical cancer screening, abnormal results, and follow-up in women with substance use-related diagnoses

Background: Substance use-related diagnoses are common and associated with poor health outcomes. The objective of this analysis was to compare rates of cervical cancer screening, screening abnormalities, and follow-up care in women with and without a substance use-related diagnosis seen for primary care between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2019 in the University of Washington healthcare system. Methods: This study included women aged 21-65 years of age who had at least one outpatient visit between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2019 within one of 45 primary care or women's health clinics in the academic healthcare system. Exposure status was defined using ICD10 codes for substance-use related diagnoses or no substance-use related diagnoses. Only first cervical cancer screening was included. Generalized linear models with a binomial family and log link were used to estimate risk ratios. Results: 3845 women had a substance use-related diagnosis and 89214 did not. Women with a substance use-related diagnosis were less likely to be screened for cervical cancer (44%, 1675/3845) compared to women without a substance use-related diagnosis (49%, 43338/89214; relative risk [RR] 0.90, 95% CI 0.86-0.93). Women with a substance use-related diagnosis were also more likely to have an abnormal screening result (18%, 304/1675) compared to women without a substance use-related diagnosis (10%, 4528/43338; RR 1.74, 95% CI 1.56-1.93). Follow-up for abnormal screens did not differ significantly between groups (24 vs 25%; RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.55-1.17). Conclusion: To combat disparities in cervical cancer screening for women with substance use-related diagnoses, public health efforts should expand access to screening where women with substance use-related diagnoses are seen, including acute care, inpatient hospitalizations, and addiction treatment settings.

Drug and alcohol use among people living with HIV in care in the United States by geographic region

Substance use in the U.S. varies by geographic region. Opioid prescribing practices and marijuana, heroin, and methamphetamine availability are evolving differently across regions. We examined self-reported substance use among people living with HIV (PLWH) in care at seven sites from 2017-2019 to understand current regional substance use patterns. We calculated the percentage and standardized percentage of PLWH reporting current drug use and at-risk and binge alcohol use by U.S. Census Bureau geographic region and examined associations in adjusted logistic regression analyses. Among 7,686 PLWH, marijuana use was the most prevalent drug (30%), followed by methamphetamine/crystal (8%), cocaine/crack (7%), and illicit opioids (3%). One-third reported binge alcohol use (32%). Differences in percent of current use by region were seen for marijuana (24-41%) and methamphetamine/crystal (2-15%), with more use in the West and Northeast, and binge alcohol use (26-40%). In adjusted analyses, PLWH in the Midwest were significantly less likely to use methamphetamine/crystal (aOR: 0.13;0.06-0.25) or illicit opioids (aOR:0.16;0.05-0.53), and PLWH in the Northeast were more likely to use cocaine/crack (aOR:1.59;1.16-2.17), compared to PLWH in the West. Understanding differences in substance use patterns in the current era, as policies continue to evolve, will enable more targeted interventions in clinical settings among PLWH.

The impact of methamphetamine/amphetamine use on receipt and outcomes of medications for opioid use disorder: a systematic review

Background

Methamphetamine/amphetamine use has sharply increased among people with opioid use disorder (OUD). It is therefore important to understand whether and how use of these substances may impact receipt of, and outcomes associated with, medications for OUD (MOUD). This systematic review identified studies that examined associations between methamphetamine/amphetamine use or use disorder and 3 classes of outcomes: (1) receipt of MOUD, (2) retention in MOUD, and (3) opioid abstinence during MOUD.

Methods

We searched 3 databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL Complete) from 1/1/2000 to 7/28/2020 using key words and subject headings, and hand-searched reference lists of included articles. English-language studies of people with documented OUD/opioid use that reported a quantitative association between methamphetamine/amphetamine use or use disorder and an outcome of interest were included. Study data were extracted using a standardized template, and risk of bias was assessed for each study. Screening, inclusion, data extraction and bias assessment were conducted independently by 2 authors. Study characteristics and findings were summarized for each class of outcomes.

Results

Thirty-nine studies met inclusion criteria. Studies generally found that methamphetamine/amphetamine use or use disorder was negatively associated with receiving methadone and buprenorphine; 2 studies suggested positive associations with receiving naltrexone. Studies generally found negative associations with retention; most studies finding no association had small samples, and these studies tended to examine shorter retention timeframes and describe provision of adjunctive services to address substance use. Studies generally found negative associations with opioid abstinence during treatment among patients receiving methadone or sustained-release naltrexone implants, though observed associations may have been confounded by other polysubstance use. Most studies examining opioid abstinence during other types of MOUD treatment had small samples.

Conclusions

Overall, existing research suggests people who use methamphetamine/amphetamines may have lower receipt of MOUD, retention in MOUD, and opioid abstinence during MOUD. Future research should examine how specific policies and treatment models impact MOUD outcomes for these patients, and seek to understand the perspectives of MOUD providers and people who use both opioids and methamphetamine/amphetamines. Efforts to improve MOUD care and overdose prevention strategies are needed for this population.

Improving the Delivery of Chronic Opioid Therapy Among People Living With Human Immunodeficiency Virus: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain is prevalent among people living with human immunodeficiency virus (PLWH); managing pain with chronic opioid therapy (COT) is common. Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) providers often diverge from prescribing guidelines.

METHODS

This 2-arm, unblinded, cluster-randomized clinical trial assessed whether the Targeting Effective Analgesia in Clinics for HIV (TEACH) intervention improves guideline-concordant care compared to usual care for PLWH on COT. The trial was implemented from 2015 to 2018 with 12-month follow-up at safety-net hospital-based HIV clinics in Boston and Atlanta. We enrolled 41 providers and their 187 patients on COT. Prescribers were randomized 1:1 to either a 12-month intervention consisting of a nurse care manager with an interactive electronic registry, opioid education, academic detailing, and access to addiction specialists or a control condition consisting of usual care. Two primary outcomes were assessed through electronic medical records: ≥2 urine drug tests and any early COT refills by 12 months. Other outcomes included possible adverse consequences.

RESULTS

At 12 months, the TEACH intervention arm had higher odds of ≥2 urine drug tests than the usual care arm (71% vs 20%; adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 13.38 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 5.85-30.60]; P < .0001). We did not detect a statistically significant difference in early refills (22% vs 30%; AOR, 0.55 [95% CI, .26-1.15]; P = .11), pain severity (6.30 vs 5.76; adjusted mean difference, 0.10 [95% CI, -1.56 to 1.75]; P = .91), or HIV viral load suppression (86.9% vs 82.1%; AOR, 1.21 [95% CI, .47-3.09]; P = .69).

CONCLUSIONS

TEACH is a promising intervention to improve adherence to COT guidelines without evident adverse consequences.

'Treat my whole person, not just my condition': qualitative explorations of hepatitis C care delivery preferences among people who inject drugs

Background

The advent of direct-acting antivirals (DAAs)—a form of hepatitis C (HCV) treatment associated with shorter treatment course and greater efficacy—offers an unprecedented opportunity to eliminate HCV, but only if care delivery systems are developed to extend treatment to people who inject drugs (PWID). To support the design of a community-pharmacy program, we explored perspectives of PWID with chronic HCV with regard to barriers, motivators, preferences, and prior experiences related to HCV treatment and pharmacists.

Methods

We conducted semi-structured interviews with people living with HCV who reported active injection drug use. Participants were recruited from local community service and clinical organizations in the Seattle, Washington region, and focus groups and interviews were conducted in-person or via phone/video-conference. Rapid Assessment Process was used to analyze qualitative data. Dual coders used structured templates to summarize findings and engaged in iterative review to identify themes.

Results

Among the 40 participants, 65% were male, 52.5% were white, and 80% were not stably housed. On average, participants had been injecting drugs for 14 years and living with HCV for 6 years. Analyses revealed 3 themes: (1) limited knowledge regarding HCV and DAA treatments; (2) barriers/motivators for receiving treatment included fear of side effects, prior stigmatizing behaviors from physicians, and desire to protect relatives and the PWID community from HCV transmission; and (3) preferences for HCV care delivery, including a need for person-centered, low-barrier, and collaborative treatment integrated with other care (e.g. primary care and addiction treatment) for PWID. Participants were generally receptive to a community-pharmacy model for HCV treatment, but prior interactions with pharmacists were mixed and there were some concerns expressed that care delivered by pharmacists would not be equivalent to that of physicians.

Conclusions

Even in the direct-acting antivirals era, people who inject drugs still face major barriers to hepatitis C treatment which may be reduced by providing low-barrier points of access for care through pharmacists. Key recommendations for community-pharmacy design included providing care team training to reduce stigma and ensuring care team structures and culture target PWID-specific needs for education and engagement.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13722-021-00260-8.

The Hepatitis C Continuum of Care Among HIV-Positive Persons with Heavy Alcohol Use in St. Petersburg, Russia

This study describes the self-reported prevalence of hepatitis C virus (HCV) coinfection and the HCV care continuum among persons enrolled in the St PETER HIV Study, a randomized controlled trial of medications for smoking and alcohol cessation in HIV-positive heavy drinkers and smokers in St. Petersburg, Russia. Baseline health questionnaire data were used to calculate proportions and 95% confidence intervals for self-reported steps along the HCV continuum of care. The cohort included 399 HIV-positive persons, of whom 387 [97.0% (95% CI 95.3-98.7%)] reported a prior HCV test and 315 [78.9% (95% CI 74.9-82.9%)] reported a prior diagnosis of HCV. Among those reporting a diagnosis of HCV, 43 [13.7% (95% CI 9.9-17.4%)] had received treatment for HCV, and 31 [9.8% (95% CI 6.6-13.1%)] had been cured. Despite frequent HCV testing in this HIV-positive Russian cohort, the proportion reporting prior effective HCV treatment was strikingly low. Increased efforts are needed to scale-up HCV treatment among HIV-positive Russians in St. Petersburg.

Perspectives on electronic portal use among patients treated with medications for opioid use disorder in primary care

OBJECTIVES

Office-based opioid treatment (OBOT) with buprenorphine is increasingly integrated in primary care to treat opioid use disorder (OUD). Online portals seek to engage patients in care of their chronic medical conditions, yet we know little about how patients with OUD experience these portals. Our study explores how patients with OUD perceive the impact of portal use on addiction treatment and clinical care.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We purposively sampled patients with an active portal account enrolled in an OBOT program embedded within primary care, stratifying by recent or distant portal use. The study conducted individual semistructured interviews to understand how patients perceived and interfaced with the portal until the study reached saturation of themes. The research team analyzed the data via thematic analysis and three investigators independently coded the data to identify themes, which all authors then refined.

RESULTS

Among 17 participants, 9 were recent users and 8 were distant. Though we stratified analyses by level of portal use, the study observed no differences in resultant themes, thus the study combined themes, which we present here. Portal use was felt to (1) facilitate and reinforce OUD and other substance use treatment goals, (2) improve health care participation, (3) enable monitoring and addressing broader health concerns beyond SUD treatment, and (4) have mixed impacts on patient-provider trust.

DISCUSSION

Our findings suggest that patients with OUD identify aspects of the patient portal contributing to their engagement and retention in substance use treatment. Lingering concerns remain about the potential of portal use to negatively impact the patient-provider relationship.

Race and satisfaction with pain management among patients with HIV receiving long-term opioid therapy

INTRODUCTION

Management of chronic pain is an essential aspect of HIV primary care. Previous literature in the general population has elucidated racial disparities in the evaluation and treatment of pain. This study examined racial/ethnic differences in patient satisfaction and barriers to pain management among a cohort of PWH receiving LTOT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patient-reported survey and EMR data were compared between non-white (n = 135; 81.3 %) and white (n = 31; 18.7 %) patients in a cohort of 166 PWH receiving LTOT in two clinics in Atlanta and Boston. Quantile and linear regression were used to evaluate the association between race and pain management outcomes: 1) satisfaction with pain management (0-10) and 2) patient-related barriers to pain management, including patient perceptions of pain medications, fatalism, and communication about pain. Models were adjusted for sex, age, clinical site, and baseline general health.

RESULTS

Non-white participants were noted to receive chronic opioids for a shorter mean duration of time than white participants (6.0 versus 11.0 years, p < 0.001) and lower mean morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD) than white participants (28.1 versus 66.9 mg, p < 0.001). In adjusted analyses, there was no significant difference in satisfaction with pain management among non-white and white participants (p = 0.101). There was no significant difference in barriers to pain management in unadjusted (p = 0.335) nor adjusted models (p = 0.397).

CONCLUSION

While non-white PWH were noted to have received lower doses of chronic opioids and for shorter duration than white PWH, satisfaction with pain management was similar. Patient-related barriers to pain management were similar among non-white and white PWH.

Prevalence and Medication Treatment of Opioid Use Disorder Among Primary Care Patients with Hepatitis C and HIV

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis C and HIV are associated with opioid use disorders (OUD) and injection drug use. Medications for OUD can prevent the spread of HCV and HIV.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the prevalence of documented OUD, as well as receipt of office-based medication treatment, among primary care patients with HCV or HIV.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational cohort study using electronic health record and insurance data.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults ≥ 18 years with ≥ 2 visits to primary care during the study (2014-2016) at 6 healthcare systems across five states (CO, CA, OR, WA, and MN).

MAIN MEASURES

The primary outcome was the diagnosis of OUD; the secondary outcome was OUD treatment with buprenorphine or oral/injectable naltrexone. Prevalence of OUD and OUD treatment was calculated across four groups: HCV only; HIV only; HCV and HIV; and neither HCV nor HIV. In addition, adjusted odds ratios (AOR) of OUD treatment associated with HCV and HIV (separately) were estimated, adjusting for age, gender, race/ethnicity, and site.

KEY RESULTS

The sample included 1,368,604 persons, of whom 10,042 had HCV, 5821 HIV, and 422 both. The prevalence of diagnosed OUD varied across groups: 11.9% (95% CI: 11.3%, 12.5%) for those with HCV; 1.6% (1.3%, 2.0%) for those with HIV; 8.8% (6.2%, 11.9%) for those with both; and 0.92% (0.91%, 0.94%) among those with neither. Among those with diagnosed OUD, the prevalence of OUD medication treatment was 20.9%, 16.0%, 10.8%, and 22.3%, for those with HCV, HIV, both, and neither, respectively. HCV was not associated with OUD treatment (AOR = 1.03; 0.88, 1.21), whereas patients with HIV had a lower probability of OUD treatment (AOR = 0.43; 0.26, 0.72).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients receiving primary care, those diagnosed with HCV and HIV were more likely to have documented OUD than those without. Patients with HIV were less likely to have documented medication treatment for OUD.

Predictors of pain-related functional impairment among people living with HIV on long-term opioid therapy

People living with HIV (PLWH) have high levels of functional impairment due to pain, also called pain interference. Long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) is commonly prescribed for chronic pain among PLWH. We sought to better understand the predictors of pain interference, measured with the Brief Pain Inventory Interference subscale (BPI-I), among PLWH with chronic pain on LTOT. Using a prospective cohort of PLWH on LTOT we developed a model to identify predictors of increased pain interference over 1 year of follow up. Participants (n = 166) were 34% female, 72% African American with a median age of 55 years, and 40% had severe pain interference (BPI-I ≥ 7). In multivariable models, substance use disorder, depressive symptoms, PTSD symptoms, financial instability, and higher opioid doses were associated with increased pain interference. Measures of behavioral health and socioeconomic status had the most consistent association with pain interference. In contrast, the biomedical aspects of chronic pain and LTOT - comorbidities, duration of pain - were not predictive of pain interference. PLWH with chronic pain on LTOT with lower socioeconomic status and behavioral health symptoms have higher risk of pain interference. Addressing the social determinants of health and providing access to behavioral health services could improve patients' pain-related functional status.

Hazardous alcohol use is associated with greater pain interference and prescription opioid misuse among persons living with HIV and chronic pain

BACKGROUND

Alcohol use is common among persons living with HIV (PLWH), who often experience chronic pain, yet its impact on pain and opioid misuse is not fully characterized.

METHODS

We assessed associations between hazardous alcohol use and pain interference, defined as the self-reported impact of pain on daily living, pain severity, and risk for opioid misuse among PLWH who were on long-term opioid therapy (LTOT). A cohort was recruited as part of the "Targeting Effective Analgesia in Clinics for HIV" (TEACH) study, a randomized controlled trial to improve LTOT in HIV clinics. The Alcohol Use Disorders Test (AUDIT), Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and the Current Opioid Misuse Measure (COMM) were administered at both baseline and 12-months. Linear mixed and generalized estimating equation models, incorporating data from both time points, evaluated associations between hazardous alcohol use (AUDIT ≥8) and: pain interference (0-10), pain severity (0-10), and opioid misuse risk (COMM ≥13), adjusting for age, gender, depressive symptoms, use of non-alcohol substances, time-point, and study-arm.

RESULTS

The sample was comprised of 166 participants, of which 31 (19%) reported hazardous alcohol use. The majority were male (65%), black (72%), and the mean age was 54 (range: 29-77). Hazardous alcohol use was significantly associated with higher pain interference (adjusted mean difference [AMD]: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.08, 1.96) and higher odds of opioid misuse risk (AOR: 3.73, 95% CI: 1.88-7.39), but not pain severity (AMD: 0.47, 95% CI: - 0.35, 1.29).

CONCLUSIONS

Hazardous alcohol use was associated with greater functional impairment in daily living from their pain and higher odds for prescription opioid misuse in this study of PLWH on LTOT. Providers should be attentive to alcohol use among PLWH who are prescribed opioids given associations with pain and opioid misuse.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02564341 (Intervention, September 30, 2015) and NCT02525731 (Patient Cohort, August 17, 2015). Both prospectively registered.

Increased utilization of buprenorphine and methadone in 2018 compared to 2015 among Seattle-area persons who inject drugs

OBJECTIVE

To describe utilization patterns of methadone and buprenorphine among persons who inject drugs (PWID) in the Seattle area in 2018, compared to 2015.

METHODS

Data from the 2018 National HIV Behavioral Surveillance (NHBS) system were used to compare the proportions of PWID reporting treatment with buprenorphine or methadone to survey responses in 2015. Temporal trends were assessed by calculating adjusted prevalence ratios (aPR) using Poisson regression.

RESULTS

The sample included 498 PWID, of whom 39.2% (95% CI: 34.8-43.6%) reported past-year treatment with methadone and 21.9% (95% CI: 18.3-25.8%) reported buprenorphine. Participants in 2018 were significantly more likely to report past year receipt of buprenorphine (aPR = 4.43, 95% CI: 2.81-7.01) or methadone (aPR = 1.38, 95% CI: 1.02-1.87) compared to 2015. Most buprenorphine treated participants (67.6%) reported that they had received buprenorphine through low-barrier, community, or nonprofit programs.

CONCLUSIONS

Among PWID who use opioids in the Seattle area, methadone use increased 38%, and buprenorphine use more than quadrupled from 2015 to 2018. Approximately half of surveyed PWID who use opioids still reported no treatment with either medication, highlighting remaining treatment gaps.

Naloxone receipt and overdose prevention care among people with HIV on chronic opioid therapy

This cross-sectional study describes naloxone rescue kit receipt among people with HIV (PWH) on chronic opioid therapy (COT) and HIV clinician opioid overdose prevention care in two clinics between 2015 and 2017. Naloxone rescue kit receipt was uncommon. History of overdose was associated with receiving naloxone but having a clinician who reported providing overdose prevention care was not. This study suggests that clinicians prescribing COT to PWH should improve overdose prevention care, including naloxone co-prescribing.

Pilot study of tolerability and safety of opioid receptor antagonists as novel therapies for chronic pain among persons living with HIV with past year heavy drinking: a randomized controlled trial

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03278886.

Post-traumatic stress disorder and risky opioid use among persons living with HIV and chronic pain

Persons with HIV (PWH) experience chronic pain and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) at higher rates than the general population, and more often receive opioid medications to treat chronic pain. A known association exists between PTSD and substance use disorders, but less is known about the relationship between PTSD and risky opioid use among PWH taking prescribed opioid medications. In this observational study of PWH on long-term opioid medications for pain we examined associations between PTSD symptom severity based on the Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5, response range 0-80) and the following outcomes: 1) risk for opioid misuse (COMM score ≥13); 2) risky alcohol use (AUDIT score ≥8); 3) concurrent benzodiazepine prescription; and 4) morphine equivalent dose. Among 166 patients, 38 (23%) had a PCL-5 score over 38, indicating high PTSD symptom burden. Higher PCL-5 score (per 10 point difference) was associated with increased odds of opioid misuse (aOR 1.55; 95%CI: 1.31-1.83) and risky drinking (aOR: 1.28;1.07-1.52). No significant association was observed between PCL-5 score and benzodiazepine prescriptions or morphine equivalent dose. These findings suggest that when addressing alcohol and opioid use in PWH on long term opioid therapy, attention to PTSD symptoms is especially important given the higher risk for risky alcohol and opioid use among patients with this common comorbid condition.

PRimary Care Opioid Use Disorders treatment (PROUD) trial protocol: a pragmatic, cluster-randomized implementation trial in primary care for opioid use disorder treatment

Background

Most people with opioid use disorder (OUD) never receive treatment. Medication treatment of OUD in primary care is recommended as an approach to increase access to care. The PRimary Care Opioid Use Disorders treatment (PROUD) trial tests whether implementation of a collaborative care model (Massachusetts Model) using a nurse care manager (NCM) to support medication treatment of OUD in primary care increases OUD treatment and improves outcomes. Specifically, it tests whether implementation of collaborative care, compared to usual primary care, increases the number of days of medication for OUD (implementation objective) and reduces acute health care utilization (effectiveness objective). The protocol for the PROUD trial is presented here.

Methods

PROUD is a hybrid type III cluster-randomized implementation trial in six health care systems. The intervention consists of three implementation strategies: salary for a full-time NCM, training and technical assistance for the NCM, and requiring that three primary care providers have DEA waivers to prescribe buprenorphine. Within each health system, two primary care clinics are randomized: one to the intervention and one to Usual Primary Care. The sample includes all patients age 16–90 who visited the randomized primary care clinics from 3 years before to 2 years after randomization (anticipated to be > 170,000). Quantitative data are derived from existing health system administrative data, electronic medical records, and/or health insurance claims (“electronic health records,” [EHRs]). Anonymous staff surveys, stakeholder debriefs, and observations from site visits, trainings and technical assistance provide qualitative data to assess barriers and facilitators to implementation. The outcome for the implementation objective (primary outcome) is a clinic-level measure of the number of patient days of medication treatment of OUD over the 2 years post-randomization. The patient-level outcome for the effectiveness objective (secondary outcome) is days of acute care utilization [e.g. urgent care, emergency department (ED) and/or hospitalizations] over 2 years post-randomization among patients with documented OUD prior to randomization.

Discussion

The PROUD trial provides information for clinical leaders and policy makers regarding potential benefits for patients and health systems of a collaborative care model for management of OUD in primary care, tested in real-world diverse primary care settings.

Trial registration # NCT03407638 (February 28, 2018); CTN-0074 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03407638?term=CTN-0074&draw=2&rank=1

Staff Attitudes toward Buprenorphine before and after Implementation of an Office-Based Opioid Treatment Program in an Urban Teaching Clinic

PURPOSE

Improving access to buprenorphine treatment is necessary to address the national opioid use disorder (OUD) crisis. This study investigates attitudes about buprenorphine prescribing among staff at a primary care clinic and compares attitudes before and after implementation of an office-based opioid treatment (OBOT) program.

METHODS

Providers and staff in an academic primary care clinic were surveyed prior to and one year following implementation of an OBOT program. Descriptive statistics, Pearson's Chi-2 tests and logistic regression models were used to compare staff and provider attitudes about use of buprenorphine for OUD and to compare attitudes before and after OBOT implementation.

RESULTS

At baseline, 20% of staff indicated strong belief that buprenorphine is an effective treatment for OUD and 16% indicated strong belief that primary care providers should prescribe it. Staff appeared less likely than providers to believe strongly that buprenorphine is effective (OR 0.24, 95% CI= 0.08-.78, p = 0.02; aOR 0.28, 95% CI=.08-1.0, p = 0.05 adjusted for age, race and gender). Following implementation of an OBOT program, the percentage of staff who believed strongly in the effectiveness of buprenorphine for OUD increased from 20% to 40% (p = 0.31), and the percentage who believed that primary care providers (PCPs) should prescribe it increased from 16% to 30% (p = 0.52).

CONCLUSIONS

Staff in a primary care clinic were less likely than providers to believe in the effectiveness of buprenorphine treatment or that PCPs should prescribe it for OUD. That their beliefs substantially changed after implementation of an OBOT program suggests that direct experience impacts attitudes.

Research priorities for expanding access to methadone treatment for opioid use disorder in the United States: A National Institute on Drug Abuse Center for Clinical Trials Network Task Force report

In the US, methadone treatment can only be provided to patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) through federal and state-regulated opioid treatment programs (OTPs). There is a shortage of OTPs, and racial and geographic inequities exist in access to methadone treatment. The National Institute on Drug Abuse Center for Clinical Trials Network convened the Methadone Access Research Task Force to develop a research agenda to expand and create more equitable access to methadone treatment for OUD. This research agenda included mechanisms that are available within and outside the current regulations. The task force identified 6 areas where research is needed: (1) access to methadone in general medical and other outpatient settings; (2) the impact of methadone treatment setting on patient outcomes; (3) impact of treatment structure on outcomes in patients receiving methadone; (4) comparative effectiveness of different medications to treat OUD; (5) optimal educational and support structure for provision of methadone by medical providers; and (6) benefits and harms of expanded methadone access. In addition to outlining these research priorities, the task force identified important cross-cutting issues, including the impact of patient characteristics, treatment, and treatment system characteristics such as methadone formulation and dose, concurrent behavioral treatment, frequency of dispensing, urine or oral fluid testing, and methods of measuring clinical outcomes. Together, the research priorities and cross-cutting issues represent a compelling research agenda to expand access to methadone in the US.

Re-thinking patient stability for methadone in opioid treatment programs during a global pandemic: Provider perspectives

COVID-19 necessitated rapid changes in methadone take-home policies in opioid treatment programs (OTPs); these changes markedly contrast with existing, long-standing federal mandates on OTP rules about take-home methadone. OTP providers describe how these changes have affected clinical decision-making, equity in patient care, and workflow. We also discuss implications for medical ethics and patient autonomy. We provide suggestions for future research that will examine the impact of COVID-19 on OTP treatment and its patients, as well as the effect of making methadone take-home polices patient centered, all of which may foreshadow larger changes in the ways OTPs deliver their services.

Successful engagement in buprenorphine treatment among hospitalized patients with opioid use disorder and trauma

BACKGROUND

The opioid epidemic continues to cause significant morbidity and mortality. Although there are effective medications for opioid use disorder (OUD), a minority of patients receive these treatments. OUD is common among patients hospitalized for traumatic injury and hospitalization could be an opportunity to initiate medications and link to ongoing buprenorphine care.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study based on electronic health record review included patients who were: (1) hospitalized between January 1, 2018 and June 30, 2019, (2) age ≥18 years, (3) seen by an Addiction Medicine Consult Service, and (4) initiated on buprenorphine with plans for continuation post-discharge. Descriptive statistics identified differences between trauma and non-trauma groups and regression analysis identified predictors of 30 day buprenorphine follow up.

RESULTS

Of 197 eligible patients, 60 (30.5 %) were hospitalized for traumatic injuries. Compared to non-trauma patients, trauma patients were younger, more likely to be employed, more likely to report using cannabis and tobacco, less likely to have recently injected drugs, and hospitalized longer. Among patients with follow-up data available (n = 147), 63.2 % of trauma patients were seen within 30 days, compared to 48.2 % of non-trauma patients (p = 0.16). There were no significant differences between the two groups with regards to urine drug test results or acute care utilization in the follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

Among hospitalized patients with OUD who initiate buprenorphine, those who were hospitalized for trauma were at least as likely to link to out-patient treatment. Trauma admissions represent an important opportunity for diagnosing and linking patients with OUD to buprenorphine treatment.

Comparative effectiveness of buprenorphine-naloxone versus methadone for treatment of opioid use disorder: a population-based observational study protocol in British Columbia, Canada

INTRODUCTION

Despite a recent meta-analysis including 31 randomised controlled trials comparing methadone and buprenorphine for the treatment of opioid use disorder, important knowledge gaps remain regarding the long-term effectiveness of different treatment modalities across individuals, including rigorously collected data on retention rates and other treatment outcomes. Evidence from real-world data represents a valuable opportunity to improve personalised treatment and patient-centred guidelines for vulnerable populations and inform strategies to reduce opioid-related mortality. Our objective is to determine the comparative effectiveness of methadone versus buprenorphine/naloxone, both overall and within key populations, in a setting where both medications are simultaneously available in office-based practices and specialised clinics.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We propose a retrospective cohort study of all adults living in British Columbia receiving opioid agonist treatment (OAT) with methadone or buprenorphine/naloxone between 1 January 2008 and 30 September 2018. The study will draw on seven linked population-level administrative databases. The primary outcomes include retention in OAT and all-cause mortality. We will determine the effectiveness of buprenorphine/naloxone vs methadone using intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses-the former emulating flexible-dose trials and the latter focusing on the comparison of the two medication regimens offered at the optimal dose. Sensitivity analyses will be used to assess the robustness of results to heterogeneity in the patient population and threats to internal validity.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The protocol, cohort creation and analysis plan have been approved and classified as a quality improvement initiative exempt from ethical review (Providence Health Care Research Institute and the Simon Fraser University Office of Research Ethics). Dissemination is planned via conferences and publications, and through direct engagement and collaboration with entities that issue clinical guidelines, such as professional medical societies and public health organisations.