A Research Agenda for Advancing Strategies to Improve Opioid Safety: Findings from a VHA State of the Art Conference

Impact of an intervention to implement provision of opioid use disorder medication among patients with and without co-occurring substance use disorders

INTRODUCTION

Co-occurring substance use disorders (SUDs) are common among people with opioid use disorder (OUD) and known to hinder receipt of medications for OUD (MOUD). It is important to understand how MOUD care implemented outside of SUD specialty settings impacts access for patients with co-occurring SUDs. The Veterans Health Administration's (VA) Stepped Care for Opioid Use Disorder Train the Trainer (SCOUTT) initiative was implemented in primary care, mental health, and pain clinics in 18 VA facilities, and was found to increase MOUD receipt. This study assessed the SCOUTT initiative's impact among patients with and without co-occurring SUDs.

METHODS

This study used a controlled interrupted time series design. We extracted electronic health record data for patients with OUD with visits in SCOUTT intervention or matched comparison clinics during the post-implementation year (9/1/2018-8/31/2019). We examined the monthly proportion of patients who received MOUD in SCOUTT intervention or comparison clinics (primary care, mental health, and pain clinics), or in a VA SUD specialty clinic (where patients may have been referred), during the pre- and post-implementation years. Segmented logistic regression models estimated pre-post changes in outcomes (immediate level change from the final month of the pre-implementation period to the first month of the post-implementation period, change in trend/slope) in intervention vs. comparison facilities, adjusting for patient characteristics and pre-implementation trends. We stratified analyses by the presence of co-occurring SUDs.

RESULTS

Among patients without co-occurring SUDs, the pre-post trend/slope change in MOUD received in SCOUTT intervention or comparison clinics was greater in intervention vs. comparison facilities (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.06, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02-1.10), and the immediate increase in MOUD received in SUD clinics was greater in intervention vs. comparison facilities (aOR: 1.12, 95% CI: 1.02-1.22). These changes did not significantly differ in intervention vs. comparison facilities among patients with co-occurring SUDs.

CONCLUSIONS

The SCOUTT initiative may have increased MOUD receipt primarily among patients without co-occurring SUDs. Focusing on increasing MOUD receipt for patients with co-occurring SUDs may improve the overall effectiveness of MOUD implementation efforts.

Buprenorphine use and courses of care for opioid use disorder treatment within the Veterans Health Administration

BACKGROUND

Retention of patients in buprenorphine medication treatment for opioid use disorder (B-MOUD) reduces harms associated with opioid use disorder (OUD). We sought to characterize the patients receiving B-MOUD and courses of B-MOUD in a large healthcare system.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective, open cohort study of patients with OUD who either did or did not receive B-MOUD courses within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) from January 2006 through July 2019, using VHA clinical data. We compared patients receiving or not receiving B-MOUD, characterized B-MOUD courses (e.g., length and doses), and examined persistence, across patient characteristics, over time. We used analyses for normally or non-normally distributed continuous variables, categorical data, and persistence over time (Kaplan-Meier persistence curves).

RESULTS

We identified 255,726 Veterans with OUD; 40,431 (15.8%) had received 63,929 B-MOUD courses. Compared to patients with OUD without B-MOUD, patients with B-MOUD were younger, more often of white race, and had more co-morbidities. The frequency of new B-MOUD starts and prevalent B-MOUD patients ranged from 1550 and 1989 in 2007 to 8146 and 16,505 in 2018, respectively. The median duration of B-MOUD was 157 (IQR: 37-537) days for all courses and 33.8% patients had more than one course. The average proportion days covered was 90% (SD: 0.15), and the average prescribed daily dose was 13.44 (SD: 6.5).

CONCLUSIONS

Within a VHA B-MOUD cohort, courses increased more than 10-fold from 2006 to 2016 with nearly half of patients experiencing multiple courses. Patient demographics seem to dictate the length of courses.

Treating opioid use disorder in veterans with co-occurring substance use: a qualitative study with buprenorphine providers in primary care, mental health, and pain settings

BACKGROUND

Most people with opioid use disorder (OUD) have co-occurring substance use, which is associated with lower receipt of OUD medications (MOUD). Expanding MOUD provision and care linkage outside of substance use disorder (SUD) specialty settings is a key strategy to increase access. Therefore, it is important to understand how MOUD providers in these settings approach care for patients with co-occurring substance use. This qualitative study of Veterans Health Administration (VA) clinicians providing buprenorphine care in primary care, mental health, and pain settings aimed to understand (1) their approach to addressing OUD in patients with co-occurring substance use, (2) perspectives on barriers/facilitators to MOUD receipt for this population, and (3) support needed to increase MOUD receipt for this population.

METHODS

We interviewed a purposive sample of 27 clinicians (12 primary care, 7 mental health, 4 pain, 4 pharmacists) in the VA northwest network. The interview guide assessed domains of the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases Checklist. Interviews were transcribed and qualitatively analyzed using inductive content analysis.

RESULTS

Participants reported varied approaches to identifying co-occurring substance use and addressing OUD in this patient population. Although they reported that this topic was not clearly addressed in clinical guidelines or training, participants generally felt that patients with co-occurring substance use should receive MOUD. Some viewed their primary role as providing this care, others as facilitating linkage to OUD care in SUD specialty settings. Participants reported multiple barriers and facilitators to providing buprenorphine care to patients with co-occurring substance use and linking them to SUD specialty care, including provider, patient, organizational, and external factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Efforts are needed to support clinicians outside of SUD specialty settings in providing buprenorphine care to patients with co-occurring substance use. These could include clearer guidelines and policies, more specific training, and increased care integration or cross-disciplinary collaboration. Simultaneously, efforts are needed to improve linkage to specialty SUD care for patients who would benefit from and are willing to receive this care, which could include increased service availability and improved referral/hand-off processes. These efforts may increase MOUD receipt and improve OUD care quality for patients with co-occurring substance use.

Delphi study to explore a new diagnosis for "ineffective" long-term opioid therapy for chronic pain

ABSTRACT

A challenge in clinical, research, and policy spheres is determining whether and how to apply the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-5 Opioid Use Disorder criteria to patients receiving long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) for the management of chronic pain. This study explored perspectives on the merits of creating a new diagnostic entity to characterize the problems that arise for certain patients prescribed LTOT and develop consensus on its definition and diagnostic criteria. We conducted 3 rounds of online surveys and held one discussion-based workshop to explore a new diagnostic entity and generate consensus with subject matter experts (n = 51) in pain and opioid use disorder, including a wide range of professional disciplines. The first survey included open-ended questions and rapid qualitative analysis to identify potential diagnostic criteria. Rounds 2 and 3 involved rating potential diagnostic criteria on a Likert-type scale to achieve consensus. The workshop was a facilitated conversation aimed at further refining criteria. Three-quarters of Delphi panelists were in favor of a new diagnostic entity; consensus was reached for 19 potential diagnostic criteria including benefits of LTOT no longer outweighing harms and a criterion related to difficulty tapering. A subgroup of expert panelists further refined the new diagnostic entity definition and criteria. Consensus on potential criteria for the new diagnostic entity was reached and further refined by a subgroup of experts. This Delphi study represents the opinions of a small group of subject matter experts; perspectives from other experts and additional stakeholder groups (including patients) are warranted.

A national population-based study of cannabis use and correlates among U.S. veterans prescribed opioids in primary care

BACKGROUND

Cannabis is marketed as a treatment for pain. There is limited data on the prevalence of cannabis use and its correlates among Veterans prescribed opioids.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the prevalence and correlates of cannabis use among Veterans prescribed opioids.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

PARTICIPANTS

Veterans with a urine drug test (UDT) from Primary Care 2014-2018, in 50 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico. A total of 1,182,779 patients were identified with an opioid prescription within 90 days prior to UDT.

MAIN MEASURES

Annual prevalence of cannabis positive UDT by state. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess associations of demographic factors, mental health conditions, substance use disorders, and pain diagnoses with cannabis positive UDT.

RESULTS

Annual prevalence of cannabis positive UDT ranged from 8.5% to 9.7% during the study period, and in 2018 was 18.15% in Washington, D.C. and 10 states with legalized medical and recreational cannabis, 6.1% in Puerto Rico and 25 states with legalized medical cannabis, and 4.5% in non-legal states. Younger age, male sex, being unmarried, and marginal housing were associated with use (p < 0.001). Post-traumatic stress disorder (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13-1.22, p < 0.001), opioid use disorder (AOR 1.14; CI 1.07-1.22, p < 0.001), alcohol use disorder or positive AUDIT-C (AOR 1.34; 95% CI 1.28-1.39, p < 0.001), smoking (AOR 2.58; 95% CI 2.49-2.66, p < 0.001), and other drug use disorders (AOR 1.15; 95% CI 1.03-1.29, p = 0.02) were associated with cannabis use. Positive UDT for amphetamines AOR 1.41; 95% CI 1.26-1.58, p < 0.001), benzodiazepines (AOR 1.41; 95% CI 1.31-1.51, p < 0.001) and cocaine (AOR 2.04; 95% CI 1.75-2.36, p < 0.001) were associated with cannabis positive UDT.

CONCLUSIONS

Cannabis use among Veterans prescribed opioids varied by state and by legalization status. Veterans with PTSD and substance use disorders were more likely to have cannabis positive UDT. Opioid-prescribed Veterans using cannabis may benefit from screening for these conditions, referral to treatment, and attention to opioid safety.

Expanding access to medications for opioid use disorder in primary care clinics: an evaluation of common implementation strategies and outcomes

BACKGROUND

To combat the opioid epidemic in the USA, unprecedented federal funding has been directed to states and territories to expand access to prevention, overdose rescue, and medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD). Similar to other states, California rapidly allocated these funds to increase reach and adoption of MOUD in safety-net, primary care settings such as Federally Qualified Health Centers. Typical of current real-world implementation endeavors, a package of four implementation strategies was offered to all clinics. The present study examines (i) the pre-post effect of the package of strategies, (ii) whether/how this effect differed between new (start-up) versus more established (scale-up) MOUD practices, and (iii) the effect of clinic engagement with each of the four implementation strategies.

METHODS

Forty-one primary care clinics were offered access to four implementation strategies: (1) Enhanced Monitoring and Feedback, (2) Learning Collaboratives, (3) External Facilitation, and (4) Didactic Webinars. Using linear mixed effects models, RE-AIM guided outcomes of reach, adoption, and implementation quality were assessed at baseline and at 9 months follow-up.

RESULTS

Of the 41 clinics, 25 (61%) were at MOUD start-up and 16 (39%) were at scale-up phases. Pre-post difference was observed for the primary outcome of percent of patient prescribed MOUD (reach) (β_time = 3.99; 0.73 to 7.26; p = 0.02). The largest magnitude of change occurred in implementation quality (ES = 0.68; 95% CI = 0.66 to 0.70). Baseline MOUD capability moderated the change in reach (start-ups 22.60%, 95% CI = 16.05 to 29.15; scale-ups -4.63%, 95% CI = -7.87 to -1.38). Improvement in adoption and implementation quality were moderately associated with early prescriber engagement in Learning Collaboratives (adoption: ES = 0.61; 95% CI = 0.25 to 0.96; implementation quality: ES = 0.55; 95% CI = 0.41 to 0.69). Improvement in adoption was also associated with early prescriber engagement in Didactic Webinars (adoption: ES = 0.61; 95% CI = 0.20 to 1.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Rather than providing an all-clinics-get-all-components package of implementation strategies, these data suggest that it may be more efficient and effective to tailor the provision of implementation strategies based on the needs of clinic. Future implementation endeavors could benefit from (i) greater precision in the provision of implementation strategies based on contextual determinants, and (ii) the inclusion of strategies targeting engagement.

Arguments for and Against a New Diagnostic Entity for Patients With Chronic Pain on Long-Term Opioid Therapy for Whom Harms Outweigh Benefits

The goal of this study was to understand perspectives on whether a new diagnostic entity, distinct from Diagnostic and Statistical Manual - 5 (DSM-5) opioid use disorder (OUD), is needed for patients with chronic pain on long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) for whom the harms of continued opioid therapy outweigh the benefits. Data were collected as part of a larger Delphi study. We used rapid and thematic qualitative methods to analyze data from 51 panelists with expertise in internal medicine, psychiatry, psychology, and related fields. Three-quarters of panelists supported a new diagnostic entity; common themes included recognizing distinct experiences of patients prescribed LTOT, addressing problems with DSM-5 OUD criteria, facilitating research and improved treatment, and reducing stigma. Thirteen panelists opposed the creation of a new diagnostic entity; common themes included similarities in biological underpinnings of patients prescribed LTOT and diagnosed with OUD, belief that the continuum of OUD captured patients' experiences, finding better ways to address problems with DSM-5 OUD criteria, and concerns about stigma. While this expert panel disagreed about the need for a new diagnostic entity, there was an overall acknowledgement that the current implementation of DSM-5's OUD diagnosis is not meeting the needs of LTOT providers or patients. PERSPECTIVE: The DSM-5's OUD diagnosis may not adequately meet the needs of patients on LTOT for whom the harms of continued opioid therapy outweigh the benefits. Experts do not agree on how to address this problem; more work is needed to determine if a new diagnostic entity would be beneficial.

Classification of Patients for Whom Benefit of Long-term Opioid Therapy No Longer Outweighs Harm: Protocol for a Delphi Study

Background

Patients with chronic pain prescribed long-term opioid therapy may come to a point where the benefits of the therapy are outweighed by the risks and tapering is indicated. At the 2019 Veterans Health Administration State of the Art Conference, there was an acknowledgment of a lack of clinical guidance with regard to treating this subset of patients. Some of the participants believed clinicians and patients would both benefit from a new diagnostic entity describing this situation.

Objective

The aim of this study was to determine if a new diagnostic entity was needed and what the criteria of the diagnostic entity would be. Given the ability of the Delphi method to synthesize input from a broad range of experts, we felt this technique was the most appropriate for this study.

Methods

We designed a modified Delphi technique involving 3 rounds. The first round is a series of open-ended questions asking about the necessity of this diagnostic entity, how this condition is different from opioid use disorder, and what its possible diagnostic criteria would be. After synthesizing the responses collected, a second round will be conducted to ask participants to rate the different responses offered by their peers. These ratings will be collected and analyzed, and will generate a preliminary definition for this clinical phenomena. In the third round, we will circulate this definition with the aim of achieving consensus.

Results

The modified Delphi study was initiated in July of 2020 and analysis is currently underway.

Conclusions

This protocol has been approved by the Internal Review Board at the Connecticut Veterans Affairs and the study is in process. This protocol may assist other researchers conducting similar studies.

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/33310

Are x-waiver trainings enough? Facilitators and barriers to buprenorphine prescribing after x-waiver trainings

BACKGROUND

In the United States, an x-waiver credential is necessary to prescribe buprenorphine medication treatment for opioid use disorder (B-MOUD). Historically, this process has required certified training, which could be a barrier to obtaining an x-waiver and subsequently prescribing. To address this barrier, the US recently removed the training requirement for some clinicians. We sought to determine if clinicians who attended x-waiver training went on to obtain an x-waiver and prescribe B-MOUD, and to examine what facilitated or impeded B-MOUD prescribing.

METHODS

In September 2020, we conducted a cross-sectional, electronic survey of attendees of 15 in-person x-waiver pieces of training from June 2018 to January 2020 within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). Of the attendees (n = 321), we surveyed current VHA clinicians who recalled taking the training. The survey assessed whether clinicians obtained the x-waiver, had prescribed B-MOUD, and barriers or facilitators that influenced B-MOUD prescribing.

RESULTS

Of 251 eligible participants, 62 (24.7%) responded to the survey, including 27 (43.5%) physicians, 16 (25.8%) advanced practice clinicians, and 12 (19.4%) pharmacists. Of the 43 clinicians who could prescribe, 29 (67.4%) had obtained their x-waiver and 16 (37.2%) had reported prescribing B-MOUD. Prominent barriers to prescribing B-MOUD included a lack of supporting clinical staff and competing demands on time. The primary facilitator to prescribing was leadership support.

CONCLUSIONS

Nine months after x-waiver training, two-thirds of clinicians with prescribing credentials had obtained their x-waiver and one-third were prescribing B-MOUD. Removing the x-waiver training may not have the intended policy effect as other barriers to B-MOUD prescribing persist.

Accessibility to Medication for Opioid Use Disorder After Interventions to Improve Prescribing Among Nonaddiction Clinics in the US Veterans Health Care System

IMPORTANCE

With increasing rates of opioid use disorder (OUD) and overdose deaths in the US, increased access to medications for OUD (MOUD) is paramount. Rigorous effectiveness evaluations of large-scale implementation initiatives using quasi-experimental designs are needed to inform expansion efforts.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate a US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) initiative to increase MOUD use in nonaddiction clinics.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This quality improvement initiative used interrupted time series design to compare trends in MOUD receipt. Primary care, pain, and mental health clinics in the VA health care system (n = 35) located at 18 intervention facilities and nonintervention comparison clinics (n = 35) were matched on preimplementation MOUD prescribing trends, clinic size, and facility complexity. The cohort of patients with OUD who received care in intervention or comparison clinics in the year after September 1, 2018, were evaluated. The preimplementation period extended from September 1, 2017, through August 31, 2018, and the postimplementation period from September 1, 2018, through August 31, 2019.

EXPOSURES

The multifaceted implementation intervention included education, external facilitation, and quarterly reports.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcomes were the proportion of patients receiving MOUD and the number of patients per clinician prescribing MOUD. Segmented logistic regression evaluated monthly proportions of MOUD receipt 1 year before and after initiative launch, adjusting for demographic and clinical covariates. Poisson regression models examined yearly changes in clinician prescribing over the same time frame.

RESULTS

Overall, 7488 patients were seen in intervention clinics (mean [SD] age, 53.3 [14.2] years; 6858 [91.6%] male; 1476 [19.7%] Black, 417 [5.6%] Hispanic; 5162 [68.9%] White; 239 [3.2%] other race [including American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and multiple races]; and 194 [2.6%] unknown) and 7558 in comparison clinics (mean [SD] age, 53.4 [14.0] years; 6943 [91.9%] male; 1463 [19.4%] Black; 405 [5.4%] Hispanic; 5196 [68.9%] White; 244 [3.2%] other race; 250 [3.3%] unknown). During the preimplementation year, the proportion of patients receiving MOUD in intervention clinics increased monthly by 5.0% (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.05; 95% CI, 1.03-1.07). Accounting for this preimplementation trend, the proportion of patients receiving MOUD increased monthly by an additional 2.3% (AOR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.00-1.04) during the implementation year. Comparison clinics increased by 2.6% monthly before implementation (AOR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.04), with no changes detected after implementation. Although preimplementation-year trends in monthly MOUD receipt were similar in intervention and comparison clinics, greater increases were seen in intervention clinics after implementation (AOR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.08). Patients treated with MOUD per clinician in intervention clinics saw greater increases from before to after implementation compared with comparison clinics (incidence rate ratio, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.28-1.77).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

A multifaceted implementation initiative in nonaddiction clinics was associated with increased MOUD prescribing. Findings suggest that engagement of clinicians in general clinical settings may increase MOUD access.

Association of Medication-Assisted Treatment and Age With Treatment Completion Among Veterans Seeking Non-VA Treatment for Opioid use Disorder at Non-Veterans Health Administration Facilities

BACKGROUND

Medication-assisted treatment has been shown to be effective in treating opioid use disorder among both older adults and veterans of U.S. Armed Forces. However, limited evidence exists on MAT's differential effect on treatment completion across age groups. This study aims to ascertain the role of MAT and age in treatment completion among veterans seeking treatment in non-Department of Veterans Affairs healthcare facilities for opioid use disorder.

METHODS

We used the Treatment Episode Data Set-Discharges (TEDS-D; 2006-2017) to examine trends in treatment and MAT usage over time and TEDS-2017 to determine the role of age and MAT in treatment completion. We examined a subset of those who self-identified as veterans and who sought treatment for an opioid use disorder.

RESULTS

Veterans presented in treatment more often as heroin users than prescription opioid users, and older veterans were more likely to get MAT than younger veterans. We found that before propensity score matching, MAT initially appeared to be associated with a lower likelihood of treatment completion in inpatient ($\beta $ = -1.47, 95% CI -1.56 to -1.39) and outpatient ($\beta $ = -1.40, 95% CI -2.21 to -0.58) settings, and age (50+ years) appeared to mediate the effect of MAT on treatment completion ($\beta $ = -0.54, 95% CI -0.87 to -0.21). After matching, older veterans were more likely to complete substance use disorder treatment ($\beta $ = 0.21, 95% CI 0.01-0.42), while age no longer mediated the effect of MAT, and MAT had a significant positive impact on treatment completion in detox settings ($\beta $ = 1.36, 95% CI 1.15-1.50) and inpatient settings ($\beta $ = 1.54, 95% CI 1.37 -1.71).

CONCLUSION

The results show that age plays an important role in outpatient treatment completion, while MAT plays an important role in inpatient treatment completion. Implications for veterans are discussed.