Impact of research network participation on the adoption of buprenorphine for substance abuse treatment

Non-prescribing clinicians' treatment orientations and attitudes toward treatments for opioid use disorder: Rural differences

INTRODUCTION

The United States has experienced substantial increases in opioid use for more than two decades. This growth has impacted rural areas where overdoses have risen drastically during this time period and more often involve prescription opioids than in urban areas. Medications for opioid use disorders (MOUDs) are highly underutilized in rural settings due to lack of access, inadequate prescribing, and stigma.

METHODS

The study collected data using a cross-sectional online survey of nonprescribing clinicians (NPCs) involved in the treatment of substance use disorders (SUDs) in the United States. The study used multiple recruitment methods to obtain a purposive sample of NPCs from a variety of geographical contexts across the nation. The survey assessed demographic and practice characteristics including rurality of practice location, exposure and training related to MOUDs, treatment orientation, treatment preferences for opioid use disorder (OUD), and attitudes toward MOUDs. The study compared treatment preferences for OUD and attitudes toward MOUDs based on rurality of practice location. We tested a mediation model to determine whether the relationship between rurality of practice setting and attitudes toward MOUDs is mediated by treatment orientation.

RESULTS

Most of the 636 NPCs surveyed favored a combination of MOUDs and psychosocial treatment. Compared to clinicians practicing in suburban or urban areas, self-identified rural clinicians were more likely to favor MOUDs alone as most effective and less likely to endorse a combination of MOUDs and psychosocial treatment. Although most NPCs were supportive of MOUDs overall, many endorsed misconceptions related to MOUDs. Rural clinicians were less likely to perceive MOUDs as effective or acceptable compared to those in urban settings. Results of a mediation analysis indicated that practicing in a rural location compared to in an urban location directly and indirectly influenced attitudes toward MOUDs through an effect on treatment orientation.

CONCLUSIONS

NPCs play important roles in the implementation of MOUDs, and while efforts to increase their knowledge of and exposure to MOUDs have contributed broadly to more favorable attitudes toward MOUDs among NPCs, this study's findings indicate that additional efforts are still needed, particularly among NPCs who work in rural settings. Findings also indicate that, among rural clinicians, increasing knowledge of and exposure to harm reduction principles may be a necessary prerequisite to engaging them in the implementation of specific harm reduction strategies such as MOUDs.

Health professionals' attitudes toward medications for opioid use disorder

BACKGROUND

Research has shown that medications, especially opioid agonist treatments, are an effective way to treat opioid use disorder (OUD); however, negative attitudes held by health professionals contribute to their underutilization. Methods: A 23-year review of studies that examined health professionals' attitudes toward medications for OUD (MOUD) was conducted to describe the current state of knowledge and to inform future research and interventions. Results: Studies examined attitudes toward the use of methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone among various types of health professionals: prescribers, non-prescribing clinicians, pharmacists, and administrators. The characteristics and findings of the included studies were reviewed and synthesized. Findings indicate that attitudes toward MOUD affect access and utilization by influencing prescribing practices, referrals, and adoption within programs. Exposure, knowledge, and treatment orientation were found to be important factors related to attitudes toward MOUD across multiple studies of various types of health professionals. Conclusions: To increase access and utilization, continued efforts are needed to increase positive attitudes toward MOUD among various types of health professionals. Findings indicate that interventions should seek to increase knowledge about MOUD and foster interprofessional communication related to MOUD, especially between prescribers and behavioral health providers.

Intervention Stigma toward Medications for Opioid Use Disorder: A Systematic Review

Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) are evidence-based treatments, yet can be controversial among some populations. This study provides a systematic review of prejudice and discrimination toward MOUD, a form of "intervention stigma," or stigma associated with a particular medical treatment. A systematic search strategy was used in PsychInfo and PubMed to identify studies published between 1998 and 2018. Studies that empirically examined stigma toward MOUD were included if the manuscript was of moderate or high quality. Studies were analyzed using thematic synthesis. The search yielded 972 studies, of which 28 were included. Most studies utilized qualitative methods to examine intervention stigma toward methadone or buprenorphine, with one including naltrexone. Studies demonstrated that intervention stigma among healthcare providers was influenced by lack of training and abstinent treatment preferences. Providers equated MOUD with illicit substance use and at times refused to care for MOUD patients. Stigma among peer patients seeking treatment was also influenced by abstinent treatment preferences, and among the general public stigma was influenced by lack of MOUD knowledge. Intervention stigma was also driven at the policy level by high regulation of methadone, which fueled diversion and hindered social functioning among patients. Few studies indicated how to reduce intervention stigma toward MOUD. Intervention stigma affects both provision and perceptions of methadone and buprenorphine, decreasing access and utilization of MOUD. Future research should further develop and test MOUD stigma reduction interventions in a variety of social contexts to improve access to care and reduce patient barriers.

Safety and Efficacy of Lofexidine for Medically Managed Opioid Withdrawal: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text

Objectives:

To investigate the safety and efficacy of lofexidine for treating opioid withdrawal syndrome (OWS) and facilitating completion of opioid withdrawal.

Methods:

A multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted at 18 US centers from June 2013 to December 2014. Participants (n = 603) aged ≥18 years, dependent on short-acting opioids, and seeking withdrawal treatment, randomized 3:3:2 to receive lofexidine 2.88 mg/d (n = 222), lofexidine 2.16 mg/d (n = 230), or placebo (n = 151) for 7 days. Primary outcome was the Short Opiate Withdrawal Scale of Gossop (SOWS-Gossop) scores rating withdrawal symptoms over days 1 to 7.

Results:

Participants were of mean age, 35 years; 71% male. Pairwise differences in overall SOWS-Gossop log-transformed least squares means were statistically significant for lofexidine 2.16 mg (difference, −0.21; 95% CI, −0.37 to −0.04; P = 0.02) and 2.88 mg (−0.26; 95% CI, −0.44 to −0.09; P = 0.003) compared with placebo. Fewer than half of participants in both groups completed the study. Completion rates for lofexidine 2.16 mg (41.5%; odds ratio [OR], 1.85; P = 0.007) and 2.88 mg (39.6%; OR, 1.71; P = 0.02) were significantly better compared with placebo (27.8%). Overall adverse event (AE) rates were similar across groups. Common AEs for lofexidine included orthostatic hypotension, hypotension, and bradycardia, but resulted in few study discontinuations.

Conclusions:

Lofexidine 2.16 mg and 2.88 mg significantly reduced symptoms of OWS versus placebo, and increased absolute rates of completing the 7-day study by 14% and 12%, respectively (a relative increase of 85% and 71%). Data suggest that lofexidine is a generally safe and effective nonopioid treatment for opioid withdrawal. Lofexidine could serve as a withdrawal treatment option when a nonopioid agent is preferred or required, when agonist-assisted withdrawal is unavailable, when agonist discontinuation caused OWS, and during induction into maintenance treatment with opioid agonists or antagonists.

Trial Registration:

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01863186.

Provider-directed marketing may increase prescribing of medications for opioid use disorder

BACKGROUND

Opioid use disorder (OUD) has become an increasingly grave public health concern, especially in the United States where approximately 80% of the global opioid supply is consumed. Despite greater awareness of the present overdose crisis, potentially life-saving OUD pharmacotherapy (medications for opioid use disorder or MOUD) utilization remains low. This study examines the extent of provider-directed marketing (detailing) for MOUD drugs and identifies any associations between a provider's receipt of detailing and their prescribing of MOUD drugs to Medicare Part D beneficiaries.

METHOD

We combined Open Payments data on all provider-directed payments from pharmaceutical manufacturers with physician-level data on all MOUD prescriptions filled in Medicare Part D. We estimated the adjusted difference in Medicare days supply for all MOUD drugs (collectively) and separately for each MOUD drug that was associated with receipt of payments.

RESULTS

The Open Payments data show that $7.0 million MOUD-specific promotional payments were made by pharmaceutical manufacturers to 12,056 US physicians from 2014 to 2016, which is <1/6th of the $50.3 million made in overall non-MOUD opioid-related promotional payments to 76,992 US physicians during that same period. Prescribers who received any MOUD-specific payments prescribed 1080 daily MOUD-related doses per year more than peers who did not receive any MOUD-specific payments (p < 0.001). The data also show the relatively greater association between receipt of detailing and Suboxone prescriptions compared to Vivitrol.

CONCLUSIONS

Provider-directed marketing by MOUD manufacturers has been found to be significantly and positively associated with incidence of MOUD prescribing in Medicare Part D, as well as with the quantity of MOUD prescribed.

Advances in the treatment of opioid use disorders

The development of medications for treating persons with opioid use disorders has expanded the number of evidence-based treatment options, particularly for persons with the most severe disorders. It has also improved outcomes compared to psychosocial treatment alone and expanded treatment availability by increasing the number of physicians involved in treatment and the settings where patients can be treated. The medications include methadone, buprenorphine, buprenorphine/naloxone, and extended-release injectable naltrexone. Studies have shown that they are most effective when used over an extended, but as-yet-unspecified, period of time and with counseling and other services, particularly for the many with psychosocial problems. Though controversial in some cultures, well-designed studies in Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany, and Canada have demonstrated the efficacy of supervised heroin injecting for persons who responded poorly to other treatments, and this treatment option has been approved by Switzerland and a few other E.U. countries. The degree to which medication-assisted therapies are available is dependent on many variables, including national and local regulations, preferences of individual providers and their geographical location, treatment costs, and insurance policies. Greater availability of medication-assisted therapies has become a major focus in the U.S. and Canada, where there has been a marked increase in deaths associated with heroin and prescription opioid use. This paper provides a brief summary of these developments.

Characteristics of veterans receiving buprenorphine vs. methadone for opioid use disorder nationally in the Veterans Health Administration

BACKGROUND

The advent of buprenorphine as an alternative to methadone has dramatically shifted the landscape of opioid agonist therapy (OAT) for opioid use disorder (OUD). However, there is limited US national level data describing thedifferences between patients who are prescribed these two OAT options.

METHODS

From veterans with OUD diagnosis who used Veterans Health Administration services in 2012, we identified 3 mutually exclusive groups: those who received (1) buprenorphine only (n=5,670); (2) methadone only (n=6,252); or (3) both buprenorphine and methadone in the same year (n=2513). We calculated the bi-varate effect size differences (risk ratios and Cohen's d) forcharacteristics that differentiated these groups. Logistic regression analysis was then used to identify factors independently differentiating the groups.

RESULTS

Ten year increment in age (OR 0.67; 95% CI 0.64-0.70), urban residence (OR 0.26; 95% CI 0.25-0.33), and black race (OR 0.39; 95% CI 0.35-0.43) were strongly and negatively associated with odds of receiving buprenorphine compared to methadone, while medical and psychiatric comorbidities or receipt of other psychiatric medications did not demonstrate substantial differences between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences between veterans receiving buprenorphine or methadone based OAT seems to be largely shaped by demographic characteristics rather than medical or psychiatric or service use characteristics. A clearer understanding of the reasons for racial differences could be helpful in assuring that black OUD patients are not denied the opportunity to receive buprenorphine if that is their preference.

Effects of regulation on methadone and buprenorphine provision in the wake of Hurricane Sandy

Hurricane Sandy led to the closing of many major New York City public hospitals including their substance abuse clinics and methadone programs, and the displacement or relocation of thousands of opioid-dependent patients from treatment. The disaster provided a natural experiment that revealed the relative strengths and weaknesses of methadone treatment in comparison to physician office-based buprenorphine treatment for opioid dependence, two modalities of opioid maintenance with markedly different regulatory requirements and institutional procedures. To assess these two modalities of treatment under emergency conditions, semi-structured interviews about barriers to and facilitators of continuity of care for methadone and buprenorphine patients were conducted with 50 providers of opioid maintenance treatment. Major findings included that methadone programs presented more regulatory barriers for providers, difficulty with dose verification due to impaired communication, and an over reliance on emergency room dosing leading to unsafe or suboptimal dosing. Buprenorphine treatment presented fewer regulatory barriers, but buprenorphine providers had little to no cross-coverage options compared to methadone providers, who could refer to alternate methadone programs. The findings point to the need for well-defined emergency procedures with flexibility around regulations, the need for a central registry with patient dose information, as well as stronger professional networks and cross-coverage procedures. These interventions would improve day-to-day services for opioid-maintained patients as well as services under emergency conditions.