The design and conduct of a randomized clinical trial comparing emergency department initiation of sublingual versus a 7-day extended-release injection formulation of buprenorphine for opioid use disorder: Project ED Innovation

Extended-Release 7-Day Injectable Buprenorphine for Patients With Minimal to Mild Opioid Withdrawal

Importance

Buprenorphine is an effective yet underused treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD).

Objective

To evaluate the feasibility (acceptability, tolerability, and safety) of 7-day injectable extended-release buprenorphine in patients with minimal to mild opioid withdrawal.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This nonrandomized trial comprising 4 emergency departments in the Northeast, mid-Atlantic, and Pacific geographic areas of the US included adults aged 18 years or older with moderate to severe OUD and Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale (COWS) scores less than 8 (minimal to mild), in which scores range from 0 to 7, with higher scores indicating increasing withdrawal. Exclusion criteria included methadone-positive urine, pregnancy, overdose, or required admission. Outcomes were assessed at baseline, daily for 7 days by telephone surveys, and in person at 7 days. Patient recruitment occurred between July 13, 2020, and May 25, 2023.

Intervention

Injection of a 24-mg dose of a weekly extended-release formulation of buprenorphine (CAM2038) and referral for ongoing OUD care.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Primary feasibility outcomes included the number of patients who (1) experienced a 5-point or greater increase in the COWS score or (2) transitioned to moderate or greater withdrawal (COWS score ≥13) within 4 hours of extended-release buprenorphine or (3) experienced precipitated withdrawal within 1 hour of extended-release buprenorphine. Secondary outcomes included injection pain, satisfaction, craving, use of nonprescribed opioids, adverse events, and engagement in OUD treatment.

Results

A total of 100 adult patients were enrolled (mean [SD] age, 36.5 [8.7] years; 72% male). Among the patients, 10 (10.0% [95% CI, 4.9%-17.6%]) experienced a 5-point or greater increase in COWS and 7 (7.0% [95% CI, 2.9%-13.9%]) transitioned to moderate or greater withdrawal within 4 hours, and 2 (2.0% [95% CI, 0.2%-7.0%]) experienced precipitated withdrawal within 1 hour of extended-release buprenorphine. A total of 7 patients (7.0% [95% CI, 2.9%-13.9%]) experienced precipitated withdrawal within 4 hours of extended-release buprenorphine, which included 2 of 63 (3.2%) with a COWS score of 4 to 7 and 5 of 37 (13.5%) with a COWS score of 0 to 3. Site pain scores (based on a total pain score of 10, in which 0 indicated no pain and 10 was the worst possible pain) after injection were low immediately (median, 2.0; range, 0-10.0) and after 4 hours (median, 0; range, 0-10.0). On any given day among those who responded, between 29 (33%) and 31 (43%) patients reported no cravings and between 59 (78%) and 75 (85%) reported no use of opioids; 57 patients (60%) reported no days of opioid use. Improving privacy (62%) and not requiring daily medication (67%) were deemed extremely important. Seventy-three patients (73%) were engaged in OUD treatment on day 7. Five serious adverse events occurred that required hospitalization, of which 2 were associated with medication.

Conclusions and Relevance

This nonrandomized trial of the feasibility of a 7-day buprenorphine injectable in patients with minimal to mild opioid withdrawal (COWS scores, 0-7) found the formulation to be acceptable, well tolerated, and safe in those with COWS scores of 4 to 7. This new medication formulation could substantially increase the number of patients with OUD receiving buprenorphine.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04225598.

Early emergency department experience with 7-day extended-release injectable buprenorphine for opioid use disorder

As the opioid overdose epidemic escalates, there is an urgent need for treatment innovations to address both patient and clinician barriers when initiating buprenorphine in the emergency department (ED). These include insurance status, logistical challenges such as the ability to fill a prescription and transportation, concerns regarding diversion, and availability of urgent referral sites. Extended-release buprenorphine (XR-BUP) preparations such as a new 7-day injectable could potentially solve some of these issues. We describe the pharmacokinetics of a new 7-day XR-BUP formulation and the feasibility of its use in the ED setting. We report our early experiences with this medication (investigational drug CAM2038), in the context of an ongoing clinical trial entitled Emergency Department-Initiated BUP VAlidaTION (ED INNOVATION), to inform emergency clinicians as they consider incorporating this medication into their practice. The medication was approved by the European Medicines Agency in 2018 and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2023 for those 18 years or older for the treatment of moderate to severe opioid use disorder (OUD). We report our experience with approximately 800 ED patients with OUD who received the 7-day XR-BUP preparation in the ED between June 2020 and July 2023.

Research Priorities for Expansion of Opioid Use Disorder Treatment in the Community Pharmacy

In the last decade, the U.S. opioid overdose crisis has magnified, particularly since the introduction of synthetic opioids, including fentanyl. Despite the benefits of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), only about a fifth of people with opioid use disorder (OUD) in the U.S. receive MOUD. The ubiquity of pharmacists, along with their extensive education and training, represents great potential for expansion of MOUD services, particularly in community pharmacies. The National Institute on Drug Abuse's National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (NIDA CTN) convened a working group to develop a research agenda to expand OUD treatment in the community pharmacy sector to support improved access to MOUD and patient outcomes. Identified settings for research include independent and chain pharmacies and co-located pharmacies within primary care settings. Specific topics for research included adaptation of pharmacy infrastructure for clinical service provision, strategies for interprofessional collaboration including health service models, drug policy and regulation, pharmacist education about OUD and OUD treatment, including didactic, experiential, and interprofessional curricula, and educational interventions to reduce stigma towards this patient population. Together, expanding these research areas can bring effective MOUD to where it is most needed.

URINE TOXICOLOGY PROFILES OF EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT PATIENTS WITH UNTREATED OPIOID USE DISORDER: A MULTI-SITE VIEW

BACKGROUND

Opioid overdose deaths in 2021 were the highest ever, driven by fentanyl and polysubstance use.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to characterize drug use, assessed by urine drug screens (UDSs), in patients with untreated opioid use disorder (OUD) presenting to 28 emergency departments (EDs) nationally and by region.

METHODS

We analyzed UDSs from patients enrolled in the CTN-0099 ED-INNOVATION (Emergency Department-Initiated Buprenorphine Validation) trial between July 12, 2020 and March 9, 2022. Participants were adult ED patients with OUD not engaged in addiction treatment with a UDS positive for an opioid, but negative for methadone. Sites were divided into "East" and "West" regions.

RESULTS

A UDS was available for all 925 enrolled participants, 543 from East and 382 from West. Fentanyl was in 702 specimens (76%) (n = 485 [89%] East vs. n = 217 [57%] West; p < 0.01) and was the only opioid in 269 (29%). After fentanyl, the most common opioids were morphine (presumably heroin; n = 411 [44%]; n = 192 [35%] East vs. n = 219 [57%] West; p < 0.01) and buprenorphine (n = 329 [36%]; n = 186 [35%] East vs. n = 143 [37%] West; p = 0.32). The most common drugs found with opioids were stimulants (n = 545 [59%]), tetrahydrocannabinol (n = 417 [45%]), and benzodiazepines (n = 151 [16%]). Amphetamine-type stimulants were more common in West (n = 209 [55%] vs. East (n = 125 [23%]). Cocaine was more common in East (n = 223 [41%]) vs. West (n = 82 [21%]). The presence of multiple drugs was common (n = 759 [82%]).

CONCLUSIONS

Most participants had UDS specimens containing multiple substances; a high proportion had fentanyl, stimulants, and buprenorphine. Regional differences were noted. Given the increased risk of death with fentanyl and polysubstance use, ED providers should be providing risk reduction counseling, treatment, and referral.

Promoting alcohol treatment engagement post-hospitalization with brief intervention, medications and CBT4CBT: protocol for a randomized clinical trial in a diverse patient population

BACKGROUND

Alcohol use disorder (AUD) commonly causes hospitalization, particularly for individuals disproportionately impacted by structural racism and other forms of marginalization. The optimal approach for engaging hospitalized patients with AUD in treatment post-hospital discharge is unknown. We describe the rationale, aims, and protocol for Project ENHANCE (ENhancing Hospital-initiated Alcohol TreatmeNt to InCrease Engagement), a clinical trial testing increasingly intensive approaches using a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation approach.

METHODS

We are randomizing English and/or Spanish-speaking individuals with untreated AUD (n = 450) from a large, urban, academic hospital in New Haven, CT to: (1) Brief Negotiation Interview (with referral and telephone booster) alone (BNI), (2) BNI plus facilitated initiation of medications for alcohol use disorder (BNI + MAUD), or (3) BNI + MAUD + initiation of computer-based training for cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT4CBT, BNI + MAUD + CBT4CBT). Interventions are delivered by Health Promotion Advocates. The primary outcome is AUD treatment engagement 34 days post-hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes include AUD treatment engagement 90 days post-discharge and changes in self-reported alcohol use and phosphatidylethanol. Exploratory outcomes include health care utilization. We will explore whether the effectiveness of the interventions on AUD treatment engagement and alcohol use outcomes differ across and within racialized and ethnic groups, consistent with disproportionate impacts of AUD. Lastly, we will conduct an implementation-focused process evaluation, including individual-level collection and statistical comparisons between the three conditions of costs to providers and to patients, cost-effectiveness indices (effectiveness/cost ratios), and cost-benefit indices (benefit/cost ratios, net benefit [benefits minus costs). Graphs of individual- and group-level effectiveness x cost, and benefits x costs, will portray relationships between costs and effectiveness and between costs and benefits for the three conditions, in a manner that community representatives also should be able to understand and use.

CONCLUSIONS

Project ENHANCE is expected to generate novel findings to inform future hospital-based efforts to promote AUD treatment engagement among diverse patient populations, including those most impacted by AUD.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT05338151.

Implementing Programs to Initiate Buprenorphine for Opioid Use Disorder Treatment in High-Need, Low-Resource Emergency Departments: A Nonrandomized Controlled Trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

We hypothesized that implementation facilitation would enable us to rapidly and effectively implement emergency department (ED)-initiated buprenorphine programs in rural and urban settings with high-need, limited resources and dissimilar staffing structures.

METHODS

This multicenter implementation study employed implementation facilitation using a participatory action research approach to develop, introduce, and refine site-specific clinical protocols for ED-initiated buprenorphine and referral in 3 EDs not previously initiating buprenorphine. We assessed feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness by triangulating mixed-methods formative evaluation data (focus groups/interviews and pre/post surveys involving staff, patients, and stakeholders), patients' medical records, and 30-day outcomes from a purposive sample of 40 buprenorphine-receiving patient-participants who met research eligibility criteria (English-speaking, medically stable, locator information, nonprisoners). We estimated the primary implementation outcome (proportion receiving ED-initiated buprenorphine among candidates) and the main secondary outcome (30-day treatment engagement) using Bayesian methods.

RESULTS

Within 3 months of initiating the implementation facilitation activities, each site implemented buprenorphine programs. During the 6-month programmatic evaluation, there were 134 ED-buprenorphine candidates among 2,522 encounters involving opioid use. A total of 52 (41.6%) practitioners initiated buprenorphine administration to 112 (85.1%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 79.7% to 90.4%) unique patients. Among 40 enrolled patient-participants, 49.0% (35.6% to 62.5%) were engaged in addiction treatment 30 days later (confirmed); 26 (68.4%) reported attending one or more treatment visits; there was a 4-fold decrease in self-reported overdose events (odds ratio [OR] 4.03; 95% CI 1.27 to 12.75). The ED clinician readiness increased by a median of 5.02 (95% CI: 3.56 to 6.47) from 1.92/10 to 6.95/10 (n(pre)=80, n(post)=83).

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation facilitation enabled us to effectively implement ED-based buprenorphine programs across heterogeneous ED settings rapidly, which was associated with promising implementation and exploratory patient-level outcomes.

National Institute on Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network Meeting Report: Advancing Emergency Department Initiation of Buprenorphine for Opioid Use Disorder

Opioid use disorder and opioid overdose deaths are a major public health crisis, yet highly effective evidence-based treatments are available that reduce morbidity and mortality. One such treatment, buprenorphine, can be initiated in the emergency department (ED). Despite evidence of efficacy and effectiveness for ED-initiated buprenorphine, universal uptake remains elusive. On November 15 and 16, 2021, the National Institute on Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network convened a meeting of partners, experts, and federal officers to identify research priorities and knowledge gaps for ED-initiated buprenorphine. Meeting participants identified research and knowledge gaps in 8 categories, including ED staff and peer-based interventions; out-of-hospital buprenorphine initiation; buprenorphine dosing and formulations; linkage to care; strategies for scaling ED-initiated buprenorphine; the effect of ancillary technology-based interventions; quality measures; and economic considerations. Additional research and implementation strategies are needed to enhance adoption into standard emergency care and improve patient outcomes.

Study protocol for a multisite randomized controlled trial of a peer navigator intervention for emergency department patients with nonfatal opioid overdose

BACKGROUND

Patients presenting to emergency departments (EDs) after a nonfatal opioid-involved overdose are at high risk for future overdose and death. Responding to this risk, the New York City (NYC) Department of Health and Mental Hygiene operates the Relay initiative, which dispatches trained peer "Wellness Advocates" to meet patients in the ED after a suspected opioid-involved overdose and follow them for up to 90 days to provide support, education, referrals to treatment, and other resources using a harm reduction framework.

METHODS

In this article, we describe the protocol for a multisite randomized controlled trial of Relay. Study participants are recruited from four NYC EDs and are randomized to receive the Relay intervention or site-directed care (the control arm). Outcomes are assessed through survey questionnaires conducted at 1-, 3-, and 6-months after the baseline visit, as well as through administrative health data. The primary outcome is the number of opioid-related adverse events, including any opioid-involved overdose or any other substance use-related ED visit, in the 12 months post-baseline. Secondary and exploratory outcomes will also be analyzed, as well as hypothesized mediators and moderators of Relay program effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

We present the protocol for a multisite randomized controlled trial of a peer-delivered OD prevention intervention in EDs. We describe how the study was designed to minimize disruption to routine ED operations, and how the study was implemented and adapted during the COVID-19 pandemic. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov [NCT04317053].

Models for Implementing Emergency Department-Initiated Buprenorphine With Referral for Ongoing Medication Treatment at Emergency Department Discharge in Diverse Academic Centers

There has been a substantial rise in the number of publications and training opportunities on the care and treatment of emergency department (ED) patients with opioid use disorder over the past several years. The American College of Emergency Physicians recently published recommendations for providing buprenorphine to patients with opioid use disorder, but barriers to implementing this clinical practice remain. We describe the models for implementing ED-initiated buprenorphine at 4 diverse urban, academic medical centers across the country as part of a federally funded effort termed "Project ED Health." These 4 sites successfully implemented unique ED-initiated buprenorphine programs as part of a comparison of implementation facilitation to traditional educational dissemination on the uptake of ED-initiated buprenorphine. Each site describes the elements central to the ED process, including screening, treatment initiation, referral, and follow-up, while harnessing organizational characteristics, including ED culture. Finally, we discuss common facilitators to program success, including information technology and electronic medical record integration, hospital-level support, strong connections with outpatient partners, and quality improvement processes.

Subsequent Buprenorphine Treatment Following Emergency Physician Buprenorphine Prescription Fills: A National Assessment 2019 to 2020

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder provided in the emergency department with subsequent buprenorphine treatment by community prescribers is associated with improved outcomes, but the frequency with which this occurs is unknown. We examined the rates of subsequent buprenorphine treatment for buprenorphine-naïve individuals filling buprenorphine prescriptions from emergency physicians and initiated buprenorphine treatment and how such rates varied before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

METHODS

Using pharmacy claims capturing an estimated 92% of prescriptions filled at US retail pharmacies, we identified buprenorphine prescriptions filled between February 1, 2019, and November 30, 2020, written by emergency physicians. In this observational study, we calculated the rate at which patients subsequently filled buprenorphine prescriptions from other nonemergency clinicians, the frequency with which subsequent filled prescriptions were from different types of prescribers, and the changes in the rates of subsequent prescriptions following the declaration of the COVID-19 public health emergency.

RESULTS

We identified 22,846 prescriptions written by emergency physicians and filled by buprenorphine-naïve patients. They were most commonly paid for by Medicaid and were in metropolitan counties; 28.5% of patients subsequently filled buprenorphine prescriptions written by other clinicians. Adult primary care physicians and advanced practice providers (eg, physician assistants and nurse practitioners) were responsible for most of the subsequent prescriptions. The rates of subsequent prescriptions were 3.5% lower after the COVID-19 public health emergency declaration.

CONCLUSION

The majority of patients filling buprenorphine prescriptions written by emergency physicians do not subsequently fill prescriptions written by other clinicians, and the rates of subsequent prescriptions were lower after the declaration of the COVID-19 public health emergency. These findings highlight the need for a system of care that improves buprenorphine treatment continuity of care for patients with opioid use disorder from emergency settings to community treatment providers.

Emergency department-initiated buprenorphine protocols: A national evaluation

OBJECTIVE

Emergency department-initiated buprenorphine (BUP) for opioid use disorder is an evidence-based practice, but limited data exist on BUP initiation practices in real-world settings. We sought to characterize protocols for BUP initiation among a geographically diverse sample of emergency departments (EDs).

METHODS

In December 2020, we reviewed prestudy clinical BUP initiation protocols from all EDs participating in CTN0099 Emergency Department-INitiated bupreNOrphine VAlidaTION (ED-INNOVATION). We abstracted information on processes for identification of treatment-eligible patients, BUP administration, and discharge care.

RESULTS

All participating ED-INNOVATION sites across 22 states submitted protocols; 31 protocols were analyzed. Identification of treatment-eligible patients: Most EDs 22 (71%) relied on clinician judgment to determine appropriateness of BUP treatment with only 7 (23%) requiring decision support tools or diagnosis checklists. Before BUP initiation, 27 (87%) protocols required a documented Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale (COWS) score; 4 (13%) required a clinical diagnosis of withdrawal with optional COWS score. Twenty-seven (87%) recommended a minimum COWS score of 8 for ED-initiated BUP. BUP administration: Initial BUP dose ranged from 2-16 mg (mode = 4). For continued withdrawal symptoms, 27 (87%) protocols recommended an interval of 30-60 minutes between first and second BUP dose. Total BUP dose in the ED ranged from 8 to 32 mg. Discharge care: Twenty-eight (90%) protocols recommended a BUP prescription (mode 16 mg daily) at discharge. Naloxone prescription and/or provision was suggested in 23 (74%) protocols.

CONCLUSIONS

In this geographically diverse sample of EDs, protocols for ED-initiated BUP differed between sites. Future work should evaluate the association between this variation and patient outcomes.