Design and methods of a multi-site randomized controlled trial of an integrated care model of long-acting injectable buprenorphine with infectious disease treatment among persons hospitalized with infections and opioid use disorder

Strategies to Improve Patient-Centered Care for Drug Use-Associated Infective Endocarditis: JACC Focus Seminar 2/4

Drug use-associated infective endocarditis (DUA-IE) is a major cause of illness and death for people with substance use disorder (SUD). Investigations to date have largely focused on advancing the care of patients with DUA-IE and included drug use disorder treatment, decisions about surgery, and choice of antibiotics during the period of hospitalization. Transitions from hospital to outpatient care are relatively unstudied and frequently a key factor of uncontrolled infection, continued substance use, and death. In this paper, we review the evidence supporting cross-disciplinary care for people with DUA-IE and highlight domains that need further clinician, institutional, and research investment in clinicians and institutions. We highlight best practices for treating people with DUA-IE, with a focus on addressing health disparities, meeting health-related social needs, and policy changes that can support care for people with DUA-IE in the hospital and when transitioning to the community.

Management of Critically Ill Patients Receiving Medications for Opioid Use Disorder

TOPIC IMPORTANCE

Critical care clinicians are likely to see an increasing number of patients admitted to the ICU who are receiving US Food and Drug Administration-approved medications for opioid use disorder (MOUDs) given the well-documented benefits of these agents. Oral methadone, multiple formulations of buprenorphine, and extended-release naltrexone are the three types of MOUD most likely to be encountered by ICU clinicians; however, these drugs vary with respect to formulations, pharmacokinetics, and adverse effects.

REVIEW FINDINGS

No published clinical practice guidelines or consensus statements are available to guide decision-making in patients admitted to the ICU setting who are receiving MOUDs before admission. Additionally, no randomized trials and limited observational studies have evaluated issues related to MOUD use in the ICU. Therefore, ICU clinicians caring for patients admitted who are taking MOUDs must base their decision-making on data extrapolation from pharmacokinetic, pharmacologic, and clinical studies performed in non-ICU settings.

SUMMARY

Despite the challenges in administering MOUDs in critically ill patients, extrapolation of data from other hospital settings suggests that the benefits of continuing MOUD therapy outweigh the risks in patients able to continue therapy. This article provides guidance for critical care clinicians caring for patients admitted to the ICU already receiving methadone, buprenorphine, or extended-release naltrexone. The guidance includes algorithms to aid clinicians in the clinical decision-making process, recognizing the inherent limitations of the existing evidence on which the algorithms are based and the need to account for patient-specific considerations.

Validation of Two Diagnostic Assessments for Opioid and Stimulant Use Disorder for Use by Non-Clinicians

Objective

The United States is in the fourth wave of the opioid epidemic marked by the increase in fentanyl and co-occurring stimulant use related overdose deaths. Measures are needed to quickly diagnose opioid and stimulant use disorders, yet current traditional diagnostic assessments pose barriers to providing rapid diagnoses.

Methods

This study aimed to (1) validate an updated version of the Rapid Opioid Dependence Screen (RODS) from DSM-IV criteria for opioid dependence to the now DSM-5 moderate-to-severe opioid use disorder, the Rapid Opioid Use Disorder Assessment (ROUDA); and (2) create and validate the Rapid Stimulant Use Disorder Assessment to DSM-5 stimulant use disorder (RSUDA) when compared to the substance use disorder module from the DSM-5 version of the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview.

Results

One-hundred and fifty adults completed study assessments, 122 reported opioid misuse and 140 reported stimulant misuse within their lifetime. The ROUDA had a sensitivity of 82.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 75.7, 89.2), specificity of 100.0% (95% CI: 100, 100), and strong internal consistency α = 0.94. The RSUDA had similarly high sensitivity (83.8%, 95% CI: 77.7, 89.9), specificity (91.4%, 95% CI: 86.8, 96.1), and internal consistency α = 0.87. The ROUDA and RSUDA are efficient and valid measures that can be administered in various settings by non-clinical staff to rapidly diagnose opioid and stimulant use disorders and allow for immediate treatment and harm reduction interventions.

Conclusions

The ROUDA and RSUDA are efficient and valid measures that can be administered by non-clinicians to rapidly diagnose opioid and stimulant use disorders.

Inpatient Low-dose Transitions From Full Agonist Opioids Including Methadone Onto Long-acting Depot Buprenorphine: Case Series From a Multicenter Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVES

Persons with opioid use disorder (OUD) suffer disproportionately from morbidity and mortality related to serious addiction-related infections requiring hospitalization. Long-acting buprenorphine (LAB) is an underused medication for OUD that may facilitate linkage to care and treatment retention when administered before hospital discharge. Transition onto buprenorphine in the inpatient setting is often complicated by pain, active infection management, potential surgical interventions, and risk of opioid withdrawal in transition from full agonists to a partial agonist.

METHODS

The COMMIT Trial is a randomized controlled trial evaluating LAB administered by infectious disease physicians and hospitalists compared with treatment as usual for persons with OUD hospitalized with infections. We report a case series of participants on full agonist opioids including methadone who were transitioned to sublingual buprenorphine using low-dose ( microdosing ) strategies followed by LAB injection.

RESULTS

Seven participants with current opioid use disorder and life-threatening infections, all with significant concurrent pain and many requiring surgical intervention, underwent low-dose transitions starting at buccal buprenorphine doses ranging from 225 μg to 300 μg 3 times a day on the first day. All were well tolerated with average time to LAB injection of 7.5 days (range, 5-10 days).

CONCLUSIONS

Inpatient low-dose buprenorphine transition from full agonist opioids including methadone onto LAB is feasible even in those with complex hospitalizations for concurrent infections and/or surgery. This strategy facilitates dosing of LAB before hospital discharge when risk of opioid relapse and overdose are significant.

Implementation of an integrated infectious disease and substance use disorder team for injection drug use-associated infections: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Hospitalizations for severe injection drug use-related infections (SIRIs) are characterized by high costs, frequent patient-directed discharge, and high readmission rates. Beyond the health system impacts, these admissions can be traumatizing to people who inject drugs (PWID), who often receive inadequate treatment for their substance use disorders (SUD). The Jackson SIRI team was developed as an integrated infectious disease/SUD treatment intervention for patients hospitalized at a public safety-net hospital in Miami, Florida in 2020. We conducted a qualitative study to identify patient- and clinician-level perceived implementation barriers and facilitators to the SIRI team intervention.

METHODS

Participants were patients with history of SIRIs (n = 7) and healthcare clinicians (n = 8) at one implementing hospital (Jackson Memorial Hospital). Semi-structured qualitative interviews were performed with a guide created using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Interviews were transcribed, double coded, and categorized by study team members using CFIR constructs.

RESULTS

Implementation barriers to the SIRI team intervention identified by participants included: (1) complexity of the SIRI team intervention; (2) lack of resources for PWID experiencing homelessness, financial insecurity, and uninsured status; (3) clinician-level stigma and lack of knowledge around addiction and medications for opioid use disorder (OUD); and (4) concerns about underinvestment in the intervention. Implementation facilitators of the intervention included: (1) a non-judgmental, harm reduction-oriented approach; (2) the team's advocacy for PWID as a means of institutional culture change; (3) provision of close post-hospital follow-up that is often inaccessible for PWID; (4) strong communication with patients and their hospital physicians; and (5) addressing diverse needs such as housing, insurance, and psychological wellbeing.

CONCLUSION

Integration of infectious disease and SUD treatment is a promising approach to managing patients with SIRIs. Implementation success depends on institutional buy-in, holistic care beyond the medical domain, and an ethos rooted in harm reduction across multilevel (inner and outer) implementation contexts.

HIV and liver disease: a comprehensive update

Despite substantial advances in the field, liver disease morbidity and mortality remain serious issues among people with HIV. The causes of liver disease are often multifactorial and include hepatitis viruses, hepatic steatosis and oxidative stress, bacterial translocation with activation of hepatic macrophages and stellate cells, and direct toxicities from alcohol and drugs of abuse. Biopsychosocial factors including a high prevalence of psychiatric disorders, food insecurity, insufficient access to care and medications, and social stigma all play roles in the persistence of liver injury and hepatic fibrosis development among people with HIV. Rising rates of hepatocellular carcinoma have been observed, suggesting that the epidemiology of liver disease is evolving.

Opioid agonist treatment for people who are dependent on pharmaceutical opioids

BACKGROUND

There are ongoing concerns regarding pharmaceutical opioid-related harms, including overdose and dependence, with an associated increase in treatment demand. People dependent on pharmaceutical opioids appear to differ in important ways from people who use heroin, yet most opioid agonist treatment research has been conducted in people who use heroin.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of maintenance opioid agonist pharmacotherapy for the treatment of pharmaceutical opioid dependence.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated our searches of the following databases to January 2022: the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, four other databases, and two trial registers. We checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs with adults and adolescents examining maintenance opioid agonist treatments that made the following two comparisons. 1. Full opioid agonists (methadone, morphine, oxycodone, levo-alpha-acetylmethadol (LAAM), or codeine) versus different full opioid agonists or partial opioid agonists (buprenorphine) for maintenance treatment. 2. Full or partial opioid agonist maintenance versus non-opioid agonist treatments (detoxification, opioid antagonist, or psychological treatment without opioid agonist treatment).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified eight RCTs that met inclusion criteria (709 participants). We found four studies that compared methadone and buprenorphine maintenance treatment, and four studies that compared buprenorphine maintenance to either buprenorphine taper (in addition to psychological treatment) or a non-opioid maintenance treatment comparison. We found low-certainty evidence from three studies of a difference between methadone and buprenorphine in favour of methadone on self-reported opioid use at end of treatment (risk ratio (RR) 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28 to 0.86; 165 participants), and low-certainty evidence from four studies finding a difference in favour of methadone for retention in treatment (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.43; 379 participants). We found low-certainty evidence from three studies showing no difference between methadone and buprenorphine on substance use measured with urine drug screens at end of treatment (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.17; 206 participants), and moderate-certainty evidence from one study of no difference in days of self-reported opioid use (mean difference 1.41 days, 95% CI 3.37 lower to 0.55 days higher; 129 participants). There was low-certainty evidence from three studies of no difference between methadone and buprenorphine on adverse events (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.93; 206 participants). We found low-certainty evidence from four studies favouring maintenance buprenorphine treatment over non-opioid treatments in terms of fewer opioid positive urine drug tests at end of treatment (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.84; 270 participants), and very low-certainty evidence from four studies finding no difference on self-reported opioid use in the past 30 days at end of treatment (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.01; 276 participants). There was low-certainty evidence from three studies of no difference in the number of days of unsanctioned opioid use (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.19, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.09; 205 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence from four studies favouring buprenorphine maintenance over non-opioid treatments on retention in treatment (RR 3.02, 95% CI 1.73 to 5.27; 333 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence from three studies of no difference in adverse effects between buprenorphine maintenance and non-opioid treatments (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.48; 252 participants). The main weaknesses in the quality of the data was the use of open-label study designs, and difference in follow-up rates between treatment arms.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is  very low- to moderate-certainty evidence supporting the use of maintenance agonist pharmacotherapy for pharmaceutical opioid dependence. Methadone or buprenorphine did not differ on some outcomes, although on the outcomes of retention and self-reported substance use some results favoured methadone. Maintenance treatment with buprenorphine appears more effective than non-opioid treatments. Due to the overall very low- to moderate-certainty evidence and small sample sizes, there is the possibility that the further research may change these findings.