Within-subject evaluation of interim buprenorphine treatment during waitlist delays

The impact of scope-of-practice restrictions on access to medical care

We study the impact of scope-of-practice laws in a highly regulated and important policy setting, the provision of medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorder. We consider two natural experiments generated by policy changes at the state and federal level that allow nurse practitioners more practice autonomy. Both experiments show that liberalizations of prescribing authority lead to large improvements in access to care. Further, we use rich address-level data to answer key policy questions. Expanding nurse practitioner prescribing authority reduces urban-rural disparities in health care access. Additionally, expanded autonomy increases access to care provided by physicians, driven by complementarities between providers.

A qualitative exploration of barriers and facilitators to drug treatment services among people who inject drugs in west Virginia

BACKGROUND

The opioid overdose crisis in the USA has called for expanding access to evidence-based substance use treatment programs, yet many barriers limit the ability of people who inject drugs (PWID) to engage in these programs. Predominantly rural states have been disproportionately affected by the opioid overdose crisis while simultaneously facing diminished access to drug treatment services. The purpose of this study is to explore barriers and facilitators to engagement in drug treatment among PWID residing in a rural county in West Virginia.

METHODS

From June to July 2018, in-depth interviews (n = 21) that explored drug treatment experiences among PWID were conducted in Cabell County, West Virginia. Participants were recruited from locations frequented by PWID such as local service providers and public parks. An iterative, modified constant comparison approach was used to code and synthesize interview data.

RESULTS

Participants reported experiencing a variety of barriers to engaging in drug treatment, including low thresholds for dismissal, a lack of comprehensive support services, financial barriers, and inadequate management of withdrawal symptoms. However, participants also described several facilitators of treatment engagement and sustained recovery. These included the use of medications for opioid use disorder and supportive health care workers/program staff.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that a range of barriers exist that may limit the abilities of rural PWID to successfully access and remain engaged in drug treatment in West Virginia. Improving the public health of rural PWID populations will require expanding access to evidence-based drug treatment programs that are tailored to participants' individual needs.

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.

Implications of Increased Access to Buprenorphine for Medical Providers in Rural Areas: A Review of the Literature and Future Directions

Buprenorphine/Naloxone (Suboxone®) is an efficacious treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) due to its more convenient dosing, superior safety profile, and decreased incidence of negative side effects when compared to other forms of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD). In the United States, updated legislation in 2021 entitled, "The Practice Guidelines for the Administration of Buprenorphine for Treating Opioid Use Disorder", released by the Department of Health and Human Services, creates an exemption for the previously required Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 2000 (DATA) waiver for buprenorphine prescribing for clinicians. This legislation was born out of a need for making MOUD more accessible for patients living with OUD as rates of opioid-related deaths in the United States have continued to rise and have increased disproportionately during the time period of the COVID-19 pandemic. This legislation has the potential to improve access to MOUD across all geographic locations, but may have the most profound impact in rural areas where significant disparities and challenges still exist in patients’ ability to access buprenorphine. The purpose of this literature review is to 1) examine how MOUD prescribing has changed after previous legislation changes, 2) explore the current state of buprenorphine access for treatment of OUD in rural America, 3) detail existing barriers in patients' ability to access MOUD, and 4) discuss future directions and considerations as a result of new legislation. This literature review found several existing barriers to receiving MOUD such as increasing costs, insufficient education, significant stigma, and the need for more innovative methods of delivery. We also found that there is currently a large opportunity for growth in the number of rural clinicians able to prescribe buprenorphine, particularly in primary care, that may now occur as a result of this new legislation. Overall, this legislation has the potential to have a positive impact on combating OUD, especially in rural areas, and may be a critical step towards ending the current opioid epidemic in the United States as these described barriers are addressed. 

Pharmacists should treat patients who have opioid use disorders, not police them

Pharmacists are caught in the throes of a relentless overdose crisis that has already claimed half a million lives and threatens to claim thousands more. The addiction treatment system is fragmented and inadequate to meet demand. Few physicians provide medications for opioid use disorder (MOUDs), the most effective form of evidence-based treatment, and insufficient treatment options leave patients vulnerable to overdose. Pharmacists routinely interact with patients who have OUD but lack ways to treat them. The primary tools that pharmacists have received to curb the crisis are prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs), big data surveillance technologies that they can use to track patients' medication acquisition patterns. Pharmacists like PDMPs because they help them make decisions efficiently. However, PDMPs are enforcement technologies, not health care tools; therefore, pharmacists typically use PDMPs to police patients instead of treating them. Policing patients not only fails to help combat overdose, but can also exacerbate harm. Informed by a decade's worth of interviews with pharmacists before and after PDMP implementation, I argue that pharmacists should be better equipped to help patients with OUD. Specifically, clinical and community pharmacists should mobilize to provide MOUDs through collaborative practice agreements with physicians. Studies show that collaborative practice models are effective at reducing the risk of overdose and saving money and physicians' time. And pharmacists have the clinical competencies necessary to provide MOUDs for patients. Pharmacists must overcome legal, economic, and interprofessional barriers to do so, but giving pharmacists the tools to treat patients will affirm their professional commitment to caring for patients and saving lives.