Opioid users' willingness to receive prolonged-release buprenorphine depot injections for opioid use disorder

Provider costs of treating opioid dependence with extended-release buprenorphine in Australia

INTRODUCTION

The costs of providing medication-assisted treatment for opioid dependence can determine its scale of provision. To provide estimates of the costs of extended-release buprenorphine (BUP-XR), we performed a bottom-up costing analysis of provider operational treatment costs.

METHODS

Data were collected in a single-arm open label trial of BUP-XR injections conducted in specialist public drug treatment services and primary care private practices in three Australian states (the CoLAB study). The unit costs of resources used for each activity were combined with quantities used at each participating facility to arrive at the average annual cost per client.

RESULTS

One hundred participants across the six health facility sites received monthly subcutaneous BUP-XR injections administered by a health-care practitioner. The average cost of providing 1 year of treatment per participant was $6656 ($6026-$8326). Screening cost (initial assessment and medical history) was $282 while monthly follow-up appointments cost $531 per client. The main cost driver was the monthly treatment costs accounting for 79% of the average annual client cost, with medication costs comprising 95% of this cost.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

With medication costs making up the largest proportion of treatment costs, treatment using BUP-XR has the potential to free up other health system resources, for example, staff time. The costs reported in this study can be used in an economic evaluation to estimate the net benefit or cost-effectiveness of BUP-XR especially when compared to other opioid agonist treatments.

Healthcare staff's perspectives on long-acting injectable buprenorphine treatment: a qualitative interview study

BACKGROUND

Long-acting injectable buprenorphine (LAIB) formulations are a novel treatment approach in opioid agonist treatment (OAT), which provide patients with a steady dose administered weekly or monthly and thus reduce the need for frequent clinic visits. Several studies have analyzed patient experiences of LAIB but the perspective of OAT staff is unknown. This study aimed to explore how healthcare staff working in OAT clinics in Sweden perceive and manage treatment with LAIB.

METHODS

Individual qualitative interviews were conducted with OAT physicians (n = 10) in tandem with nine focus group sessions with OAT nurses and other staff categories (n = 41). The data was analyzed with thematic text analysis.

RESULTS

Five central themes were identified in the data: (1) advantages and disadvantages of LAIB, (2) patient categories that may or may not need LAIB, (3) patients' degrees of medication choice, (4) keeping tabs, control and treatment alliance, and (5) LAIB's impact on risk and enabling environments in OAT. Overall staff found more advantages than disadvantages with LAIB and considered that patients with ongoing substance use and low adherence were most likely to benefit from LAIB. However, less frequent visits were viewed as problematic in terms of developing a treatment alliance and being able to keep tabs on patients' clinical status. Clinics differed regarding patients' degrees of choice in medication, which varied from limited to extensive. LAIB affected both risk and enabling environments in OAT.

CONCLUSIONS

LAIB may strengthen the enabling environment in OAT for some patients by reducing clinic visits, exposure to risk environments, and the pressure to divert medication. A continued discussion about the prerequisites and rationale for LAIB implementation is needed in policy and practice.

Reasons for not entering opioid agonist treatment: A survey among high-risk opioid users in Finland

Aims: To characterise and understand the untreated high-risk opioid user population in Finland, and to determine the reasons why these people do not enter treatment. Methods: The study setting was a half-year cross-sectional survey in Finland during 2021-2022. An electronic questionnaire with 24 structured questions was concluded in 16 needle exchange units. Participants were opioid-dependent people without opioid agonist treatment (OAT), and they answered the survey voluntarily and anonymously. Results: Of the 167 respondents, 62% were men, 53% were aged ≤34 years, 66% had used opioids for >6 years, and 78% used drugs intravenously (IV) daily. The most used opioid (95%) was buprenorphine. Most respondents used opioids as self-medication for withdrawal symptoms (75%), or to treat psychological symptoms (59%) or pain (43%). Of them, 70% also used other substances for recreational purposes. The most common named reasons to stay outside OAT were as follows: seeking treatment is too difficult (37%); treatment is too binding (36%); and fear of actions from authorities (23%). Conclusions: For opioid-dependent respondents who would be eligible for OAT in Finland, treatment awareness is limited. These high-risk opioid users also think that the treatment would be too binding. In conclusion, there is a need for increase in general information about, accessibility to, acceptance for and individualisation of OAT.

Does the advent of depot therapy represent a step change in our understanding of opioid use disorder and its treatment?

After years of minimal innovation in pharmacotherapeutics, impressive outcomes in the treatment of opioid use disorder are being obtained from a new way of delivering an old medication; long-acting injectable formulations of buprenorphine appear to produce compelling reductions in relapse to illicit opioid use not only during use but also following depot discontinuation. This commentary discusses potential mechanisms behind this observation, asks if the removal of the need for daily oral opioid agonist dosing furthers our understanding of addiction treatment and whether we should therefore consider expanding access to depot formulations.

Patients' goals when initiating long-acting injectable buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder: findings from a longitudinal qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Long-acting injectable buprenorphine (LAIB) is a new treatment for opioid use disorder that has been introduced against an international policy backdrop of recovery and person-centred care. This paper explores the goals that people want to achieve from LAIB to identify potential implications for policy and practice.

METHODS

Data derive from longitudinal qualitative interviews conducted with 26 people (18 male; 8 female) initiating LAIB in England and Wales, UK (June 2021-March 2022). Participants were interviewed up to five times by telephone over six months (107 interviews in total). Transcribed interview data relating to each participant's treatment goals were coded, summarised in Excel, and then analysed via a process of Iterative Categorization.

RESULTS

Participants often articulated a desire to be abstinent without defining exactly what they meant by this. Most intended to reduce their dosage of LAIB but did not want to rush. Although participants seldom used the term 'recovery', almost all identified objectives consistent with current definitions of this concept. Participants articulated broadly consistent goals over time, although some extended the timeframes for achieving treatment-related goals at later interviews. At their last interview, most participants remained on LAIB, and there were reports that the medication was enabling positive outcomes. Despite this, participants were aware of the complex personal, service-level, and situational factors that hindered their treatment progress, understood the additional support they needed to achieve their goals, and voiced frustrations when services failed them.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a need for wider debate regarding the goals people initiating LAIB are seeking and the diverse range of positive treatment outcomes LAIB could potentially generate. Those providing LAIB should offer regular on-going contact and other forms of non-medical support so that patients have the best opportunity to succeed. Policies relating to recovery and person-centred care have previously been criticised for responsibilising patients and service users to take better care of themselves and to change their own lives. In contrast, our findings suggest that these policies may, in fact, be empowering people to expect a greater range of support as part of the package of care they receive from service providers.

The switching process from buprenorphine sublingual tablets to the monthly buprenorphine subcutaneous depot injection in opioid dependent patients

The 2018 European Union (EU) approved weekly and monthly subcutaneous buprenorphine depot injection (BUP-XR), for opioid substitution medication proved to offer some specific treatment benefits. The present study examines the process of switching from buprenorphine sublingual tablets (BUP-SL) to BUP-XR from a patient's point of view. In total, nine patients were surveyed by means of an open-answer questionnaire regarding course and side effects of the medication switch. Six of these patients were surveyed in more detail under BUP-SL, as well as 4 and 16 weeks after the switch to BUP-XR by means of a test battery of questions on socio-demography, withdrawal symptoms, craving, physical well-being, treatment satisfaction and concomitant use of illegal substances. Patients reported significant worse physical well-being and lower treatment satisfaction in 4 weeks compared with 16 weeks after the medication switch to the BUP-XR. Furthermore, they reported significant more frequent co-use of illicit drugs, worse physical well-being, lower treatment satisfaction and more craving experience 4 weeks after the switch compared with the treatment under BUP-SL. Patients 16 weeks under BUP-XR reported significant more illicit co-use and lower treatment satisfaction compared with patients under BUP-SL. Connections between therapy dissatisfaction, physical discomfort, experienced craving and drug co-consumption were discovered. In the first weeks after the medication switch, patients experience potentially distressing symptoms, which, however, seem to diminish over time. Close supervision and comprehensive patient education on possible burdens of the medication switch to the BUP-XR might prevent unfavourable treatment courses and premature therapy dropouts.

'I just thought that was the best thing for me to do at this point': Exploring patient experiences with depot buprenorphine and their motivations to discontinue

INTRODUCTION

Long-acting injectable depot buprenorphine is a recent addition to the suite of opioid agonist therapies (OAT) used to treat opioid use disorder (OUD). However, there has been little research that focuses on the lived experience of people receiving depot buprenorphine treatment and reasons for why people decide to discontinue. The aim of this study was to explore what it is like to receive depot buprenorphine and to understand the motivations behind why people discontinue.

METHODS

Open-ended, semi-structured interviews were conducted between November 2021 and January 2022 with individuals who were either currently receiving depot buprenorphine or had discontinued or were in the process of discontinuing depot buprenorphine. Liberati, et al.'s (2022) adaptation of Dixon-Woods's (2006) candidacy framework was used to analyse the participant experiences.

RESULTS

40 participants (26 male, 13 female, 1 undisclosed; mean age 42 years) were interviewed about their experience with depot buprenorphine. At the time of the interview, 21 were currently receiving depot buprenorphine and 19 had discontinued this treatment or were in the process of discontinuing. Participants cited 4 key reasons why they decided to discontinue depot buprenorphine:1) feeling forced into the program, 2) experiencing negative side-effects, 3) finding the treatment ineffective, and 4) wanting to stop depot buprenorphine/OAT to use opioids again or feeling 'cured' and no longer in need of OAT. Participants were ultimately discussing issues related to clinician-patient power relations, agency and bodily autonomy, and the pursuit of well-being.

CONCLUSION

Depot buprenorphine remains a promising treatment for OUD and offers potential to improve treatment adherence. Instances of restricted OAT choice and consumer concerns regarding a lack of agency must be addressed in order to enhance therapeutic relationships. Clinicians and other healthcare workers in this field also need greater access to information about depot buprenorphine to better address issues patients face during treatment. More research is required to understand patient and treatment choice given the options of these new treatment formulations.

How do patients feel during the first 72 h after initiating long-acting injectable buprenorphine? An embodied qualitative analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Long-acting injectable buprenorphine (LAIB) is a new treatment for opioid use disorder that is generating positive outcomes. Negative effects are typically mild and transient, but can occasionally be serious, resulting in treatment discontinuation/non-adherence. This paper aims to analyse patients' accounts of how they felt during the first 72 h after initiating LAIB.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted (June 2021-March 2022) with 26 people (18 males and 8 females) who had started LAIB within the previous 72 h. Participants were recruited from treatment services in England and Wales and were interviewed by telephone using a topic guide. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and coded. The concepts of embodiment and embodied cognition framed the analyses. Data on participants' substance use, initiation onto LAIB and feelings were tabulated. Next, participants' accounts of how they felt were analysed following the stages of Iterative Categorization.

RESULTS

Participants reported complex combinations of changing negative and positive feelings. Bodily experiences included withdrawal symptoms, poor sleep, injection-site pain/soreness, lethargy and heightened senses inducing nausea ('distressed bodies'), but also enhanced somatic wellbeing, improved sleep, better skin, increased appetite, reduced constipation and heightened senses inducing pleasure ('returning body functions'). Cognitive responses included anxiety, uncertainties and low mood/depression ('the mind in crisis') and improved mood, greater positivity and reduced craving ('feeling psychologically better'). Whereas most negative effects reported are widely recognized, the early benefits of treatment described are less well-documented and may be an overlooked distinctive feature of LAIB.

CONCLUSIONS

During the first 72 h after initiating long-acting injectable buprenorphine, new patients report experiencing a range of interconnected positive and negative short-term effects. Providing new patients with information about the range and nature of these effects can prepare them for what to expect and help them manage feelings and reduce anxiety. In turn, this may increase medication adherence.

Utility of an integrated health system specialty pharmacy in provision of extended-release buprenorphine for patients with opioid use disorder

PURPOSE

Extended-release (ER) monthly injectable buprenorphine offers an alternative to daily sublingual (SL) dosing for treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) that may be attractive to several patient populations, including those with barriers to adherence and the frequent follow-up that are necessary for traditional SL buprenorphine. Despite the potential benefits of ER-buprenorphine, there are significant barriers to healthcare provider adoption that may prevent utilization in the populations that would benefit.

SUMMARY

Our health system began providing clinic-administered ER-buprenorphine as treatment for OUD in May 2018 at a single clinic. Expansion was limited due to difficulties with delayed and inaccurate medication delivery and heavy administrative burden. To facilitate uptake of ER-buprenorphine for patients who could benefit, our integrated health-system specialty pharmacy (HSSP) assumed responsibility for medication distribution and administrative management beginning in October 2019. The HSSP provided accurate medication delivery, alleviated administrative burdens of benefits investigation and Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy compliance, and decreased medication wastage by implementing a medication return process. Subsequently, ER-buprenorphine services were expanded to 4 additional sites, allowing 244 more patients to receive treatment.

CONCLUSION

HSSP support can provide significant benefit to patients and the health system through coordinating ER-buprenorphine dispensing and delivery.

Patient perspectives on depot buprenorphine treatment for opioid addiction - a qualitative interview study

BACKGROUND

Recently developed buprenorphine depot injections have the potential to reduce risk for diversion and misuse, and to increase adherence with fewer visits for supervised intake. However, it is unclear how patients perceive this new form of medication. The purpose of this study was to explore patients' experiences of depot injections and their reasons for continuing, discontinuing, or declining depot injection treatment.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with 32 people, 14 of whom had ongoing depot injection treatment, 11 who had discontinued depot-injections and switched to other medication and seven who had declined treatment with depot formulations. Interviews were transcribed, coded, and analysed using NVivo, based on this overall stratification into three participant groups.

RESULTS

The main categories relate to the effects and side effects of the depot formulation, social and practical factors, psychological benefits and disadvantages, and interactions with treatment staff. Social and practical factors were of importance for choosing depot formulations, such as increased freedom and their making it easier to combine treatment with work and family life, as well as psychological advantages including "feeling normal". Initial withdrawal symptoms that resolved themselves after a number of injections were reported by most participants. Reliable information and patient-staff relationships characterized by trust helped patients to cope with these initial problems. Those who discontinued treatment often did so near the beginning of the treatment, reporting withdrawal symptoms and insufficient effects as the main reasons. Coercion and insufficient information contributed to a negative pharmaceutical atmosphere at one of the clinics, which may have adversely influenced perceptions of depot formulations and decreased willingness to accept and continue treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Buprenorphine depot injections may have social, practical, and psychological benefits compared to other formulations. However, depot injections are not perceived as an attractive option by all patients. Trust, consistent and adequate information, and awareness of the implications of the pharmaceutical atmosphere should be considered when introducing new medications.

Perceptions and experiences toward extended-release buprenorphine among persons leaving jail with opioid use disorders before and during COVID-19: an in-depth qualitative study

Background

Extended-release buprenorphine (XRB) offers a novel approach to sustained monthly treatment for people who use opioids in criminal justice settings (CJS). This study explores the experiences of adults receiving XRB as a jail-to-community treatment.

Methods and findings

In-depth qualitative interviews were conducted among adult participants with opioid use disorder (OUD; n  = 16) who were recently released from NYC jails and maintained on XRB after switching from daily sublingual buprenorphine (SLB). Interviews elaborated on the acceptability and barriers and facilitators of XRB treatment pre- and post-release. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed for content related to factors influencing XRB treatment uptake and community reentry. Important themes were grouped into systems, medication, and patient-level factors. Key systems-level factors influencing initiation of XRB in jail included an alternative to perceived stigmatization and privacy concerns associated with daily in-jail SLB administration and less concerns with buprenorphine diversion. In-jail peer networks positively influenced participant adoption of XRB. XRB satisfaction was attributed to reduced in-jail clinic and medication administration visits, perceived efficacy and blockade effects upon the use of heroin/fentanyl following release, and averting the risk of criminal activities to fund opioid use. Barriers to retention included post-injection withdrawal symptoms and cravings attributed to perceived suboptimal medication dosing, injection site pain, and lack of in-jail provider information about the medication.

Conclusion

Participants were generally favorable to XRB initiation in jail and retention post-release. Further studies are needed to address factors influencing access to XRB in criminal justice settings, including stigma, ensuring patient privacy following initiation on XRB, and patient-, provider-, and correctional staff education pertaining to XRB.

Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identified: NCT03604159.

Journey to the Market: The Evolution of Biodegradable Drug Delivery Systems

Biodegradable polymers have been used as carriers in drug delivery systems for more than four decades. Early work used crude natural materials for particle fabrication, whereas more recent work has utilized synthetic polymers. Applications include the macroscale, the microscale, and the nanoscale. Since pioneering work in the 1960’s, an array of products that use biodegradable polymers to encapsulate the desired drug payload have been approved for human use by international regulatory agencies. The commercial success of these products has led to further research in the field aimed at bringing forward new formulation types for improved delivery of various small molecule and biologic drugs. Here, we review recent advances in the development of these materials and we provide insight on their drug delivery application. We also address payload encapsulation and drug release mechanisms from biodegradable formulations and their application in approved therapeutic products.

Injecting Opioid Use Disorder Treatment in Jails and Prisons: The Potential of Extended-release Buprenorphine in the Carceral Setting

ABSTRACT

As the opioid overdose cases rise, policy-makers and researchers should target interventions to populations at highest risk. Incarceration serves as a risk factor for opioid overdose (Gan et al. Addiction 2021) and a large portion of recent overdose deaths have had encounters in the criminal justice system.Medications for opioid use disorder in the criminal justice system can save lives, though unique administrative barriers in jails and prisons hinder access. As facilities expand medications for opioid use disorder access (due to new legislation and court rulings across states), extended-release buprenorphine offers an opportunity to overcome these barriers including logistics of administration, diversion concern, patient stigma, and an increased bridge of treatment during re-entry to the community.As extended-release buprenorphine has practical advantages in correctional health delivery, future research and policy discussions should investigate its optimal role in treating opiate addiction in a carceral setting.

Perception of a New Prolonged-Release Buprenorphine Formulation in Patients with Opioid Use Disorder: The PREDEPO Study

AIM

The aim of the study was to assess the acceptance of patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) to switching their opioid dependence treatment (ODT) for a prolonged-release buprenorphine (PRB) injection according to their prior ODT (buprenorphine/naloxone [B/N] or methadone).

METHODS

This was an observational, retrospective/cross-sectional, multicentre study of adult patients diagnosed with OUD on ODT. Data collected from diaries were analysed to know their interest and opinion on PRB. Questions with fixed response options were included, and several Likert scales were used.

RESULTS

A total of 98 patients were enrolled (B/N: 50.0%, methadone: 50.0%). The mean age was 46.9 ± 8.43 years and 79.6% were males. PRB was similarly perceived by both groups in most variables analysed, receiving a mean score of 7.2/10 (B/N: 7.4, methadone: 7.0; p = 0.520), and approximately 65% of patients said they were willing to switch to PRB (B/N: 63.3%, methadone: 65.3%; p = 0.833). Of these, a higher percentage in the B/N group considered that switching would be easy/very easy (B/N: 90.3%, methadone: 46.9%; p < 0.001) and that they would start PRB when available (B/N: 64.5%, methadone: 34.3%; p = 0.005). More than 90% would prefer the monthly injection (B/N: 93.6%, methadone: 100%; p = 0.514). One-third of patients in both groups were unsure/would not switch their ODT to PRB (B/N: 36.7%, methadone: 34.7%; p = 0.833). The main reason was administration by injection.

CONCLUSION

Two-thirds of patients would switch their treatment for PRB, and most patients on B/N considered that switching would be easy. PRB could be a suitable alternative for OUD management.

Outcomes of a single-arm implementation trial of extended-release subcutaneous buprenorphine depot injections in people with opioid dependence

BACKGROUND

Opioid agonist treatment (OAT) is an effective intervention for opioid dependence. Extended-release buprenorphine injections (BUP-XR) may have additional potential benefits over sublingual buprenorphine. This single-arm trial evaluated outcomes among people receiving 48 weeks of BUP-XR in diverse community healthcare settings in Australia, permitting examination of outcomes when BUP-XR is delivered in standard practice.

METHODS

Participants were recruited from a network of specialist public drug treatment services, primary care and some private practices in three states. Following a minimum 7 days on 8-32 mg of sublingual buprenorphine (±naloxone), participants received monthly subcutaneous BUP-XR injections administered by a healthcare practitioner and completed monthly research interviews. The primary endpoint was retention in treatment at 48 weeks.

FINDINGS

Participants (n = 100) were 28% women, mean age 44 years with a long history of OAT (median 5.8 years); heroin was the most common opioid of concern (58%). Treatment retention at 24 and 48 weeks was 86% and 75%, respectively. Participants with past-month injecting drug use (OR 0.23; 95%CI: 0.09-0.61) or heroin use (OR 0.23; 95%CI: 0.08-0.65) at baseline had lower odds of being retained in treatment to 48 weeks. Reductions in multiple forms of extra-medical drug use were observed. Improvements in quality of life, participation in employment, and treatment satisfaction measures were also observed.

INTERPRETATION

This real-world implementation study of BUP-XR demonstrated high retention and treatment satisfaction. This study provides important additional data on the uptake and experience of clients, with relevance for policy makers, health service planners, administrators, and practitioners.

FUNDING

Indivior.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03809143.

Recent advances in the treatment of opioid use disorders-focus on long-acting buprenorphine formulations

Oral methadone or sublingual buprenorphine are first-line medications for pharmacotherapy of opioid use disorders (OUDs). Three long-acting buprenorphine depot or implant formulations are currently available for the treatment of OUDs: (1) CAM 2038 (Buvidal) for subcutaneous weekly and monthly application; (2) RBP-6000 (Sublocade™) as a monthly depot formulation; and (3) A six-month buprenorphine implant [Probuphine™]. The pharmacology, clinical efficacy and prospects of these medications are discussed.

Determinants of interest in extended-released buprenorphine: A survey among 366 French patients treated with buprenorphine or methadone

AIM

To explore the factors determining the interest in extended-release buprenorphine (XR-BUP) injections among patients receiving opioid agonist treatment (OAT) in France.

METHODS

366 patients receiving OAT for opioid use disorder, recruited in 66 French centers, were interviewed from 12/2018 to 05/2019. A structured questionnaire assessed their interest in XR-BUP using a [1-10] Likert scale. 'More' vs. 'less' interested groups were defined using the median score of interest, and their characteristics were explored using adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95 % confidence interval (95 %CI). Independent variables were as follows: sociodemographic characteristics, OAT-related features (e.g., type of OAT and prescriber, dosing, or duration of treatment), OAT representations, and personal objectives of treatment.

RESULTS

The median interest in XR-BUP was 7 (interquartile range: 3-9) out of 10. The participants who were 'more interested' (i.e. those scoring ≥7) showed no substantial difference in sociodemographic characteristics, relative to the 'less interested' participants. However, they more frequently reported forgetting to take their OAT (OR = 1.81; CI95 % = 1.06-3.10) or reported experiencing situations where taking their OAT was impractical (aOR = 1.69; CI95 % = 1.05-2.73). Their treatment objective was more focused on stopping illicit drugs (aOR = 1.67; 95 %CI = 1.02-2.70), reducing health risks (aOR = 3.57; 95 %CI = 1.67-7.69) and craving (aOR = 2.38; 95 %CI = 1.39-4.02) or improving family (aOR = 1.81; 95 %CI = 1.03-3.13) or professional (aOR = 2.22; 95 %CI = 1.43-3.85) recovery.

CONCLUSIONS

In France, where the access to OAT is relatively unrestricted, the majority of participants were interested in XR-BUP formulations. Being interested was associated with treatment objectives focused on abstinence and recovery, and with experiencing constraints in taking a daily oral OAT.

Economic Evaluation in Opioid Modeling: Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

The rapid increase in opioid overdose and opioid use disorder (OUD) over the past 20 years is a complex problem associated with significant economic costs for healthcare systems and society. Simulation models have been developed to capture and identify ways to manage this complexity and to evaluate the potential costs of different strategies to reduce overdoses and OUD. A review of simulation-based economic evaluations is warranted to fully characterize this set of literature.

METHODS

A systematic review of simulation-based economic evaluation (SBEE) studies in opioid research was initiated by searches in PubMed, EMBASE, and EbscoHOST. Extraction of a predefined set of items and a quality assessment were performed for each study.

RESULTS

The screening process resulted in 23 SBEE studies ranging by year of publication from 1999 to 2019. Methodological quality of the cost analyses was moderately high. The most frequently evaluated strategies were methadone and buprenorphine maintenance treatments; the only harm reduction strategy explored was naloxone distribution. These strategies were consistently found to be cost-effective, especially naloxone distribution and methadone maintenance. Prevention strategies were limited to abuse-deterrent opioid formulations. Less than half (39%) of analyses adopted a societal perspective in their estimation of costs and effects from an opioid-related intervention. Prevention strategies and studies' accounting for patient and physician preference, changing costs, or result stratification were largely ignored in these SBEEs.

CONCLUSION

The review shows consistently favorable cost analysis findings for naloxone distribution strategies and opioid agonist treatments and identifies major gaps for future research.

Factors of Interest in Extended-Release Buprenorphine: Comparisons Between Incarcerated and Non-Incarcerated Patients with Opioid Use Disorder

PURPOSE

Extended-release buprenorphine (XR-BUP) covers a range of formulations of buprenorphine-based treatments for opioid use disorder (OUD) that release the medication over a period of one week, one month, or six months. OUD is particularly prevalent among incarcerated populations, and previous findings have shown that incarcerated subjects were not less interested in XR-BUP than non-incarcerated subjects. However, no study has ever investigated whether the factors of interest in XR-BUP were similar in incarcerated and non-incarcerated populations.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We carried out post-hoc analyses using data from the "AMBRE" survey, which was conducted among 366 individuals with OUD, that were recruited in 68 French addiction settings, including six prison medical centers. The reasons for interest in XR-BUP were compared between incarcerated and non-incarcerated interviewees, using logistic regressions models, which provided raw and adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Adjustment variables were gender, age category, level of education, and type of current medication for OUD, respectively.

RESULTS

Data from 317 participants (ie, 221 non-incarcerated, and 96 incarcerated individuals) were included in the analyses. Adjusted comparisons found that "no longer taking a daily treatment" (aOR= 2.91; 95% CI= 1.21-6.98) and "having a more discreet medication" (aOR= 1.76; 95% CI= 1.01-3.10) were reasons that appealed more to incarcerated participants than to non-incarcerated ones. On the other hand, the potential reduction of withdrawal symptoms (aOR= 0.54; 95% CI= 0.29-0.99) or the risk of misuse (aOR= 0.56; 95% CI= 0.34-0.94) associated with XR-BUP treatment were considered more important by non-incarcerated individuals than by incarcerated ones.

CONCLUSION

Incarcerated interviewees were interested in XR-BUP for different reasons than those outside prison. In particular, incarcerated patients were more interested in practicability and discretion features, and less in improving recovery or reducing misuse than non-incarcerated patients.

COVID-19 and the health of people who use drugs: What is and what could be?

SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, has changed the world as we know it, and continues to do so. How COVID-19 affects people who use drugs, the environments in which they live, and capacities of response, warrants immediate attention. This special issue begins to map how COVID-19 is altering the health of people who use drugs, including in relation to patterns of drug use, service responses, harms that may relate to drug use, interventions to reduce risk of harms, COVID-19 health, and drug policies. We emphasise the need to envisage COVID-19 and its effects as a matter of intersecting ‘complex adaptive systems’: that is, the impacts of COVID-19 extend beyond the virus and related illness conditions to encompass multiple social, cultural, economic, policy and political effects; and these affect the health of people who use drugs directly as well as indirectly by altering the risk and enabling environments in which they live. We synthesize emergent evidence on the impact of COVID-19 on the health of people who use drugs. A key concern we identify is how to sustain policy and service delivery improvements prompted by COVID-19. We need to maintain an ethos of emergent adaptation and experimentation towards the creation of safer environments in relation to the health of people who use drugs.

Novel Long-Acting Buprenorphine Medications for Opioid Dependence: Current Update

Opioid maintenance treatment with oral methadone or sublingual buprenorphine is the first-line treatment in opioid dependence. Three novel long-acting buprenorphine formulations have been approved or will be available soon: for subcutaneous weekly and monthly application, the depot formulations CAM 2038 (Buvidal^®), the monthly depot formulation RBP-6000 (Sublocade™), and a 6-month buprenorphine implant (Probuphine™). Clinical data available so far on the efficacy of these 3 medications are given, and possible clinical implications are discussed.

Patient-Reported Outcomes, Experiences and Satisfaction with Weekly and Monthly Injectable Prolonged-Release Buprenorphine

Introduction

Prolonged-release buprenorphine (PRB), administered by weekly or monthly injection, for opioid dependence (OD) treatment offers the potential to address some limitations of oral therapy including stigma, difficulty in achieving consistent appropriate dosing, risk of diversion of medications, risk of overdose, and continuing use of other drugs. Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) and experiences are important in the evaluation of OD therapy success. This work aimed to document PRO during PRB therapy to guide future treatment decision-making.

Methods

Qualitative interviews were completed with people on PRB OD treatment. Twenty individuals from four treatment services in England and Wales were asked to participate. A structured interview was developed guided by a person with OD lived experience. Interviews were transcribed, coded and analyzed using iterative categorization.

Results

Fifteen of 20 individuals approached agreed to participate, and 14 completed interviews. The average age of participants was 42 (range 33–54) years, 13 males and 1 woman, the history of problematic opioid use was 14 years (3–25 years), time in treatment was 7 years (1–20 years), and duration on treatment with PRB was 4 months (range 1–8 months). Participants reported treatment experiences leading to coding of 277 unique comments: therapy effectiveness (77% indicated a benefit of, or satisfaction with, PRB therapy, 7% neutral/general, 16% indicated concern or questions about PRB therapy), convenience (81% benefit, 7% neutral/general, 12% concern), and overall satisfaction (81% benefit, 3% neutral/general, 16% concern). Reported benefits include cravings reduction of 10 (71%), self-care improvement of 10 (71%), relationships improvement of 9 (64%), resources management of 6 (43%), positive outlook on life of 12 (86%). Participants reported a range of positive personal experiences; challenges reported included temporary injection discomfort at treatment initiation.

Discussion

In this small, focused population, there was generally a positive level of treatment satisfaction with PRB. These experiences provide insights to explain potential treatment benefit to others and are useful in guiding therapy choices for others in the future.

Motivations to initiate injectable hydromorphone and diacetylmorphine treatment: A qualitative study of patient experiences in Vancouver, Canada

BACKGROUND

Within the context of the ongoing overdose crisis and limitations of conventional opioid treatments, the scale-up of injectable hydromorphone (HDM) and diacetylmorphine (DAM) as evidenced-based treatments is currently underway in some settings in Canada. Past research has underscored the importance of treatment initiation in shaping onward treatment trajectories, however structural factors that influence participants' motivations to access injectable HDM or DAM have not been fully characterized. This study examines peoples' motivations for accessing HDM/DAM treatment and situates these within the social and structural context that shapes treatment delivery by employing the concept of structural vulnerability.

METHODS

Fifty-two individuals enrolled in injectable HDM/DAM programs were recruited from four community-based clinical programs in Vancouver, Canada to participate in qualitative semi-structured interviews. Approximately 50 h of ethnographic fieldwork was also completed in one clinical setting, and one-on-one with participants public spaces. Interview transcripts and ethnographic fieldnotes were analyzed through a structural vulnerability lens with a focus on treatment initiation.

RESULTS

Participants' previous experiences and perceptions of other drug treatments (e.g. methadone) foregrounded their initiation of injectable HDM/DAM. Social and structural factors (e.g. fentanyl-adulterated drug supply, poverty, drug criminalization) influenced participants' motivations to address immediate physical risks and their initial perception of this treatment's ability to align with their opioid use experiences. Similar social and structural factors that drive immediate physical risks, were also evidenced in participants' motivations to make changes in their daily lives and to address broader opioid use goals.

CONCLUSION

Participants descriptions of their motivations to initiate HDM/DAM highlight how structural vulnerabilities shaped participants' experiences initiating injectable HDM/DAM.

Revising our attitudes towards agonist medications and their diversion in a time of pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic led government regulators to relax prescribing rules for buprenorphine and methadone, the agonist medications that effectively treat opioid use disorder, allowing for take home supplies of up to 28 days. These changes prioritized the availability of these medications over concerns about their misuse and diversion, and they provided a means for overdose prophylaxis during the highly uncertain conditions of the pandemic. In considering how to capitalize on this shift, research should determine the extent to which increased diversion has occurred as a result, and what the consequences may have been. The shifts also set the stage to consider if methadone can be safely prescribed in primary care settings, and if the monthly injectable formulation of buprenorphine is a suitable alternative to increased supplies of sublingual strips if concerns about diversion persist. The disruptions of the pandemic have caused a surge in overdose deaths, so carefully considering the prophylactic potential of agonist medications, in addition to their role as a treatment, may help us address this mortality crisis.

•

COVID-19 resulted in the significant relaxation of critical MOUD prescribing rules.

•

Retention in treatment was prioritized over preventing MOUD misuse and diversion.

•

Diverted and prescribed agonist MOUDs may both serve as a means of overdose prophylaxis during the pandemic.

•

These prescribing changes offer an opportunity to reconsider our attitudes towards agonist medications and their diversion.

Depot Buprenorphine Injection In The Management Of Opioid Use Disorder: From Development To Implementation

Buprenorphine has pharmacologic advantages over methadone, especially buprenorphine's better safety profile. The true significance of buprenorphine's introduction lies in returning the care of those suffering from opioid use disorder (OUD) to the hands of the physician. The clinical success of buprenorphine has been meager, in part because most physicians have not been exposed to treating these patients. For physicians inclined to treat OUD, the barriers to buprenorphine's implementation have been onerous and largely counter to the norms of medical practice. Some notable concerns pertain to buprenorphine's clinical pharmacology like street diversion, unintended use and accidental poisoning. Recently, injectable buprenorphine preparations have been introduced to mitigate these latter shortcomings. Yet, the injectable preparations' clinical and commercial success has fallen far short of expectation. Here, we review the clinical pharmacology of these products and their expected clinical advantages for the manufacturers, clinicians, policy makers and patients, and offer our perspective, as clinicians and researchers, on how things can improve. Questions remain whether clinicians are willing to overcome barriers to treat OUD using these medications.

The nexus of opioids, pain, and addiction: Challenges and solutions

Pain and addiction are complex disorders with many commonalities. Beneficial outcomes for both disorders can be achieved through similar principles such as individualized medication selection and dosing, comprehensive multi-modal therapies, and judicious modification of treatment as indicated by the patient's status. This is implicit in the term "medication assisted treatment" (MAT) for opioid use disorders (OUD), and is equally important in pain management; however, for many OUD and pain patients, medication is central to the treatment plan and should neither be denied nor withdrawn if critical to patient well-being. Most patients prescribed opioids for pain do not develop OUD, and most people with OUD do not develop it as a result of appropriately prescribed opioids. Nonetheless, concerns about undertreatment of pain in the late 20th century likely contributed to inappropriate prescribing of opioids. This, coupled with a shortfall in OUD treatment capacity and the unfettered flood of inexpensive heroin and fentanyl, behavioral economics and other factors facilitated the 21st century opioid epidemic. Presently, injudicious reductions in opioid prescriptions for pain are contributing to increased suffering and suicides by pain patients as well as worsening disparities in pain management for ethnic minority and low-income people. Many of these people are turning to illicit opioids, and no evidence shows that the reduction in opioid prescriptions is reducing OUD or overdose deaths. Comprehensive, science-based policies that increase access to addiction treatment for all in need and better serve people with pain are vital to addressing both pain and addiction.