Drug test results as a predictor of retention among patients using buprenorphine in a comprehensive outpatient treatment program

Quantifying diagnosis and treatment practices of opioid use disorder in primary care practices using chart review data

BACKGROUND

Opioid misuse is a significant public health crisis. The aim sought to identify potential gaps in opioid care in primary care practices.

METHODS

American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) offered a monthly online educational series to seven U.S. practices. Practices were asked to complete up to 50 chart reviews for visits during two periods: February-April, 2019, and February-April, 2022. Each chart had to have an ICD-10 diagnosis of opioid misuse, opioid dependence, or opioid use. Chart reviews consisted of 14 questions derived from an American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry (AAAP) Performance in Practice activity, and then, scored based on practices' responses. Descriptive statistics and binary logistic and multinomial regressions were used.

RESULTS

Both periods had 173 chart reviews (total: 346) from the six practices. Most chart reviews were for patients with a diagnosis of opioid dependence (2019: 90.2%; 2022: 83.2%). Three questions for assessing OUD treatment behaviors had high levels of documentation across both time periods (>85%): other drug use, treatment readiness, and treatment discussion.

DISCUSSION

Results show a gap in the treatment of patients with OUD in primary care across several clinical practice recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

Expanding OUD treatment integration to primary care remains the most promising effort to combat the opioid crisis.

Patient Perceptions of Integrating Meditation-based Interventions in Office-based Opioid Treatment with Buprenorphine: A Mixed-methods Survey

INTRODUCTION

Recent findings support the provision of meditation-based interventions (MBIs) in primary care. However, the acceptability of MBI among patients prescribed medications for opioid use disorder (eg, buprenorphine) in primary care remains unclear. This study assessed experiences and preferences for adopting MBI among patients prescribed buprenorphine in office-based opioid treatment (OBOT).

METHODS

This 23-item, semistructured cross-sectional survey was administered by study staff to patients enrolled in OBOT (N = 72) and consisted of demographic and clinical characteristics, perceptions, experiences with MBI, and preferred strategies to access MBI to support their treatment on buprenorphine.

RESULTS

Most participants reported practicing at least 1 category of MBI (90.3%) on at least a daily (39.6%) or weekly (41.7%) basis including (1) spiritual meditation (eg, centering prayer; 67.7%); (2) nonmantra meditation (eg, comfortable posture; 61.3%); (3) mindfulness meditation (eg, mindfulness-based stress reduction; 54.8%); and (4) mantra meditation (eg, transcendental meditation; 29.0%). Interest in MBI was motivated by improving one's general health and well-being (73.4%), treatment outcomes with medications for OUD (eg, buprenorphine; 60.9%), and relationships with others (60.9%). Perceived clinical benefits of MBI included reduced anxiety or depression symptoms (70.3%), pain (62.5%), illicit substance or alcohol use (60.9%), cravings for illicit substances (57.8%), and opioid-related withdrawal symptoms (51.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Findings from this study indicate high acceptability for adopting MBI among patients prescribed buprenorphine in OBOT. Further research is needed to assess the efficacy of MBI to improve clinical outcomes among patients initiating buprenorphine in OBOT.

Experiences and Preferences of Opioid-Use-Disorder Patients Who Switched from Brand to Generic Buprenorphine/Naloxone Films: A Case Series

PURPOSE

Differences in the suppression of withdrawal symptoms have been observed in opioid-use-disorder (OUD) patients who were switched from Suboxone (the brand name of buprenorphine/naloxone sublingual films) to either 1 of 2 generic versions. These descriptive observations evidence the need to further assess the use of these generics and its impact on the adherence to and outcomes of OUD treatments. The objective of this case series was to describe patient and provider experiences, perceptions, and preferences when said patients were abruptly switched from Suboxone to one of the generic versions manufactured by Sandoz or Alvogen.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective chart review of 24 Suboxone-maintained OUD patients from a single clinic who were forced to switch to a generic was performed to collect withdrawal and craving symptoms that occurred after the switch, as well as toxicology results and changes in dose (documented by the provider).

RESULTS

The medical records of 9 (37.5%) of the 24 patients showed that they were suffering from withdrawal symptoms and/or cravings, had had their doses adjusted, and/or had had a positive urine toxicology screen. All 9 subjects communicated a preference for the brand formulation over that of either of the generic versions; few expressed a preference for one generic formulation over the other. None of patients were able to switch back to the brand formulation, nor were any of them able to choose the generic that worked best for them. Insomnia, muscle pain, and gooseflesh skin were the most common withdrawal symptoms reported by the patients using the generics. Better outcomes were observed in patients who received a buprenorphine dose increase (2 mg) to suppress the withdrawal symptoms experienced while using the generics.

CONCLUSION

Our study serves as a reference to prescribers regarding approaches (eg, a small dose adjustment) that may potentially encourage OUD treatment adherence and even improve outcomes in patients who appear to be decompensating after the brand-to-generic switch.

Very early disengagement and subsequent re-engagement in primary care Office Based Opioid Treatment (OBOT) with buprenorphine

INTRODUCTION

Patients with opioid use disorder often require multiple treatment attempts before achieving stable recovery. Rates of disengagement from buprenorphine are highest in the first month of treatment and termination of buprenorphine therapy results in return to use rates as high as 90%. To better characterize these at-risk patients, this study aims to describe: 1) the frequency and characteristics of patients with very early disengagement (≤1month) from Office Based Opioid Treatment (OBOT) with buprenorphine and 2) the frequency and characteristics of patients who re-engage in care at this same OBOT clinic within 2years, among the subset of very early disengagers.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study of adult patients enrolled in a large urban OBOT program. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the sample and the proportion of patients with very early (≤1month) disengagement and their re-engagement. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify patient characteristics associated with the outcomes of very early disengagement and re-engagement. Potential predictors included: sex, age, race/ethnicity, education, employment, opioid use history, prior substance use treatments, urine drug testing, and psychiatric diagnoses.

RESULTS

Overall, very early disengagement was unusual, with only 8.4% (104/1234) of patients disengaging within the first month. Among the subset of very early disengagers with 2years of follow-up, the proportion who re-engaged with this OBOT program in the subsequent 2years was 11.9% (10/84). Urine drug test positive for opiates within the first month (AOR: 2.01, 95% CI: 1.02-3.93) was associated with increased odds of very early disengagement. Transferring from another buprenorphine prescriber (AOR: 0.09, 95% CI: 0.01-0.70) was associated with decreased odds of very early disengagement. No characteristics were significantly associated with re-engagement.

CONCLUSIONS

Early disengagement is uncommon; however, continued opioid use appeared to be associated with higher odds of treatment disengagement and these patients may warrant additional support. Re-engagement was uncommon, suggesting the need for a more formal explicit system to encourage and facilitate re-engagement among patients who disengage.

Cost-effectiveness of subdermal implantable buprenorphine versus sublingual buprenorphine to treat opioid use disorder

AIMS

Subdermal implantable buprenorphine (BSI) was recently approved to treat opioid use disorder (OUD) in clinically-stable adults. In the pivotal clinical trial, BSI was associated with a higher proportion of completely-abstinent patients (85.7% vs 71.9%; p = .03) vs sublingual buprenorphine (SL-BPN). Elsewhere, relapse to illicit drug use is associated with diminished treatment outcomes and increased costs. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of BSI vs SL-BPN from a US societal perspective.

METHODS

A Markov model simulated BSI and SL-BPN cohorts (clinically-stable adults) transiting through four mutually-exclusive health states for 12 months. Cohorts accumulated direct medical costs from drug acquisition/administration; treatment-diversion/abuse; newly-acquired hepatitis-C; emergency room, hospital, and rehabilitation services; and pediatric poisonings. Non-medical costs of criminality, lost wages/work-productivity, and out-of-pocket expenses were also included. Transition probabilities to a relapsed state were derived from the aforementioned trial. Other transition probabilities, costs, and health-state utilities were derived from observational studies and adjusted for trial characteristics. Outcomes included incremental cost per quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY) gained and incremental net-monetary-benefit (INMB). Uncertainty was assessed by univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA).

RESULTS

BSI was associated with lower total costs (-$4,386), more QALYs (+0.031), and favorable INMB at all willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds considered. Higher drug acquisition costs for BSI (+$6,492) were outpaced, primarily by reductions in emergency room/hospital utilization (-$8,040) and criminality (-$1,212). BSI was cost-effective in 89% of PSA model replicates, and had a significantly higher NMB at $50,000/QALY ($20,783 vs $15,007; p < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

BSI was preferred over SL-BPN from a health-economic perspective for treatment of OUD in clinically-stable adults. These findings should be interpreted carefully, due to some relationships having been modeled from inputs derived from multiple sources, and would benefit from comparison with outcomes from studies that employ administrative claims data or a naturalistic comparative design.