Overcoming policy and financing barriers to integrated buprenorphine and HIV primary care

Perspectives on the HIV continuum of care among adult opioid users in New York City: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Engagement in the HIV care continuum combined with office-based opioid treatment remains a cornerstone in addressing the intertwined epidemics of opioid use disorder (OUD) and HIV/AIDS. Factors influencing patient engagement with OUD and HIV care are complex and require further study.

METHODS

In this qualitative study, in-depth interviews were conducted among 23 adult patients who use drugs (PWUD) in an inpatient detoxification program in New York City. The semi-structured interview guide elicited participant experiences with various phases of the HIV care continuum, including factors influencing access to HIV care, interactions with HIV and primary care providers, preferences around integrated care approaches for OUD and HIV, and barriers experienced beyond clinical settings which affected access to HIV care (e.g., insurance issues, transportation, cost, retrieving prescriptions from their pharmacy). Data collection and thematic analysis took place concurrently using an iterative process-based established qualitative research method.

RESULTS

Respondents elicited high acceptability for integrated or co-located care for HIV and OUD in primary care. Factors influencing engagement in HIV care included (1) access to rapid point-of-care HIV testing and counseling services, (2) insurance coverage and costs related to HIV testing and receipt of antiretroviral therapy (ART), (3) primary care providers offering HIV care and buprenorphine, (4) illicit ART sales to pharmacies, (5) disruption in supplies of ART following admissions to inpatient detoxification or residential treatment programs, (6) in-person and telephone contact with peer support networks and clinic staff, (7) stigma, and (8) access to administrative support in primary care to facilitate reengagement with care following relapse, behavioral health services, transportation vouchers, and relocation from subsidized housing exposing patients to actively using peers.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest expanding clinical and administrative support in primary care for PWUDs with patient navigators, case managers, mobile health interventions, and peer support networks to promote linkage and retention in care.

A window of opportunity: maximizing the effectiveness of new HCV regimens in the United States with the expansion of the Affordable Care Act

Patients with chronic HCV have predictable overlapping comorbidities that reduce access to care. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) presents an opportunity to focus on the benefits of the medical home model for integrated chronic disease management. New, highly effective HCV treatment regimens in combination with the medical home model could reduce disease prevalence. We sought to address challenges posed by comorbidities in patients with chronic HCV infection and limitations within our health care system, and recommend solutions to maximize the public benefit from ACA and the new drug regimen.

Barriers to primary care physicians prescribing buprenorphine

PURPOSE

Despite the efficacy of buprenorphine-naloxone for the treatment of opioid use disorders, few physicians in Washington State use this clinical tool. To address the acute need for this service, a Rural Opioid Addiction Management Project trained 120 Washington physicians in 2010-2011 to use buprenorphine. We conducted this study to determine what proportion of those trained physicians began prescribing this treatment and identify barriers to incorporating this approach into outpatient practice.

METHODS

We interviewed 92 of 120 physicians (77%), obtaining demographic information, current prescribing status, clinic characteristics, and barriers to prescribing buprenorphine. Residents and 7 physicians who were prescribing buprenorphine at the time of the course were excluded from the study. We analyzed the responses of the 78 remaining respondents.

RESULTS

Almost all respondents reported positive attitudes toward buprenorphine, but only 22 (28%) reported prescribing buprenorphine. Most (95%, n = 21) new prescribers were family physicians. Physicians who prescribed buprenorphine were more likely to have partners who had received a waiver to prescribe buprenorphine. A lack of institutional support was associated with not prescribing the medication (P = .04). A lack of mental health and psychosocial support was the most frequently cited barrier by both those who prescribe and who do not prescribe buprenorphine.

CONCLUSION

Interventions before and after training are needed to increase the number of physicians who offer buprenorphine for treatment of addiction. Targeting physicians in clinics that agree in advance to institute services, coupled with technical assistance after they have completed their training, their clinical teams, and their administrations is likely to help more physicians become active providers of this highly effective outpatient treatment.

Cost-effectiveness of long-term outpatient buprenorphine-naloxone treatment for opioid dependence in primary care

BACKGROUND

Primary care physicians with appropriate training may prescribe buprenorphine-naloxone (bup/nx) to treat opioid dependence in US office-based settings, where many patients prefer to be treated. Bup/nx is off patent but not available as a generic.

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of long-term office-based bup/nx treatment for clinically stable opioid-dependent patients compared to no treatment.

DESIGN, SUBJECTS, AND INTERVENTION

A decision analytic model simulated a hypothetical cohort of clinically stable opioid-dependent individuals who have already completed 6 months of office-based bup/nx treatment. Data were from a published cohort study that collected treatment retention, opioid use, and costs for this population, and published quality-of-life weights. Uncertainties in estimated monthly costs and quality-of-life weights were evaluated in probabilistic sensitivity analyses, and the economic value of additional research to reduce these uncertainties was also evaluated.

MAIN MEASURES

Bup/nx, provider, and patient costs in 2010 US dollars, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness (CE) ratios ($/QALY); costs and QALYs are discounted at 3% annually.

KEY RESULTS

In the base case, office-based bup/nx for clinically stable patients has a CE ratio of $35,100/QALY compared to no treatment after 24 months, with 64% probability of being < $100,000/QALY in probabilistic sensitivity analysis. With a 50% bup/nx price reduction the CE ratio is $23,000/QALY with 69% probability of being < $100,000/QALY. Alternative quality-of-life weights result in CE ratios of $138,000/QALY and $90,600/QALY. The value of research to reduce quality-of-life uncertainties for 24-month results is $6,400 per person eligible for treatment at the current bup/nx price and $5,100 per person with a 50% bup/nx price reduction.

CONCLUSIONS

Office-based bup/nx for clinically stable patients may be a cost-effective alternative to no treatment at a threshold of $100,000/QALY depending on assumptions about quality-of-life weights. Additional research about quality-of-life benefits and broader health system and societal cost savings of bup/nx therapy is needed.

The urgency of providing comprehensive and integrated treatment for substance abusers with HIV

Substance abuse is linked to many new cases of HIV infection. Barriers such as the myth that drug users cannot adhere to HIV/AIDS treatment block progress in curbing the spread of HIV in that population. In this article we explain the need to aggressively seek out high-risk, hard-to-reach substance abusers and to offer them HIV testing, access to treatment, and the necessary support to remain in treatment--both for HIV and for substance abuse. We summarize evidence showing that injection drug users can successfully undergo HIV treatment; that many substance abusers adhere to antiretroviral therapy as well as do people who don't inject drugs; and that injection drug users who undergo substance abuse treatment are more likely to obtain and stay in treatment for their HIV infection. This evidence makes a strong case for integrating substance abuse treatment with HIV treatment programs and providing substance abusers with universal access to HIV treatment. But an integrated strategy will require changes in the health care system to overcome lingering obstacles that inhibit the merging of substance abuse treatment with HIV programs.

Improving public health through access to and utilization of medication assisted treatment

Providing access to and utilization of medication assisted treatment (MAT) for the treatment of opioid abuse and dependence provides an important opportunity to improve public health. Access to health services comprising MAT in the community is fundamental to achieve broad service coverage. The type and placement of the health services comprising MAT and integration with primary medical care including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention, care and treatment services are optimal for addressing both substance abuse and co-occurring infectious diseases. As an HIV prevention intervention, integrated (same medical record for HIV services and MAT services) MAT with HIV prevention, care and treatment programs provides the best "one stop shopping" approach for health service utilization. Alternatively, MAT, medical and HIV services can be separately managed but co-located to allow convenient utilization of primary care, MAT and HIV services. A third approach is coordinated care and treatment, where primary care, MAT and HIV services are provided at distinct locations and case managers, peer facilitators, or others promote direct service utilization at the various locations. Developing a continuum of care for patients with opioid dependence throughout the stages MAT enhances the public health and Recovery from opioid dependence. As a stigmatized and medical disenfranchised population with multiple medical, psychological and social needs, people who inject drugs and are opioid dependent have difficulty accessing services and navigating medical systems of coordinated care. MAT programs that offer comprehensive services and medical care options can best contribute to improving the health of these individuals thereby enhancing the health of the community.

The cost of integrated HIV care and buprenorphine/naloxone treatment: results of a cross-site evaluation

BACKGROUND

Implementing integrated HIV and buprenorphine/naloxone treatment requires cost estimates to plan and obtain funding.

METHODS

We identified costs incurred at HIV clinical sites participating in a cross-site evaluation of integrated care that followed patients for 1 year. Costs include labor, overhead, and urine toxicology analyses (clinic perspective), buprenorphine/naloxone (payer perspective) and patient time and transportation (patient perspective). Sites provided resource utilization quarterly, and providers estimated time required for each activity. With site as the unit of analysis, results are reported as median (range) of average site costs in 2008 US dollars.

RESULTS

The median number of monthly provider encounters for integrated care patients was 3.2 (1.5-13.3) compared with 1.7 (1.1-4.2) for similar patients not in integrated care, but integrated care patients had fewer physician encounters. Median monthly clinic costs per integrated care patient were $136 ($67-$677) for labor and overhead and $8 ($2-$23) for toxicology analyses, $22 higher than clinic costs for patients not in integrated care. Median monthly costs for buprenorphine/naloxone were $209 ($165-$272), and monthly patient costs in integrated care were $11 ($1-$54) higher.

CONCLUSIONS

Integrated HIV and buprenorphine/naloxone treatment requires different resources, including costs that are not third-party reimbursed. Implementing integrated care will require funding for training and for new staff such as buprenorphine coordinators, in addition to reimbursement for buprenorphine/naloxone. Further research is needed to identify potential cost offsets outside of the clinic setting.

Drug treatment as HIV prevention: expanding treatment options

Research conducted during the first 20 years of the AIDS epidemic provided a solid foundation of data supporting methadone treatment as HIV prevention. Drug users in methadone treatment were consistently found to reduce the frequency of drug use, risk behaviors, and infections. These data have been consistent over time and across cultural settings and have been used to promote the expansion of drug treatment as a prevention intervention. More recently, data have emerged suggesting the prevention potential of medication-assisted treatments other than methadone (buprenorphine/naloxone and naltrexone). Still, with a few notable exceptions, global drug treatment coverage for opiate injectors remains remarkably low and only a few treatment interventions for stimulant use have shown efficacy in reducing HIV risk. Importantly, more recent data provide support for the role of drug treatment programs in improving access and adherence to antiretroviral treatment and that injection drug users in substance abuse treatment are more likely to achieve sustained viral suppression. While important challenges remain in maximizing its impact, the scientific literature provides strong evidence of the efficacy of drug treatment as an HIV prevention strategy.

Implementation science for the prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS

Implementation science is the scientific study of methods to promote the integration of research findings and evidence-based interventions into health care policy and practice and hence to improve the quality and effectiveness of health services and care. Implementation science is distinguished from monitoring and evaluation by its emphasis on the use of the scientific method. The origins of implementation science include operations research, industrial engineering, and management science. Today, implementation science encompasses a broader range of methods and skills including decision science and operations research, health systems research, health outcomes research, health and behavioral economics, epidemiology, statistics, organization and management science, finance, policy analysis, anthropology, sociology, and ethics. Examples of implementation science research are presented for HIV prevention (prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV, male circumcision) and HIV and drug use (syringe distribution, treating drug users with antiretroviral therapy and opioid substitution therapy). For implementation science to become an established field in HIV/AIDS research, there needs to be better coordination between funders of research and funders of program delivery and greater consensus on scientific research approaches and standards of evidence.

Drug treatment as HIV prevention: a research update

Drug use continues to be a major factor fueling the global epidemic of HIV infection. This article reviews the current literature on the ability of drug treatment programs to reduce HIV transmission among injection and noninjection drug users. Most data come from research on the treatment of opiate dependence and provide strong evidence on the effectiveness of medication-assisted treatment for reducing the frequency of drug use, risk behaviors, and HIV infections. This has been a consistent finding since the epidemic began among diverse populations and cultural settings. Use of medications other than methadone (such as buprenorphine/naloxone and naltrexone) has increased in recent years with promising data on their effectiveness as HIV prevention and as new treatment options for communities heavily affected by opiate use and HIV infection. However, few treatment interventions for stimulant abuse and dependence have shown efficacy in reducing HIV risk. The cumulative literature provides strong support of drug treatment programs for improving access and adherence to antiretroviral treatment. Drug users in substance abuse treatment are significantly more likely to achieve sustained viral suppression, making viral transmission less likely. Although there are challenges to implementing drug treatment programs for maximum impact, the scientific literature leaves no doubt about the effectiveness of drug treatment as an HIV prevention strategy.

Cost analysis of clinic and office-based treatment of opioid dependence: results with methadone and buprenorphine in clinically stable patients

The cost of providing and receiving treatment for opioid dependence can determine its adoption. To compare the cost of clinic-based methadone (MC, n=23), office-based methadone (MO, n=21), and office-based buprenorphine (BO, n=34) we performed an analysis of treatment and patient costs over 6 months of maintenance in patients who had previously been stabilized for at least 1 year. We performed statistical comparisons using ANOVA and chi-square tests and performed a sensitivity analysis varying cost estimates and intensity of clinical contact. The cost of providing 1 month of treatment per patient was $147 (MC), $220 (MO) and $336 (BO) (p<0.001). Mean monthly medication cost was $93 (MC), $86 (MO) and $257 (BO) (p<0.001). The cost to patients was $92 (MC), $63 (MO) and $38 (BO) (p=0.102). Sensitivity analyses, varying cost estimates and clinical contact, result in total monthly costs of $117 to $183 (MC), $149 to $279 (MO), $292 to $499 (BO). Monthly patient costs were $84 to $133 (MC), $55 to $105 (MO) and $34 to $65 (BO). We conclude that providing clinic-based methadone is least expensive. The price of buprenorphine accounts for a major portion of the difference in costs. For patients, office-based treatment may be less expensive.

Life Sciences and the web: a new era for collaboration

The World Wide Web has revolutionized how researchers from various disciplines collaborate over long distances. This is nowhere more important than in the Life Sciences, where interdisciplinary approaches are becoming increasingly powerful as a driver of both integration and discovery. Data access, data quality, identity, and provenance are all critical ingredients to facilitate and accelerate these collaborative enterprises and it is here where Semantic Web technologies promise to have a profound impact. This paper reviews the need for, and explores advantages of as well as challenges with these novel Internet information tools as illustrated with examples from the biomedical community.

Hepatitis infection in the treatment of opioid dependence and abuse

Many new and existing cases of viral hepatitis infections are related to injection drug use. Transmission of these infections can result directly from the use of injection equipment that is contaminated with blood containing the hepatitis B or C virus or through sexual contact with an infected individual. In the latter case, drug use can indirectly contribute to hepatitis transmission through the dis-inhibited at-risk behavior, that is, unprotected sex with an infected partner. Individuals who inject drugs are at-risk for infection from different hepatitis viruses, hepatitis A, B, or C. Those with chronic hepatitis B virus infection also face additional risk should they become co-infected with hepatitis D virus. Protection from the transmission of hepatitis viruses A and B is best achieved by vaccination. For those with a history of or who currently inject drugs, the medical management of viral hepatitis infection comprising screening, testing, counseling and providing care and treatment is evolving. Components of the medical management of hepatitis infection, for persons considering, initiating, or receiving pharmacologic therapy for opioid addiction include: testing for hepatitis B and C infections; education and counseling regarding at-risk behavior and hepatitis transmission, acute and chronic hepatitis infection, liver disease and its care and treatment; vaccination against hepatitis A and B infection; and integrative primary care as part of the comprehensive treatment approach for recovery from opioid abuse and dependence. In addition, participation in a peer support group as part of integrated medical care enhances treatment outcomes. Liver disease is highly prevalent in patient populations seeking recovery from opioid addiction or who are currently receiving pharmacotherapy for opioid addiction. Pharmacotherapy for opioid addiction is not a contraindication to evaluation, care, or treatment of liver disease due to hepatitis virus infection. Successful pharmacotherapy for opioid addiction stabilizes patients and improves patient compliance to care and treatment regimens as well as promotes good patient outcomes. Implementation and integration of effective hepatitis prevention programs, care programs, and treatment regimens in concert with the pharmacological therapy of opioid addiction can reduce the public health burdens of hepatitis and injection drug use.

Buprenorphine and HIV Primary Care: New Opportunities for Integrated Treatment

Drug abuse and infection with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) are associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality, but, because of medical, social, and legal factors, opiate addiction/dependence is a major obstacle to successful treatment of disease--for example, treatment of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) with highly active antiretroviral therapy. In an effort to improve the opportunity for treatment of drug abuse and HIV infection, the Forum for Collaborative HIV Research, in collaboration with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and other agencies, presented a workshop entitled "Buprenorphine in the Primary HIV Care Setting." Participants reviewed and discussed current issues, such as the introduction of and sources for the provision of buprenorphine in HIV primary care settings and strategies for integrating treatment of HIV-infected drug abusers, all of which are covered in this supplement.