Coverage of Medications That Treat Opioid Use Disorder and Opioids for Pain Management in Marketplace Plans, 2017

Buprenorphine for Chronic Pain Management: a Narrative Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim of this review is to educate healthcare professionals regarding buprenorphine for the use of opioid use disorder (OUD) as well as for chronic pain management. This review provides physicians and practitioners with updated information regarding the distinct characteristics and intricacies of prescribing buprenorphine.

RECENT FINDINGS

Buprenorphine is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for acute pain, chronic pain, opioid use disorder (OUD), and opioid dependence. When compared to most other opioids, buprenorphine offers superior patient tolerability, an excellent half-life, and minimal respiratory depression. Buprenorphine does have notable side effects as well as pharmacokinetic properties that require special attention, especially if patients require future surgical interventions. Many physicians are not trained to initiate or manage patients on buprenorphine. However, buprenorphine offers a potentially safer alternative for medication management for patients who require chronic opioid therapy for pain or have OUD. This review provides updated information on buprenorphine for both chronic pain and OUD.

Association of MOUD ECHO Participation on Expansion of Buprenorphine Prescribing in Rural Primary Care

BACKGROUND

Lack of access to buprenorphine to treat Opioid Use Disorder is profound in rural areas where over half of small and remote rural counties have no buprenorphine prescriber. To increase prescribing, an online, Medication of Opioid Use Disorder (MOUD) Extensions for Community Healthcare Outcomes (ECHO) was developed that addressed known barriers to the startup and expansion of treatment. The objective of the present study was to determine the relationship between participating in MOUD ECHO sessions and prescribing of buprenorphine for OUD in rural primary care.

METHODS

Using non-random, rolling-recruitment from Feb 2018 to October of 2021, all rural primary care clinics in New Mexico were contacted via phone call and fax to recruit providers (Physicians, Nurse Practitioners, and Physician Assistants) who had no or limited buprenorphine experience to enroll in this study. Participation in the MOUD ECHO was tracked across the 12 week series. Start-up and expansion of buprenorphine treatment was measured every 3 months for up to 2 years using 5 implementation benchmarks spanning training completion, obtaining licensure, prescribing and adding patients. Using a dose-response intention to treat type analysis, associations between number of sessions and benchmark achievement were analyzed using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Eighty providers were enrolled, mostly female (66%) white (82%), non-Hispanic (82%), and mostly nurse practitioners (51%) or MDs (38%). Achievement of prescribing benchmarks at 6 months was significantly increased by attendance at MOUD ECHO sessions including obtaining training and licensure Odds Ratio (OR = 1.24; P = .001); starting to prescribe (OR = 1.31; P = .004), and adding patients (OR = 1.14; P = .025).

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides compelling evidence that MOUD ECHO participation may significantly increase the number of providers implementing this treatment and adding patients onto their panels. The dose-response approach helps address current gaps in ECHO research that call for more rigorous examination of the ECHO model's impact on provider practice improvements.

Non-overdose acute care hospitalizations for opioid use disorder among commercially-insured adults: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Acute care inpatient admissions outside of psychiatric facilities have been increasingly identified as a critical touchpoint for opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment. We sought to describe non-opioid overdose hospitalizations with documented OUD and examine receipt of post-discharge outpatient buprenorphine.

METHODS

We examined acute care hospitalizations with an OUD diagnosis in any position within US commercially-insured adults age 18-64 years (IBM MarketScan claims, 2013-2017), excluding opioid overdose diagnoses. We included individuals with ≥ 6 months of continuous enrollment prior to the index hospitalization and ≥ 10 days following discharge. We described demographic and hospitalization characteristics, including outpatient buprenorphine receipt within 10 days of discharge.

RESULTS

Most (87%) hospitalizations with documented OUD did not include opioid overdose. Of 56,717 hospitalizations (49,959 individuals), 56.8% had a primary diagnosis other than OUD, 37.0% had documentation of an alcohol-related diagnosis code, and 5.8% end in a self-directed discharge. Where opioid use disorder was not the primary diagnosis, 36.5% were due to other substance use disorders, and 23.1% were due to psychiatric disorders. Of all non-overdose hospitalizations who had prescription medication insurance coverage and who were discharged to an outpatient setting (n = 49, 237), 8.8% filled an outpatient buprenorphine prescription within 10 days of discharge.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-overdose OUD hospitalizations often occur with substance use disorders and psychiatric disorders, and very few are followed by timely outpatient buprenorphine. Addressing the OUD treatment gap during hospitalization may include implementing medication for OUD for inpatients with a broad range of diagnoses.

Reducing Drug Overdose Deaths: Significant Changes Needed in U.S. Drug Treatment Policy

Slow and incremental changes in federal and state drug policies are neither meeting treatment needs nor reversing yearly increases in drug-related mortality. U.S. drug policies convey confounding messages that non-sanctioned substance use leads to health problems that need treatment while simultaneously being legal problems that must be punished. As a result, drug treatments remain a sequestered component of health care, with onerous treatment requirements for patients and providers that act as barriers to the treatment that policies seek to allow. A new direction in drug policy is needed that broadens rather than restricts access to care and that also focuses on prevention. Policies must consider the totality of health and wellness, not just "last resort" safety nets for urgent needs. For substantive change in drug-related morbidity and mortality, forward-thinking policy must focus more on addiction prevention and address the known risks of developing a substance use disorder. [Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services, 61(6), 7-10.].

Buprenorphine Treatment For Opioid Use Disorder: Comparison Of Insurance Restrictions, 2017-21

Buprenorphine is a treatment medication that decreases mortality risks among people with opioid use disorder (OUD). Despite its efficacy, buprenorphine is underused in the US. Insurance restrictions are commonly cited as barriers to buprenorphine prescribing. Using Medicaid, Medicare Advantage, and commercial insurance formulary files, we examined insurance-imposed utilization restrictions for buprenorphine for OUD for each year from 2017 to 2021 by insurance type. Almost all plans covered immediate-release buprenorphine in 2021, with a general trend of decreasing prior authorization requirements and quantity limits since 2017. In contrast, two payers had relatively low coverage of extended-release buprenorphine, with only 46 percent of commercial plans and only 19 percent of Medicare Advantage plans covering this formulation. Even though most Medicaid plans covered extended-release buprenorphine in 2021, 37 percent required prior authorization. Policy makers and researchers concerned with buprenorphine insurance barriers should shift their attention to extended-release buprenorphine. State lawmakers could help address these barriers by mandating that insurers include extended-release buprenorphine on their preferred drug lists.

Not in my treatment center: Leadership's perception of barriers to MOUD adoption

INTRODUCTION

Despite their well-established effectiveness, medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) are widely underutilized across the United States. In the context of a large publicly funded behavioral health system, we examined the relationship between a range of implementation barriers and a substance use disorder treatment agency's level of adoption of MOUD.

METHODS

We surveyed leadership of publicly funded substance use disorder treatment centers in Philadelphia about the significance of barriers to implementing MOUD related to their workforce, organization, funding, regulations, and beliefs about MOUD's efficacy and safety. We queried leaders on the percentage of their patients with opioid use disorder who receive MOUD and examined associations between implementation barriers and MOUD adoption.

RESULTS

Ratings of regulatory, organizational, or funding barriers of respondents who led high MOUD adopting agencies (N = 20) were indistinguishable from those who led agencies that were low adopting of MOUD (N = 23). In contrast, agency leaders who denied MOUD-belief or workforce barriers were significantly more likely to lead high-MOUD-adopting organizations.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that leadership beliefs about MOUD may be a key factor of the organizational decision to adopt and should be a target of implementation efforts to increase direct provision of these medications.

American College of Preventive Medicine: Addressing the Opioid Epidemic Through a Prevention Framework

The opioid epidemic has resulted in significant morbidity and mortality in the U.S. Health systems, policymakers, payers, and public health have enacted numerous strategies to reduce the harms of opioids, including opioid use disorder (OUD). Much of this implementation has occurred before the development of OUD‒related comparative effectiveness evidence, which would enable an understanding of the benefits and harms of different approaches. This article from the American College of Preventive Medicine (ACPM) uses a prevention framework to identify the current approaches and make recommendations for addressing the opioid epidemic, encompassing strategies across a primordial, primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention approach. Key primordial prevention strategies include addressing social determinants of health and reducing adverse childhood events. Key primary prevention strategies include supporting the implementation of evidence-based prescribing guidelines, expanding school-based prevention programs, and improving access to behavioral health supports. Key secondary prevention strategies include expanding access to evidence-based medications for opioid use disorder, especially for high-risk populations, including pregnant women, hospitalized patients, and people transitioning out of carceral settings. Key tertiary prevention strategies include the expansion of harm reduction services, including expanding naloxone availability and syringe exchange programs. The ACPM Opioid Workgroup also identifies opportunities for de-implementation, in which historical and current practices may be ineffective or causing harm. De-implementation strategies include reducing inappropriate opioid prescribing; avoiding mandatory one-size-fits-all policies; eliminating barriers to medications for OUD, debunking the myth of detoxification as a primary solo treatment for opioid use disorder; and destigmatizing care practices and policies to better treat people with OUD.

Civil commitment for opioid misuse: do short-term benefits outweigh long-term harms?

In response to a sharp rise in opioid-involved overdose deaths in the USA, states have deployed increasingly aggressive strategies to limit the loss of life, including civil commitment-the forcible detention of individuals whose opioid use presents a clear and convincing danger to themselves or others. While civil commitment often succeeds in providing short-term protection from overdose, emerging evidence suggests that it may be associated with long-term harms, including heightened risk of severe withdrawal, relapse and opioid-involved mortality. To better assess and mitigate these harms, states should collect more robust data on long-term health outcomes, decriminalise proceedings and stays, provide access to medications for opioid use disorder and strengthen post-release coordination of community-based treatment.

Trends in Buprenorphine Coverage and Prior Authorization Requirements in US Commercial Formularies, 2017-2021

This cross-sectional study assesses buprenorphine coverage and prior authorization requirements in US commercial formulary data from 2017 to 2021.

Self-Reported Treatment Need and Barriers to Care for Adults With Opioid Use Disorder: The US National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2015 to 2019

Objectives. To explore barriers to care and characteristics associated with respondent-reported perceived need for opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment and National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH)‒defined OUD treatment gap. Methods. We performed a cross-sectional study using descriptive and multivariable logistic regression analyses to examine 2015-2019 NSDUH data. We included respondents aged 18 years or older with past-year OUD. Results. Of 1 987 961 adults, 10.5% reported a perceived OUD treatment need, and 71% had a NSDUH-defined treatment gap. There were significant differences in age distribution, health insurance coverage, and past-year mental illness between those with and without a perceived OUD treatment need. Older adults (aged ≥ 50 years) and non-White adults were more likely to have a treatment gap compared with younger adults (aged 18-49 years) and White adults, respectively. Conclusions. Fewer than 30% of adults with OUD receive treatment, and only 1 in 10 report a need for treatment, reflecting persistent structural barriers to care and differences in perceived care needs between patients with OUD and the NSDUH-defined treatment gap measure. Public Health Implications. Public health efforts aimed at broadening access to all forms of OUD treatment and harm reduction should be proactively undertaken. (Am J Public Health. 2022;112(2):284-295. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306577).

Buprenorphine management in the perioperative period: educational review and recommendations from a multisociety expert panel

BACKGROUND

The past two decades have witnessed an epidemic of opioid use disorder (OUD) in the USA, resulting in catastrophic loss of life secondary to opioid overdoses. Medication treatment of opioid use disorder (MOUD) is effective, yet barriers to care continue to result in a large proportion of untreated individuals. Optimal analgesia can be obtained in patients with MOUD within the perioperative period. Anesthesiologists and pain physicians can recommend and consider initiating MOUD in patients with suspected OUD at the point of care; this can serve as a bridge to comprehensive treatment and ultimately save lives.

METHODS

The Board of Directors of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, American Society of Anesthesiologists, American Academy of Pain Medicine, American Society of Addiction Medicine and American Society of Health System Pharmacists approved the creation of a Multisociety Working Group on Opioid Use Disorder, representing the fields of pain medicine, addiction, and pharmacy health sciences. An extensive literature search was performed by members of the working group. Multiple study types were included and reviewed for quality. A modified Delphi process was used to assess the literature and expert opinion for each topic, with 100% consensus being achieved on the statements and each recommendation. The consensus statements were then graded by the committee members using the United States Preventive Services Task Force grading of evidence guidelines. In addition to the consensus recommendations, a narrative overview of buprenorphine, including pharmacology and legal statutes, was performed.

RESULTS

Two core topics were identified for the development of recommendations with >75% consensus as the goal for consensus; however, the working group achieved 100% consensus on both topics. Specific topics included (1) providing recommendations to aid physicians in the management of patients receiving buprenorphine for MOUD in the perioperative setting and (2) providing recommendations to aid physicians in the initiation of buprenorphine in patients with suspected OUD in the perioperative setting.

CONCLUSIONS

To decrease the risk of OUD recurrence, buprenorphine should not be routinely discontinued in the perioperative setting. Buprenorphine can be initiated in untreated patients with OUD and acute pain in the perioperative setting to decrease the risk of opioid recurrence and death from overdose.

Pharmacy-related buprenorphine access barriers: An audit of pharmacies in counties with a high opioid overdose burden

BACKGROUND

Pharmacies sometimes restrict access to buprenorphine-naloxone (buprenorphine) for individuals with opioid use disorder. The objective of this study was to quantify the frequency of barriers encountered by patients seeking to fill buprenorphine prescriptions from pharmacies in United States (US) counties with high opioid-related mortality.

METHODS

To characterize buprenorphine availability, we conducted a telephone audit ("secret shopper") study using a standardized script in two randomly selected pharmacies (one chain, one independent) in US counties reporting higher than average opioid overdose rates. Availability across pharmacy type (chain versus independent), county characteristics (rurality, region, overdose rate), and day of week were analyzed using univariate tests of categorical data. Independent predictors of buprenorphine availability were then identified using a multivariable binomial regression model.

RESULTS

Among 921 pharmacies contacted (467 chain, 454 independent), 73 % were in urban counties and 42 % were in Southern states. Of these pharmacies, 675 (73 %) reported being able to dispense buprenorphine. There were 183 (20 %) pharmacies that indicated they would not dispense buprenorphine. Independent pharmacies (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR], 1.59; 95 % CI 1.21-2.08) and pharmacies in Southern states (aPR 2.06; 95 % CI 1.43-2.97) were significantly more likely to restrict buprenorphine.

CONCLUSIONS

In US counties with high overdose mortality rates, one in five pharmacies indicated they would not dispense buprenorphine. Buprenorphine access limitations were more common among independent pharmacies and those in Southern states. Pharmacy-directed interventions may be necessary to ensure timely buprenorphine access for patients with opioid use disorder.

Facility Attractiveness and Social Vulnerability Impacts on Spatial Accessibility to Opioid Treatment Programs in South Carolina

Opioid dependence and opioid-related mortality have been increasing in recent years in the United States. Available and accessible treatments may result in a reduction of opioid-related mortality. This work describes the geographic variation of spatial accessibility to opioid treatment programs (OTPs) and identifies areas with poor access to care in South Carolina. The study develops a new index of access that builds on the two-step floating catchment area (2SFCA) method, and has three dimensions: a facility attractiveness index, defined by services rendered incorporated into the Huff Model; a facility catchment area, defined as a function of facility attractiveness to account for variable catchment size; and a Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) to account for nonspatial factors that mitigate or compound the impacts of spatial access to care. Results of the study indicate a significant variation in access to OTPs statewide. Spatial access to OTPs is low across the entire state except for in a limited number of metropolitan areas. The majority of the population with low access (85%) live in areas with a moderate-to-high levels of social vulnerability. This research provides more realistic estimates of access to care and aims to assist policymakers in better targeting disadvantaged areas for OTP program expansion and resource allocation.

Barriers and Facilitators to the Use of Medications for Opioid Use Disorder: a Rapid Review

BACKGROUND

Despite evidence that medications to treat opioid use disorder (OUD) are effective, most people who could benefit from this treatment do not receive it. This rapid review synthesizes evidence on current barriers and facilitators to buprenorphine/naloxone and naltrexone at the patient, provider, and system levels to inform future interventions aimed at expanding treatment.

METHODS

We systematically searched numerous bibliographic databases through May 2020 and selected studies published since 2014. Study selection, data abstraction, coding of barriers and facilitators, and quality assessment were first completed by one reviewer and checked by a second.

RESULTS

We included 40 studies of buprenorphine (5 also discussed naltrexone). Four types of patient and provider-level barriers to OUD medication use emerged-stigma related to OUD medications, treatment experiences and beliefs (positive or negative), logistical issues (time and costs as well as insurance and regulatory requirements), and knowledge (high or low) of OUD and the role of medications. Stigma was the most common barrier among patients, while logistical issues were the most common barriers among providers. Facilitators for both patients and providers included peer supports. Most administrator-identified or system-level barriers and facilitators fit into the category of logistical issues. We have moderate confidence in buprenorphine findings but low confidence in naltrexone findings due to the small number of studies.

DISCUSSION

Stigma, treatment experiences, logistical issues, and knowledge gaps are the main barriers associated with low utilization of OUD medications. These barriers can overlap and mutually reinforce each other, but given that, it is plausible that reducing one barrier may lead to reductions in others. The highest priority for future research is to evaluate interventions to reduce stigma. Other priorities for future research include better identification of barriers and facilitators for specific populations, such as those with OUD related to prescription opioids, and for naltrexone use.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO; CRD42019133394.

Medication Utilization for Alcohol Use Disorder in a Commercially Insured Population

OBJECTIVE

Examine patterns of alcohol use disorder (AUD) medication use and identify factors associated with prescription fill among commercially insured individuals with an index AUD visit.

DESIGN

Using 2008-2018 claims data from a large national insurer, estimate days to first AUD medication using cause-specific hazards approach to account for competing risk of benefits loss.

PARTICIPANTS

Aged 17-64 with ≥ 1 AUD visit.

MAIN MEASURE

Days to AUD medication fill.

KEY RESULTS

A total of 13.3% of the 151,128 with an index visit filled an AUD prescription after that visit, while 69.8% lost benefits before filling and 17.0% remained enrolled but did not fill (median days observed = 305). Almost half (46.3%) of those who filled a prescription received substance use disorder (SUD) inpatient care within 7 days before the fill, and 63.4% received SUD outpatient care. Likelihood of medication use was higher for those aged 26-35, 36-45, and 46-55 years relative to 56-64 years (e.g., 26-35: hazard ratio = 1.29 [95% confidence interval 1.23-1.36]); those diagnosed with moderate/severe AUD (2.05 [1.98-2.12]), co-occurring opioid use disorder (OUD) (1.33 [1.26-1.39]), or severe mental illness (1.31 [1.27-1.35]); those with a chronic alcohol-related diagnosis (1.08 [1.04-1.12]); and those whose index visit was in an inpatient/emergency department (1.27 [1.23-1.31]) or intermediate care setting (1.13 [1.07-1.20]) relative to outpatient. Likelihood of use was higher in later years relative to 2008 (e.g., 2018:2.02 [1.89-2.15]) and higher for those who received the majority of AUD care in a practice with a psychiatrist/addiction medicine specialist (1.13 [1.10-1.16]). Likelihood of use was lower for those diagnosed with a SUD other than AUD or OUD (0.88 [0.85-0.92]), those with an acute alcohol-related condition (0.79 [0.75-0.84]), and males (0.71 [0.69-0.73]).

CONCLUSIONS

While AUD medication use increased and was more common among individuals with greater severity, few patients who could benefit from medications are using them. More efforts are needed to identify and treat individuals in non-acute care settings earlier in their course of AUD.

Endogenous Opiates and Behavior: 2018

This paper is the forty-first consecutive installment of the annual anthological review of research concerning the endogenous opioid system, summarizing articles published during 2018 that studied the behavioral effects of molecular, pharmacological and genetic manipulation of opioid peptides and receptors as well as effects of opioid/opiate agonists and antagonists. The review is subdivided into the following specific topics: molecular-biochemical effects and neurochemical localization studies of endogenous opioids and their receptors (2), the roles of these opioid peptides and receptors in pain and analgesia in animals (3) and humans (4), opioid-sensitive and opioid-insensitive effects of nonopioid analgesics (5), opioid peptide and receptor involvement in tolerance and dependence (6), stress and social status (7), learning and memory (8), eating and drinking (9), drug abuse and alcohol (10), sexual activity and hormones, pregnancy, development and endocrinology (11), mental illness and mood (12), seizures and neurologic disorders (13), electrical-related activity and neurophysiology (14), general activity and locomotion (15), gastrointestinal, renal and hepatic functions (16), cardiovascular responses (17), respiration and thermoregulation (18), and immunological responses (19).

Outpatient care for opioid use disorder among the commercially insured: Use of medication and psychosocial treatment

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based outpatient treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) consists of medications that treat OUD (MOUD) and psychosocial treatments (e.g., psychotherapy or counseling, case management). Prior studies have not examined the use of these components of care in a commercially insured population.

METHODS

We analyzed claims data from a large national commercial insurer of enrollees age 17-64 identified with OUD (2008-2016, N = 87,877 persons and 122,708 person-years). Multinomial logistic regression models identified factors associated with receiving in a given year: 1) both MOUD and psychosocial visits, 2) MOUD without psychosocial visits, 3) psychosocial visits without MOUD, or 4) neither. We estimated predicted probabilities for key variables of interest.

RESULTS

Identification of OUD nearly tripled during the observation period (0.17% in 2008, 0.45% in 2016). Among person-years identified as having OUD, 36.3% included MOUD (8.1% both MOUD and psychosocial visits and 28.2% MOUD without psychosocial visits). In adjusted analyses, women had a lower probability of receiving either treatment alone or in combination (e.g.,MOUD plus psychosocial visits: women = 6.7% [6.5%-6.9%] vs. men = 9.2% [9.0%-9.4%]). Moderate/severe vs. mild OUD was associated with a higher probability of receiving MOUD (e.g., MOUD plus psychosocial visits: 8.7% [8.6%-8.9%] vs. 0.9% [0.7%-1.0%]). In contrast, an OUD overdose was associated with a greater probability of receiving neither treatment (78.2% [77.4%-79.0%] vs. 55.5% [55.2%-55.8%]). Over time, the probability of receiving each MOUD and psychosocial treatment category increased relative to 2008, but reached a peak and then plateaued or declined, by the end of the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

A significant treatment gap exists among individuals identified with OUD in this commercially insured population, with greater risks of receiving no treatment for women and for individuals with mild versus moderate or severe OUD. Overdose is associated with receiving neither MOUD nor psychosocial treatment. While treated prevalence initially increased relative to 2008, rates of treatment subsequently plateaued. Additional study and monitoring to elucidate barriers to OUD treatment in commercially insured populations are warranted.

Supporting individuals using medications for opioid use disorder in recovery residences: challenges and opportunities for addressing the opioid epidemic

Full and partial opioid agonists and opioid antagonist medications play an important role in containing the opioid epidemic. However, these medications have not been used to their full extent. Recovery support services, such as recovery residences (RRs), also play a key role. RRs may increase an individual's recovery capital, facilitate social support for abstinence, and foster a sense of community among residents. These processes may be critical for individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD). In combination these two recovery pathways have the potential to enhance one another and improve outcomes among residents with OUD. Barriers to doing so have resulted in a limited supply of residences that can support residents using opioid agonist and antagonist medications. This perspective describes key interpersonal and structural barriers to medication use among individuals with an OUD seeking support from a recovery residence and discusses measures for reducing these barriers. These measures include workforce development to address stigma and attitudinal barriers and enhancing residence capability to ensure resident safety and reduce potential diversion. The perspective also highlights the need for additional research to facilitate the identification of best practices to improve outcomes among residents treated with medications living in recovery residences.

Improving Access to Evidence-Based Medical Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder: Strategies to Address Key Barriers within the Treatment System

Even though evidence-based treatment for opioid use disorders (OUD) is effective, almost four in five Americans with OUD do not receive any form of treatment. The gap in access to evidence-based care, including treatment with medications for OUD, stems in part from barriers to change within the health care system. This paper includes nine key barriers that prevent access to evidence-based care, including stigma; inadequate clinical training; a dearth of addiction specialists; lack of integration of MOUD provision in practice; regulatory, statutory, and data sharing restrictions; and financial barriers. Action from a number of actors is urgently needed to address this crisis.

The prescription opioid conundrum: 21st century solutions to a millennia-long problem

Health-care professionals are faced with a daunting task: balancing appropriate care for chronic pain with their responsibility to keep patients and others safe from treatment-related harm. Whereas opioids have historically been considered an effective tool in the analgesic armamentarium, the rise of opioid abuse has caused the pendulum to swing away from prescribing opioids to an emphasis on safety. This paradigm shift risks neglecting the very real consequences of untreated/undertreated pain. Using data from the medical literature, this review examines influences on the real and perceived benefit-to-risk ratio for opioids and provides clinicians with a practical approach to prescribing opioids that minimizes the risk for abuse/misuse. There is appreciable clinical trial and observational evidence of efficacy/effectiveness with opioids used for pain management over the short or long term when considered in the context of pharmacologic alternatives. Enhancing the relative safety and minimizing the risk for abuse/misuse may be achieved through proactive prescription practices that include careful patient selection, risk assessment, individualized and multimodal treatment plans with established goals, initiating opioid treatment cautiously with an exit plan in place, ongoing assessments of response to therapy, and routine patient monitoring. Additionally, prescribing opioids with a lower potential for abuse or misuse (e.g. abuse-deterrent formulations) may provide a benefit. Using a pragmatic approach to prescribing practices, we postulate that the balance between benefit and risk can be favorable for opioid therapy in select patients, even for long-term treatment of chronic pain.

Comparison between buprenorphine provider availability and opioid deaths among US counties

BACKGROUND

Buprenorphine is an effective medication for the treatment of opioid addiction, but current barriers to buprenorphine access limit treatment availability for many patients. We identify and characterize regions within the United States (US) with poor buprenorphine access relative to the observed burden of overdose deaths.

METHODS

This cross sectional study includes US county-level data on the number of available buprenorphine providers (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Buprenorphine Treatment Practitioner Locator) and the number of opioid-related overdose deaths between 2013 and 2015 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention WONDER Database). Counties with fewer than 10 deaths during this time period were excluded to maintain patient privacy. Population-adjusted county death rates and provider availability were compared to identify locations with high disease burdens and limited buprenorphine access. The presence of significant clustering across the dataset was evaluated using Global Moran's I and zones of significant spatial clusters and anomalies were identified using Local Indicator of Spatial Autocorrelation.

RESULTS

County data were available for 846 counties from 49 states and the District of Columbia, comprising 83% of the US population. The median number of opioid overdose deaths per county was 20.0 deaths per 100,000 residents (interquartile range 13.4-29.9, range 2.9 to 108.8). The number of buprenorphine providers per 100,000 county residents ranged from 0 to 45, with a median of 5.9 (interquartile range 3.2 to 9.5). Global Moran's I analysis yielded significant clustering in the distribution of both providers and deaths, with notable significant clusters of higher than average providers and deaths in the Northeast, and scattered mismatched regions of lower-than-average providers and higher-than-average deaths across the Southern, Midwestern, and Western US. Graphical analysis of buprenorphine provider availability and overdose burden reveals limited treatment access relative to overdose deaths throughout much of the Midwestern and Southern US.

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial county-level imbalances between the availability of buprenorphine providers and the burden of opioid overdose deaths are present within the US.