Treatment retention, drug use and social functioning outcomes in those receiving 3 months versus 1 month of supervised opioid maintenance treatment. Results from the Super C randomized controlled trial

Retention and critical outcomes among new methadone maintenance patients following extended take-home reforms: a retrospective observational cohort study

Background

Approximately 1800 opioid treatment programs (OTPs) in the US dispense methadone to upwards of 400,000 patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) annually, operating under longstanding highly restrictive guidelines. OTPs were granted novel flexibilities beginning March 15, 2020, allowing for reduced visit frequency and extended take-home doses to minimize COVID exposure with great variation across states and sites. We sought to use electronic health records to compare retention in treatment, opioid use, and adverse events among patients newly entering methadone maintenance in the post-reform period in comparison with year-ago, unexposed, controls.

Methods

Retrospective observational cohort study across 9 OTPs, geographically dispersed, in the National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA) Clinical Trials Network. Newly enrolled patients between April 15 and October 14, 2020 (post-COVID, reform period) v. March 15-September 14, 2019 (pre-COVID, control period) were assessed. The primary outcome was 6-month retention. Secondary outcomes were opioid use and adverse events including emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and overdose.

Findings

821 individuals were newly admitted in the post-COVID and year-ago control periods, average age of 38.3 (SD 11.1), 58.9% male. The only difference across pre- and post-reform groups was the prevalence of psychostimulant use disorder (25.7% vs 32.9%, p = 0.02). Retention was non-inferior (60.0% vs 60.1%) as were hazards of adverse events in the aggregate (X2 (1) = 0.55, p = 0.46) in the post-COVID period. However, rates of month-level opioid use were higher among post-COVID intakes compared to pre-COVID controls (64.8% vs 51.1%, p < 0.001). Moderator analyses accounting for stimulant use and site-level variation in take-home schedules did not change findings.

Interpretation

Policies allowing for extended take-home schedules were not associated with worse retention or adverse events despite slightly elevated rates of measured opioid use while in care. Relaxed guidelines were not associated with measurable increased harms and findings could inform future studies with prospective trials.

Funding

USDHHSNIDACTNUG1DA013035-15.

Understanding and learning from rural drug service adaptations to opioid substitution therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic: the What C-OST? study

Introduction

In April 2020, in response to government COVID-19 advice, changes were made to the way English drug services operated. Methadone and buprenorphine were typically dispensed in 1- to 2-week supplies, and key working was conducted by phone/online. Previous studies have examined the impact of these changes on people from urban settings. This study adds the experiences and perspectives of people receiving care from drug services in rural areas and makes suggestions for future emergency planning.

Methods

Telephone semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 people receiving care in Somerset, Wiltshire, and Suffolk, rural counties in England. Reflexive thematic analysis was used.

Results

Three overarching themes were found. "Challenges of rural lockdown" (theme 1) describes how rural community challenges, especially reduced or no rural public transport, were experienced. This hampered some OST collections, with consequential drug use. It also impeded connections to loved ones, worsening isolation. For participants who were struggling pre-pandemic, the intersection between this and their experience of revised drug service operations is embodied in "Amplification of Social Disconnection: Cut off and unheard" (theme 2). They felt a lack of support, particularly from remote provision key working. Participants who had supportive relationships and time in the pandemic occupied in ways they found meaningful, and others who struggled with anxiety or depression, found pandemic changes "Fits better with my life" (theme 3). They experienced more freedom for other things, gained support by other means, such as family, or felt more comfortable with remote engagement. A cross-cutting sub-theme "Understandable Interruptions" showed acceptance of pandemic disruptions.

Conclusion

National guidance and organizational policy impacted participants in different ways. Those who had supportive relationships and occupied time were better able to make positive use of newfound freedoms and engage with community-level support. In contrast, those who had less stability, including mental health struggles and social isolation, felt cut off and unheard, particularly from key workers. Reduced rural transport was a significant community-level issue, which impeded OST collection and social support. We suggest emergency response plans be created for individuals taking account of their pre-existing personal situations.

Methadone and buprenorphine-related deaths among people prescribed and not prescribed Opioid Agonist Therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic in England

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus pandemic resulted in many changes which had the potential to impact mortality related to opioid agonist therapy (OAT; methadone, buprenorphine), including changes in the prescribing and dispensing of OAT and patterns of drug availability and use. We aimed to assess the impact of the first lockdown (initiated March 23rd 2020) on methadone- and buprenorphine-related deaths in England in people both prescribed and not prescribed OAT using data from the National Programme on Substance Abuse Deaths.

METHODS

This was a retrospective post-mortem toxicology study of OAT-related deaths which occurred in the 3-month period March 23rd to June 22nd in the years 2016-2020. Provisional data regarding numbers accessing treatment for opioid use disorder was provided by the National Drug Treatment Monitoring System.

RESULTS

We found a 64% increase in methadone-related deaths in March to June 2020 compared to March to June 2019 (2019 n = 96; 2020 projected n = 157). There were increases in the mortality rate of both in-treatment decedents (22% increase; 2019 n = 45; an exponential smoothing model of the 2016-19 trend [α=0.5] predicted 44 deaths in 2020, 55 were reported) and decedents not prescribed methadone (74% increase; 2019 n = 46; 2016-19 trend predicted 43 deaths in 2020, 80 were reported). There was no increase in buprenorphine-related deaths (2019 n = 9/529; 2020 n = 11/566). There were no changes in the numbers of deaths where other opioids or multiple substances were detected, or in methadone levels detected. Numbers of people accessing treatment for opioid use disorder in 2020 did not decrease relative to previous years (p >0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Methadone-related deaths in non-prescribed individuals, but not prescribed individuals, increased considerably above the annual trend forecast for 2020 during the first COVID-19 lockdown in England. Further studies are thus needed to understand this difference.

Flexible Buprenorphine/Naloxone Model of Care for Reducing Opioid Use in Individuals With Prescription-Type Opioid Use Disorder: An Open-Label, Pragmatic, Noninferiority Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

Extensive exposure to prescription-type opioids has resulted in major harm worldwide, calling for better-adapted approaches to opioid agonist therapy. The authors aimed to determine whether flexible take-home buprenorphine/naloxone is as effective as supervised methadone in reducing opioid use in prescription-type opioid consumers with opioid use disorder.

METHODS

This seven-site, pan-Canadian, 24-week, pragmatic, open-label, noninferiority, two-arm parallel randomized controlled trial involved treatment-seeking adults with prescription-type opioid use disorder. Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to treatment with sublingual buprenorphine/naloxone (target dosage, 8 mg/2 mg to 24 mg/6 mg per day; flexible take-home dosing) or oral methadone (≈60-120 mg/day; closely supervised). The primary outcome was the proportion of opioid-free urine drug screens over 24 weeks (noninferiority margin, 15%). All randomized participants were analyzed, excluding one who died shortly after randomization, for the primary analysis (modified intention-to-treat analysis).

RESULTS

Of 272 participants recruited (mean age, 39 years [SD=11]; 34.2% female), 138 were randomized to buprenorphine/naloxone and 134 to methadone. The mean proportion of opioid-free urine drug screens was 24.0% (SD=34.4) in the buprenorphine/naloxone group and 18.5% (SD=30.5) in the methadone group, with a 5.6% adjusted mean difference (95% CI=-0.3, +∞). Participants in the buprenorphine/naloxone group had 0.47 times the odds (95% CI=0.24, 0.90) of being retained in the assigned treatment compared with those in the methadone group. Overall, 24 drug-related adverse events were reported (12 in the buprenorphine/naloxone group [N=8/138; 5.7%] and 12 in the methadone group [N=12/134; 9.0%]) and mostly included withdrawal, hypogonadism, and overdose.

CONCLUSIONS

The buprenorphine/naloxone flexible model of care was safe and noninferior to methadone in reducing opioid use among people with prescription-type opioid use disorder. This flexibility could help expand access to opioid agonist therapy and reduce harms in the context of the opioid overdose crisis.

New Approaches in Drug Dependence: Opioids

Purpose of Review

This article aims to provide an overview of standard and adjunctive treatment options in opioid dependence in consideration of therapy-refractory courses. The relevance of oral opioid substitution treatment (OST) and measures of harm reduction as well as heroin-assisted therapies are discussed alongside non-pharmacological approaches.

Recent Findings

Currently, recommendation can be given for OST with methadone, buprenorphine, slow-release oral morphine (SROM), and levomethadone. Heroin-assisted treatment using diamorphine shall be considered as a cost-effective alternative for individuals not responding to the afore-mentioned opioid agonists in order to increase retention and reduce illicit opioid use. The modalities of application and the additional benefits of long-acting formulations of buprenorphine should be sufficiently transferred to clinicians and the eligible patients; simultaneously methods to improve planning of actions and self- management need to be refined. Regarding common primary outcomes in research on opioid treatment, evidence of the effectiveness of adjunctive psychological interventions is scarce.

Summary

Maintaining a harm reduction approach in the treatment of opioid addiction, a larger range of formulations is available for the prescribers. Embedding the pharmacological, ideally individualized treatment into a holistic, structure-giving concept also requires a reduction of fragmentation of ancillary services available, drug policies, and treatment philosophies on a global scale.

Global opioid agonist treatment: a review of clinical practices by country

AIMS

We assessed how opioid agonist treatment (OAT) for opioid use disorder (OUD), specifically methadone and buprenorphine, including buprenorphine-naloxone, is delivered in routine clinical practice, with a focus on factors that affect access to and delivery of these services. The aims of this review were to summarize eligibility criteria for entry to OAT, doses in routine clinical practice, access to and eligibility for unsupervised dosing and urine drug screening practices in OAT programs globally.

METHODS

We completed searches of PubMed, Embase, and grey literature databases for cross-sectional or observational cohort studies of OAT using either methadone or buprenorphine. Dose data extracted from eligible studies were compared with guidelines provided by WHO.

RESULTS

We found 140 reports from 41 countries that contained data for at least one of the relevant indicators. A diagnosis of opioid dependence or opioid use disorder was the most common eligibility requirement for OAT (13 or 17 countries). Reported mean or median doses for methadone ranged from 16-131 mg whereas range for buprenorphine was 2.5-19 mg. Access to unsupervised dosing under some conditions was reported in 18 of 27 countries. Frequency of regular urine drug screenings (UDS) ranged from several times a week to eight times per year (methadone) or as clinically indicated.

CONCLUSIONS

Opioid agonist treatment practices, including doses prescribed, vary greatly both within and across countries. Of particular concern is the persistence of lower dose prescribing practices, in which patients may be prescribed doses below those proven to yield significant clinical benefits.

Effect of initiating drug treatment on the risk of drug-related poisoning death and acquisitive crime among offending heroin users

BACKGROUND

A recent Cochrane review of randomised trials identified a lack of evidence for interventions provided to drug-using offenders. We use routine data to address whether contact with treatment services reduces heroin users' likelihood of a future acquisitive offence or drug-related poisoning (DRP) death.

METHODS

Heroin-users were identified from probation assessments and linked to drug-treatment, mortality and offending records. The study cohort was selected to ensure that the subject was not: in prison, in treatment or had recently left treatment. Subjects were classed as initiators if they attended a triage appointment within two weeks of their assessment; non-initiators otherwise. Initiator and non-initiators were compared over a maximum of one year, with respect to their risk of recorded acquisitive offence or DRP-death. Balance was sought using propensity score matching and missing data were accounted for using multiple imputation.

RESULTS

Nine percent of assessments identified for analysis were classed as initiators. Accounting for observed confounding and missing data, there was a reduction in DRPs associated with initiator assessments, however there was uncertainty around this estimate such that a null-effect could not be ruled out (HR: 0.42, 95% CI 0.17-1.04). There was no evidence of a decrease in the recidivism risk, in fact the analysis showed a small increase (HR: 1.10, 95% CI 1.02-1.18).

CONCLUSION

For heroin-using offenders, initial contact with treatment services does not appear to reduce the likelihood of a future acquisitive offence.

Supervised dosing with a long-acting opioid medication in the management of opioid dependence

BACKGROUND

Opioid dependence (OD) is an increasing clinical and public health problem worldwide. International guidelines recommend opioid substitution treatment (OST), such as methadone and buprenorphine, as first-line medication treatment for OD. A negative aspect of OST is that the medication used can be diverted both through sale on the black market, and the unsanctioned use of medications. Daily supervised administration of medications used in OST has the advantage of reducing the risk of diversion, and may promote therapeutic engagement, potentially enhancing the psychosocial aspect of OST, but costs more and is more restrictive on the client than dispensing for off-site consumption.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this systematic review is to compare the effectiveness of OST with supervised dosing relative to dispensing of medication for off-site consumption.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched in Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science from inception up to April 2016. Ongoing and unpublished studies were searched via ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (http://www.who.int/ictrp/en/).All searches included non-English language literature. We handsearched references on topic-related systematic reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), and prospective controlled cohort studies, involving people who are receiving OST (methadone, buprenorphine) and comparing supervised dosing with dispensing of medication to be consumed away from the dispensing point, usually without supervision.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

Six studies (four RCTs and two prospective observational cohort studies), involving 7999 participants comparing supervised OST treatment with unsupervised treatment, met the inclusion criteria. The risk of bias was generally moderate across trials, but the results reported on outcomes that we planned to consider were limited. Overall, we judged the quality of the evidence from very low to low for all the outcomes.We found no difference in retention at any duration with supervised compared to unsupervised dosing (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.12, 716 participants, four trials, low-quality evidence) or in retention in the shortest follow-up period, three months (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.05; 472 participants, three trials, low-quality evidence). Additional data at 12 months from one observational study found no difference in retention between groups (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.14; n = 300).There was no difference in abstinence at the end of treatment (self-reported drug use) (67% versus 60%, P = 0.33, 293 participants, one trial, very low-quality evidence); and in diversion of medication (5% versus 2%, 293 participants, one trial, very low-quality evidence).Regarding our secondary outcomes, we did not found a difference in the incidence of adverse effects in the supervised compared to unsupervised control group (RR 0.63; 96% CI 0.10 to 3.86; 363 participants, two trials, very low-quality evidence). Data on severity of dependence were very limited (244 participants, one trial) and showed no difference between the two approaches. Data on deaths were reported in two studies. One trial reported two deaths in the supervised group (low-quality evidence), while in the cohort study all-cause mortality was found lower in regular supervision group (crude mortality rate 0.60 versus 0.81 per 100 person-years), although after adjustment insufficient evidence existed to suggest that regular supervision was protective (mortality rate ratio = 1.23, 95% CI = 0.67 to 2.27).No studies reported pain symptoms, drug craving, aberrant opioid-related behaviours, days of unsanctioned opioid use and overdose.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Take-home medication strategies are attractive to treatment services due to lower costs, and place less restrictions on clients, but it is unknown whether they may be associated with increased risk of diversion and unsanctioned use of medication. There is uncertainty about the effects of supervised dosing compared with unsupervised medication due to the low and very low quality of the evidence for the primary outcomes of interest for this review. Data on defined secondary outcomes were similarly limited. More research comparing supervised and take-home medication strategies is needed to support decisions on the relative effectiveness of these strategies. The trials should be designed and conducted with high quality and over a longer follow-up period to support comparison of strategies at different stages of treatment. In particular, there is a need for studies assessing in more detail the risk of diversion and safety outcomes of using supervised OST to manage opioid dependence.

J-shaped relationship between supervised methadone consumption and retention in methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) in primary care: National cohort study

BACKGROUND

Supervised consumption ensures patients take methadone as prescribed and prevents diversion, however, the influence of supervised consumption on retention is unclear. We examined association between supervised consumption and retention across multiple treatment episodes.

METHODS

Cohort study of persons experiencing ≥1 MMT episodes in primary care (2004-2010), excluding ongoing episodes at the start of follow-up. Length of treatment episodes based on methadone prescriptions, retention classified as no interruption in prescribed methadone lasting >7 days. When a patient did not receive a new prescription within seven days after the end of coverage of a prescription, they were considered to have ceased treatment. We evaluated the relationship between supervised consumption and time to discontinuation of treatment using proportional hazards gamma frailty models to account for recurrent MMT episodes. Age, gender, median daily methadone dose, and comorbidities included as potential confounders.

RESULTS

6393 patients experienced 19,715 treatment episodes over the six-year follow-up period. A J-shaped relationship was observed; having between 20 and 60% of methadone scripts supervised (compared to <20%) associated with reduced time to discontinuation (20-39% HR=0.88, 95% CI 0.81-0.95; 40-59%: HR=0.87, 95% CI 0.81-0.94). Beyond a threshold of 60%, retention reduced (60-79% of scripts: HR=1.28, 95% CI 1.20-1.36;>80% of scripts: HR=3.59, 95% CI 3.38-3.81). Median daily dose between 60 and 120mg/per day, and multiple treatment episodes also associated with longer time to discontinuation of treatment.

CONCLUSION

A J-shaped relationship was observed between supervised consumption and retention in treatment. Additionally, patients experiencing multiple treatment episodes tend to stay in treatment for progressively longer periods of time.

Opioid tolerance in methadone maintenance treatment: comparison of methadone and levomethadone in long-term treatment

Background

This study aimed to investigate the development of opioid tolerance in patients receiving long-term methadone maintenance treatment (MMT).

Methods

A region-wide cross-sectional study was performed focusing on dosage and duration of treatment. Differences between racemic methadone and levomethadone were examined. All 20 psychiatric hospitals and all 110 outpatient clinics in Berlin licensed to offer MMT were approached in order to reach patients under MMT fulfilling the DSM IV criteria of opiate dependence. In the study, 720 patients treated with racemic methadone or levomethadone gave information on the dosage of treatment. Out of these, 679 patients indicated the duration of MMT.

Results

Treatment with racemic methadone was reported for 370 patients (54.5 %), with levomethadone for 309 patients (45.5 %). Mean duration of MMT was 7.5 years. We found a significant correlation between dosage and duration of treatment, both in a conjoint analysis for the two substances racemic methadone and levomethadone and for each substance separately. These effects remained significant when only patients receiving MMT for 1 year or longer were considered, indicating proceeding tolerance development in long-term treatment. When correlations were compared between racemic methadone and levomethadone, no significant difference was found.

Conclusions

Our data show a tolerance development under long-term treatment with both racemic methadone and levomethadone. Tolerance development did not differ significantly between the two substances.

Effect of a primary care based brief intervention trial among risky drug users on health-related quality of life

BACKGROUND

Improvement in quality of life (QOL) is a long term goal of drug treatment. Although some brief interventions have been found to reduce illicit drug use, no trial among adult risky (moderate non-dependent) drug users has tested effects on health-related quality of life.

METHODS

A single-blind randomized controlled trial of patients enrolled from February 2011 to November 2012 was conducted in waiting rooms of five federally qualified health centers. 413 adult primary care patients were identified as risky drug users using the WHO-ASSIST and 334 (81% response; 171 intervention, 163 control) consented to participate in the trial. Three-month follow-ups were completed by 261 patients (78%). Intervention patients received the QUIT intervention of brief clinician advice and up to two drug-use health telephone sessions. The control group received usual care and information on cancer screening. Outcomes were three-month changes in the Short Form Health Survey (SF-12) mental health component summary score (MCS) and physical health component summary score (PCS).

RESULTS

The average treatment effect (ATE) was non-significant for MCS (0.2 points, p-value=0.87) and marginally significant for PCS (1.7 points, p-value=0.08). The average treatment effect on the treated (ATT) was 0.1 (p-value=0.93) for MCS and 1.9 (p-value=0.056) for PCS. The effect on PCS was stronger at higher (above median) baseline number of drug use days: ATE=2.7, p-value=0.04; ATT=3.21, p-value=0.02.

CONCLUSIONS

The trial found a marginally significant effect on improvement in PCS, and significant and stronger effect on the SF-12 physical component among patients with greater frequency of initial drug use.