Long-term follow-up assessment of opioid use outcomes among individuals with comorbid mental disorders and opioid use disorder treated with buprenorphine or methadone in a randomized clinical trial

Timing of treatment for opioid use disorder among birthing people

BACKGROUND

The number of pregnant women with opioid use disorder (OUD) has increased over time. Although effective treatment options exist, little is known about the extent to which women receive treatment during pregnancy and at what stage of pregnancy care is initiated.

METHODS

Using a national private health insurance claims database, we identified women aged 13-49 who gave birth in 2006-2019 and had an OUD or nonfatal opioid overdose (NFOO) diagnosis during the year prior to or at delivery. We then identified women who received their first OUD treatment prior to or during pregnancy. In this cross-sectional study, we investigated how rates and timing of the initial OUD treatment changed over time. Furthermore, we examined factors associated with early initiation of OUD treatment among birthing people.

RESULTS

Of the 7057 deliveries from 6747 women with OUD or NFOO, 63.3 % received any OUD treatment. Rates of OUD treatment increased from 42.9 % in 2006 to 69 % in 2019. Of those treated, in 2006, 54.5 % received their first treatment prior to conception and 24.2 % initiated care during the 1st trimester. In 2019, 68.9 % received their first treatment prior to conception, and 15.1 % initiated care during the 1st trimester. The percentage of women who were first treated in the 2nd trimester or later decreased from 21.2 % in 2006 to 16.1 % in 2019. Factors associated with early treatment initiation include being 25 years or older (age 25-34: aOR, 1.51, 95 % CI, 1.28-1.78; age 35-49: aOR, 1.82, 95 % CI, 1.39-2.37), living in urban areas (aOR, 1.28; 95 % CI, 1.05-1.56), having pre-existing behavioral health comorbidities such as anxiety disorders (aOR, 1.8; 95 % CI, 1.40-2.32), mood disorders (aOR, 1.63; 95 % CI, 1.02-2.61), and substance use disorder other than OUD (aOR, 2.56; 95 % CI, 2.03-3.32).

CONCLUSION

Overall, rates of OUD treatment increased over time, and more women initiated OUD treatment prior to conception. Despite these improvements, over one-third of pregnant women with OUD/NFOO either received no treatment or did not initiate care until the 3rd trimester in 2019. Future research should examine barriers to OUD treatment initiation among pregnant women.

Long-acting injectable buprenorphine in the real world: case report on dual disorders

OBJECTIVES

Long-acting injectable buprenorphine (LAIB) has demonstrated a good profile for opioid use disorder (OUD) management. However, there is scarce information on LAIB in OUD patients with comorbid mental disorders (dual disorder patients).

METHODS

We present a case report on OUD patients with a comorbid mental disorder who have received LAIB for at least 3 months.

RESULTS

Two women and one man with OUD and another comorbid mental disorder were prescribed with LAIB ranging from three to twelve months. Good adherence and opioid abstinence were observed during the follow-up. Psychopathological issues related to comorbid mental disorders were stabilized. A deep discussion on LAIB in this profile of patients is conducted.

CONCLUSIONS

LAIB in OUD patients with comorbid mental disorders may be a safe and well tolerated option, similar to OUD patients without comorbid mental disorders. LAIB's impact on psychopathological issues requires further high-quality research to understand the real impact of LAIB on OUD and comorbid mental disorders.

Exploring dual diagnosis in opioid agonist treatment patients: a registry-linkage study in Czechia and Norway

BACKGROUND

Knowledge of co-occurring mental disorders (termed 'dual diagnosis') among patients receiving opioid agonist treatment (OAT) is scarce. This study aimed (1) to estimate the prevalence and structure of dual diagnoses in two national cohorts of OAT patients and (2) to compare mental disorders between OAT patients and the general populations stratified on sex and standardized by age.

METHODS

A registry-linkage study of OAT patients from Czechia (N = 4,280) and Norway (N = 11,389) during 2010-2019 was conducted. Data on mental disorders (F00-F99; ICD-10) recorded in nationwide health registers were linked to the individuals registered in OAT. Dual diagnoses were defined as any mental disorder excluding substance use disorders (SUDs, F10-F19; ICD-10). Sex-specific age-standardized morbidity ratios (SMR) were calculated for 2019 to compare OAT patients and the general populations.

RESULTS

The prevalence of dual diagnosis was 57.3% for Czechia and 78.3% for Norway. In Czechia, anxiety (31.1%) and personality disorders (25.7%) were the most prevalent, whereas anxiety (33.8%) and depression (20.8%) were the most prevalent in Norway. Large country-specific variations were observed, e.g., in ADHD (0.5% in Czechia, 15.8% in Norway), implying differences in screening and diagnostic practices. The SMR estimates for any mental disorders were 3.1 (females) and 5.1 (males) in Czechia and 5.6 (females) and 8.2 (males) in Norway. OAT females had a significantly higher prevalence of co-occurring mental disorders, whereas SMRs were higher in OAT males. In addition to opioid use disorder (OUD), other substance use disorders (SUDs) were frequently recorded in both countries.

CONCLUSIONS

Results indicate an excess of mental health problems in OAT patients compared to the general population of the same sex and age in both countries, requiring appropriate clinical attention. Country-specific differences may stem from variations in diagnostics and care, reporting to registers, OAT provision, or substance use patterns.

Male and female variability in response to chronic stress and morphine in C57BL/6J, DBA/2J, and their BXD progeny

Drug addiction is a multifactorial syndrome in which genetic predispositions and exposure to environmental stressors constitute major risk factors for the early onset, escalation, and relapse of addictive behaviors. While it is well known that stress plays a key role in drug addiction, the genetic factors that make certain individuals particularly sensitive to stress and thereby more vulnerable to becoming addicted are unknown. In an effort to test a complex set of gene x environment interactions-specifically gene x chronic stress -here we leveraged a systems genetics resource: BXD recombinant inbred mice (BXD5, BXD8, BXD14, BXD22, BXD29, and BXD32) and their parental mouse lines, C57BL/6J and DBA/2J. Utilizing the chronic social defeat stress (CSDS) and chronic variable stress (CVS) paradigms, we first showed sexual dimorphism in the behavioral stress response between the mouse strains. Further, we observed an interaction between genetic background and vulnerability to prolonged exposure to non-social stressors. Finally, we found that DBA/2J and C57BL/6J mice pre-exposed to stress displayed differences in morphine sensitivity. Our results support the hypothesis that genetic variation in predisposition to stress responses influences morphine sensitivity and is likely to modulate the development of drug addiction.

Endogenous opiates and behavior: 2022

This paper is the forty-fifth consecutive installment of the annual anthological review of research concerning the endogenous opioid system, summarizing articles published during 2022 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 (1), the roles of these opioid peptides and receptors in pain and analgesia in animals (2) and humans (3), opioid-sensitive and opioid-insensitive effects of nonopioid analgesics (4), opioid peptide and receptor involvement in tolerance and dependence (5), stress and social status (6), learning and memory (7), eating and drinking (8), drug abuse and alcohol (9), sexual activity and hormones, pregnancy, development and endocrinology (10), mental illness and mood (11), seizures and neurologic disorders (12), electrical-related activity and neurophysiology (13), general activity and locomotion (14), gastrointestinal, renal and hepatic functions (15), cardiovascular responses (16), respiration and thermoregulation (17), and immunological responses (18).

Telemedicine-delivered treatment for substance use disorder: A scoping review

INTRODUCTION

The COVID pandemic prompted a significant increase in the utilization of telemedicine (TM) for substance use disorder (SUD) treatment. As we transition towards a "new normal" policy, it is crucial to comprehensively understand the evidence of TM in SUD treatment. This scoping review aims to summarize existing evidence regarding TM's acceptability, quality, effectiveness, access/utilization, and cost in the context of SUD treatment in order to identify knowledge gaps and inform policy decisions regarding TM for SUDs.

METHOD

We searched studies published in 2012-2022 from PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, and other sources. Findings were synthesized using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 856 relevant articles were screened, with a final total of 42 articles included in the review. TM in SUD treatment was perceived to be generally beneficial and acceptable. TM was as effective as in-person SUD care in terms of substance use reduction and treatment retention; however, most studies lacked rigorous designs and follow-up durations were brief (≤3 months). Telephone-based TM platforms (vs video) were positively associated with older age, lower education, and no prior overdose. Providers generally consider TM to be affordable for patients, but no relevant studies were available from patient perspectives.

CONCLUSIONS

TM in SUD treatment is generally perceived to be beneficial and acceptable and as effective as in-person care, although more rigorously designed studies on effectiveness are still lacking. Access and utilization of TM may vary by platform. TM service quality and costs are the least studied and warrant further investigations.

Long-term recovery from opioid use disorder: recovery subgroups, transition states and their association with substance use, treatment and quality of life

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Limited information exists regarding individual subgroups of recovery from opioid use disorder (OUD) following treatment and how these subgroups may relate to recovery trajectories. We used multi-dimensional criteria to identify OUD recovery subgroups and longitudinal transitions across subgroups.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

In a national longitudinal observational study in the United States, individuals who previously participated in a clinical trial for subcutaneous buprenorphine injections for treatment of OUD were enrolled and followed for an average of 4.2 years after participation in the clinical trial.

MEASUREMENTS

We identified recovery subgroups based on psychosocial outcomes including depression, opioid withdrawal and pain. We compared opioid use, treatment utilization and quality of life among these subgroups.

FINDINGS

Three dimensions of the recovery process were identified: depression, opioid withdrawal and pain. Using these three dimensions, participants were classified into four recovery subgroups: high-functioning (minimal depression, mild withdrawal and no/mild pain), pain/physical health (minimal depression, mild withdrawal and moderate pain), depression (moderate depression, mild withdrawal and mild/moderate pain) and low-functioning (moderate/severe withdrawal, moderate depression and moderate/severe pain). Significant differences among subgroups were observed for DSM-5 criteria (P < 0.001) and remission status (P < 0.001), as well as with opioid use (P < 0.001), treatment utilization (P < 0.001) and quality of life domains (physical health, psychological, environment and social relationships; Ps < 0.001, Cohen's fs ≥ 0.62). Recovery subgroup assignments were dynamic, with individuals transitioning across subgroups during the observational period. Moreover, the initial recovery subgroup assignment was minimally predictive of long-term outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

There appear to be four distinct subgroups among individuals in recovery from OUD. Recovery subgroup assignments are dynamic and predictive of contemporaneous, but not long-term, substance use, substance use treatment utilization or quality of life outcomes.

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.

Opioid agonist treatment for people who are dependent on pharmaceutical opioids

BACKGROUND

There are ongoing concerns regarding pharmaceutical opioid-related harms, including overdose and dependence, with an associated increase in treatment demand. People dependent on pharmaceutical opioids appear to differ in important ways from people who use heroin, yet most opioid agonist treatment research has been conducted in people who use heroin.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of maintenance opioid agonist pharmacotherapy for the treatment of pharmaceutical opioid dependence.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated our searches of the following databases to January 2022: the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, four other databases, and two trial registers. We checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs with adults and adolescents examining maintenance opioid agonist treatments that made the following two comparisons. 1. Full opioid agonists (methadone, morphine, oxycodone, levo-alpha-acetylmethadol (LAAM), or codeine) versus different full opioid agonists or partial opioid agonists (buprenorphine) for maintenance treatment. 2. Full or partial opioid agonist maintenance versus non-opioid agonist treatments (detoxification, opioid antagonist, or psychological treatment without opioid agonist treatment).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified eight RCTs that met inclusion criteria (709 participants). We found four studies that compared methadone and buprenorphine maintenance treatment, and four studies that compared buprenorphine maintenance to either buprenorphine taper (in addition to psychological treatment) or a non-opioid maintenance treatment comparison. We found low-certainty evidence from three studies of a difference between methadone and buprenorphine in favour of methadone on self-reported opioid use at end of treatment (risk ratio (RR) 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28 to 0.86; 165 participants), and low-certainty evidence from four studies finding a difference in favour of methadone for retention in treatment (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.43; 379 participants). We found low-certainty evidence from three studies showing no difference between methadone and buprenorphine on substance use measured with urine drug screens at end of treatment (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.17; 206 participants), and moderate-certainty evidence from one study of no difference in days of self-reported opioid use (mean difference 1.41 days, 95% CI 3.37 lower to 0.55 days higher; 129 participants). There was low-certainty evidence from three studies of no difference between methadone and buprenorphine on adverse events (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.93; 206 participants). We found low-certainty evidence from four studies favouring maintenance buprenorphine treatment over non-opioid treatments in terms of fewer opioid positive urine drug tests at end of treatment (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.84; 270 participants), and very low-certainty evidence from four studies finding no difference on self-reported opioid use in the past 30 days at end of treatment (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.01; 276 participants). There was low-certainty evidence from three studies of no difference in the number of days of unsanctioned opioid use (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.19, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.09; 205 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence from four studies favouring buprenorphine maintenance over non-opioid treatments on retention in treatment (RR 3.02, 95% CI 1.73 to 5.27; 333 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence from three studies of no difference in adverse effects between buprenorphine maintenance and non-opioid treatments (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.48; 252 participants). The main weaknesses in the quality of the data was the use of open-label study designs, and difference in follow-up rates between treatment arms.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is  very low- to moderate-certainty evidence supporting the use of maintenance agonist pharmacotherapy for pharmaceutical opioid dependence. Methadone or buprenorphine did not differ on some outcomes, although on the outcomes of retention and self-reported substance use some results favoured methadone. Maintenance treatment with buprenorphine appears more effective than non-opioid treatments. Due to the overall very low- to moderate-certainty evidence and small sample sizes, there is the possibility that the further research may change these findings.

Transition From Full Mu Opioid Agonists to Buprenorphine in Opioid Dependent Patients-A Critical Review

Methadone, a full opioid agonist at the mu-, kappa-, and delta-receptor, and buprenorphine, a partial agonist at the mu receptor, are first-line medications in opioid maintenance treatment. Transition from methadone to buprenorphine may precipitate withdrawal, and no accepted algorithm for this procedure has been developed. Current treatment strategies recommend transfer from methadone to buprenorphine predominantly in patients at low doses of methadone (30-40 mg/day). There are some reports indicating that transition from higher doses of methadone may be possible. A number of dosing strategies have been proposed to soften withdrawal symptoms and facilitate transfer including use of other opioids or medications and especially microdosing techniques for buprenorphine. The case series and studies available thus far are reviewed.