PRimary Care Opioid Use Disorders treatment (PROUD) trial protocol: a pragmatic, cluster-randomized implementation trial in primary care for opioid use disorder treatment

The Impact of COVID-19 on Substance Use and Related Consequences among Patients in Office-Based Opioid Use Disorder Treatment

OBJECTIVES

The COVID-19 pandemic led to increased substance-related morbidity and mortality and transformed care for opioid use disorder (OUD). We assessed the perceived impacts of the pandemic on substance use and related consequences among patients in office-based addiction treatment (OBAT).

METHODS

We recruited patients with OUD on buprenorphine from July 2021 to July 2022, with data collection at baseline and 6 months. Exposures of interest were the following 6 domains potentially impacted by COVID-19: personal or family infection, difficulty accessing healthcare/medication, economic stressors, worsening physical or mental health, social isolation, and conflicts/disruptions in the home. Outcomes were past 30-day alcohol and other substance use, increased use, and substance-related consequences at baseline and 6 months. Generalized estimating equations Poisson regression models quantified associations between increasing impact domain scores and relative risks of each outcome.

RESULTS

All participants (N = 150) reported at least one domain negatively impacted by COVID-19 at both time points. Higher "worsening physical or mental health" domain scores were associated with increased relative risk of recent alcohol or drug use (adjusted risk ratio [aRR] 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01-1.07). Relative risks of experiencing substance-related consequences increased with higher scores in the domains of economic stressors (aRR 1.07, 95% CI: 1.02-1.13), difficulty accessing healthcare/medication (aRR 1.11, 95% CI: 1.04-1.19), and worsening physical or mental health (aRR 1.08, 95% CI: 1.04-1.12).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with OUD, stressors from COVID-19 were common. Three life domains impacted by COVID-19 appeared to be associated with consequential substance use, highlighting opportunities to address barriers to healthcare access and economic stressors.

Offering nurse care management for opioid use disorder in primary care: Impact on emergency and hospital utilization in a cluster-randomized implementation trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) have increased emergency and hospital utilization. The PROUD trial showed that implementation of office-based addiction treatment (OBAT) increased OUD medication treatment compared to usual care, but did not decrease acute care utilization in patients with OUD documented pre-randomization (clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03407638). This paper reports secondary emergency and hospital utilization outcomes in patients with documented OUD in the PROUD trial.

METHODS

This cluster-randomized implementation trial was conducted in 12 clinics from 6 diverse health systems (March 2015-February 2020). Patients who visited trial clinics and had an OUD diagnosis within 3 years pre-randomization were included in primary analyses; secondary analyses added patients with OUD who were new to the clinic or with newly-documented OUD post-randomization. Outcomes included days of emergency care and hospital utilization over 2 years post-randomization. Explanatory outcomes included measures of OUD treatment. Patient-level analyses used mixed-effect regression with clinic-specific random intercepts.

RESULTS

Among 1988 patients with documented OUD seen pre-randomization (mean age 49, 53 % female), days of emergency care or hospitalization did not differ between intervention and usual care; OUD treatment also did not differ. In secondary analyses among 1347 patients with OUD post-randomization, there remained no difference in emergency or hospital utilization despite intervention patients receiving 32.2 (95 % CI 4.7, 59.7) more days of OUD treatment relative to usual care.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of OBAT did not reduce emergency or hospital utilization among patients with OUD, even in the sample with OUD first documented post-randomization in whom the intervention increased treatment.

Initiation and Receipt of Medication for Opioid Use Disorder Among Adolescents and Young Adults in 4 State Medicaid Programs in 2018: Improving Medicaid Quality Metrics

BACKGROUND

Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) in youth can reduce harms but many youths do not receive MOUD. Improving quality metrics of MOUD among youth can advance interventions for youth with opioid use disorder (OUD).

METHODS

We relied on 2018 Medicaid claims data from California, Colorado, Massachusetts, and New Mexico. We calculated the percentage of youth with OUD included in the quality metric for initiation, and the percentage who initiated by state. We also calculated the percentage excluded from the quality metric for initiation because they have an existing episode of OUD care and their MOUD receipt. We compared the characteristics of those who initiated/received MOUD to those who did not and compared state estimates after adjusting for age and health conditions.

RESULTS

Estimates of initiation exclude about half of the youth with OUD because they were in an existing episode of OUD care and could not be observed initiating. Among youth in a new episode of OUD care, only about 1 in 4 initiated and state estimates varied from 18.9% to 40.1%. Among youth with an existing episode of OUD care, more than half received MOUD and state estimates ranged from 35.2% to 71.3%. Youth who initiated MOUD or received MOUD with an existing OUD had more severe OUD but fewer co-occurring substance use disorders or mental or physical health diagnoses. After adjusting for age and health conditions, MOUD still varied substantially across states.

CONCLUSIONS

Most youth with a new OUD diagnosis do not initiate MOUD but more than half of the youth in an existing OUD diagnosis receive MOUD. MOUD quality metrics that are disaggregated, adjusted, and inclusive of youth in an existing episode of care provide additional insight into opportunities to better support youth who might choose MOUD. State differences should be further studied for insight into policies that may affect MOUD.

"The Only Reason I Am Willing to Do It at All": Evaluation of VA's SUpporting Primary care Providers in Opioid Risk reduction and Treatment (SUPPORT) Center

OBJECTIVES

Medication treatment for opioid use disorder (MOUD) is effective and recommended for outpatient settings. We implemented and evaluated the SUpporting Primary care Providers in Opioid Risk reduction and Treatment (SUPPORT) Center-a quality improvement partnership to implement stepped care for MOUD in 2 Veterans Health Administration (VA) primary care (PC) clinics.

METHODS

SUPPORT provided a dedicated clinical team (nurse practitioner prescriber and social worker) and stepped care ([1] identification, assessment, referral; [2] MOUD induction; [3] stabilization; and [4] maintenance supporting PC providers [PCPs] to initiate and/or sustain treatment) coupled with ongoing internal facilitation (consultation, trainings, informatics support). Qualitative interviews with stakeholders (PCPs and patients) and meeting notes identified barriers and facilitators to implementation. Electronic health record and patient tracking data measured reach, adoption, and implementation outcomes descriptively.

RESULTS

SUPPORT's implementation barriers included the need for an X-waiver, VA's opioid tapering policies, patient and PCP knowledge gaps and PCP discomfort, and logistical compatibility and sustainability challenges for clinics. SUPPORT's dedicated clinical staff, ongoing internal facilitation, and high patient and PCP satisfaction were key facilitators. SUPPORT (January 2019 to September 2021) trained 218 providers; 63 received X-waivers, and 23 provided MOUD (10.5% of those trained). SUPPORT provided care to 167 patients, initiated MOUD for 33, and provided education and naloxone to 72 (all = 0 in year before launch).

CONCLUSIONS

SUPPORT reached many PCPs and patients and resulted in small increases in MOUD prescribing and high levels of stakeholder satisfaction. Dedicated clinical staff was key to observed successes. Although resource-intensive, SUPPORT offers a potential model for outpatient MOUD provision.

Engagement, initiation, and retention in medication treatment for opioid use disorder among young adults: A narrative review of challenges and opportunities

INTRODUCTION

Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) is a catastrophic public health problem for young adults (YAs) and their families. While medication for OUD (MOUD) is safe, effective, and recognized as the standard of care, its' uptake and success have been limited in YAs compared to older adults.

METHODS

This narrative review summarizes the existing literature and highlights select studies regarding barriers to YA MOUD, potential explanations for those barriers, and strategies to overcome them.

RESULTS

Barriers are prominent along the entire cascade of care, including: treatment engagement and entry, MOUD initiation, and MOUD retention. Hypothesized explanations for barriers include: developmental vulnerability, inadequate treatment system capacity, stigma against MOUD, among others. Interventions to address barriers include: promotion of family involvement, increasing provider capacity, integration of MOUD into primary care, assertive outreach, and others.

CONCLUSIONS

Integrating an adapted version of family coaching from the Community Reinforcement Approach and Family Training (CRAFT) and other models into YA MOUD treatment serves as an example of an emerging novel practice that holds promise for broadening the funnel of engagement in treatment and initiation of MOUD, and enhancing treatment outcomes. This and other developmentally-informed approaches should be evaluated as part of a high-priority clinical and research agenda for improving OUD treatment for YAs.

Understanding Healthcare Providers' Care for Patients with Medications Treating Opioid Use Disorder in the Emergency Department: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

There is limited research exploring the changing clinical practices among healthcare providers (HPs) care for patients with Emergency Department (ED)-initiated Medication for Opioid Use Disorder (MOUD).

METHODS

This scoping review followed the methodological framework of Arksey and O'Malley to map relevant evidence and synthesize the findings. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Scopus for related studies from inception through October 12, 2022. Following the application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, 16 studies were included. Subsequently, they were charted and analyzed thematically based on ecological systems theory.

RESULTS

The main determinants in the four ecological systems were generated as follows: (1) microsystem: willingness and attitude, professional competence, readiness, and preference; (2) mesosystem: ED clinical practices, departmental factors; (3) exosystem: multidisciplinary approaches, discharge planning, and (4) macrosystem: stigma, health insurance, policy. The findings have implications for HPs and researchers, as insufficient adoption, implementation, and retention of MOUD in the ED affect clinical practices.

CONCLUSIONS

Across the four ecological systems, ED-initiated MOUD is shaped by multifaceted determinants. The microsystem underscores pivotal patient-HP trust dynamics, while the mesosystem emphasizes interdepartmental synergies. Exosystemically, resource allocation and standardized training remain paramount. The macrosystem reveals profound effects of stigma, insurance disparities, and evolving policies on treatment access and efficacy. Addressing these interconnected barriers is crucial for optimizing patient outcomes in the context of MOUD.

Evaluating tests for cluster-randomized trials with few clusters under generalized linear mixed models with covariate adjustment: A simulation study

Generalized linear mixed models (GLMM) are commonly used to analyze clustered data, but when the number of clusters is small to moderate, standard statistical tests may produce elevated type I error rates. Small-sample corrections have been proposed for continuous or binary outcomes without covariate adjustment. However, appropriate tests to use for count outcomes or under covariate-adjusted models remains unknown. An important setting in which this issue arises is in cluster-randomized trials (CRTs). Because many CRTs have just a few clusters (eg, clinics or health systems), covariate adjustment is particularly critical to address potential chance imbalance and/or low power (eg, adjustment following stratified randomization or for the baseline value of the outcome). We conducted simulations to evaluate GLMM-based tests of the treatment effect that account for the small (10) or moderate (20) number of clusters under a parallel-group CRT setting across scenarios of covariate adjustment (including adjustment for one or more person-level or cluster-level covariates) for both binary and count outcomes. We find that when the intraclass correlation is non-negligible (≥ $$ \ge $$ 0.01) and the number of covariates is small (≤ $$ \le $$ 2), likelihood ratio tests with a between-within denominator degree of freedom have type I error rates close to the nominal level. When the number of covariates is moderate (≥ $$ \ge $$ 5), across our simulation scenarios, the relative performance of the tests varied considerably and no method performed uniformly well. Therefore, we recommend adjusting for no more than a few covariates and using likelihood ratio tests with a between-within denominator degree of freedom.

Establishing a Protocol for Determining the Costs of an Integrated Set of Evidence-based Practices Aimed at Reducing Opioid Overdose Deaths

OBJECTIVES

In the midst of the opioid overdose crisis, local jurisdictions face a choice of public health interventions. A significant barrier when considering evidence-based practices (EBPs) is the lack of information regarding their implementation cost. This protocol paper provides the methodological foundation for the economic cost evaluations of community-wide strategies on the scale of a national study. It can serve as a resource for other communities, local policymakers, and stakeholders as they consider implementing possible public health strategies in their unique settings.

METHODS

We present a protocol that details (1) the process of identifying, reviewing, and analyzing individual strategies for study-funded and non-study-funded costs; (2) prospective costing tool designation, and; (3) data collection. To do this, we set up working groups with community stakeholders, reviewed financial invoices, and surveyed individuals with detailed knowledge of their community implementation.

DISCUSSION

There were 3 main challenges/limitations. The first was the lack of a standard structure for documenting nonfunded costs associated with each strategy. The second was the need for timely implementation of cost data. The third was generalizability because our study designed its strategies for selected communities due to their high opioid overdose mortality rates. Future steps include more tailored questions to ask during the categorization/filter process and establishing realistic expectations for organizations regarding documenting.

CONCLUSIONS

Data collected will provide a critical methodological foundation for costing large community-based EBP strategies and provide clarity for stakeholders on the cost of implementing EBP strategies to reduce opioid overdose deaths.

Nurse Care Management for Opioid Use Disorder Treatment: The PROUD Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Few primary care (PC) practices treat patients with medications for opioid use disorder (OUD) despite availability of effective treatments.

Objective

To assess whether implementation of the Massachusetts model of nurse care management for OUD in PC increases OUD treatment with buprenorphine or extended-release injectable naltrexone and secondarily decreases acute care utilization.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The Primary Care Opioid Use Disorders Treatment (PROUD) trial was a mixed-methods, implementation-effectiveness cluster randomized clinical trial conducted in 6 diverse health systems across 5 US states (New York, Florida, Michigan, Texas, and Washington). Two PC clinics in each system were randomized to intervention or usual care (UC) stratified by system (5 systems were notified on February 28, 2018, and 1 system with delayed data use agreement on August 31, 2018). Data were obtained from electronic health records and insurance claims. An implementation monitoring team collected qualitative data. Primary care patients were included if they were 16 to 90 years old and visited a participating clinic from up to 3 years before a system's randomization date through 2 years after.

Intervention

The PROUD intervention included 3 components: (1) salary for a full-time OUD nurse care manager; (2) training and technical assistance for nurse care managers; and (3) 3 or more PC clinicians agreeing to prescribe buprenorphine.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was a clinic-level measure of patient-years of OUD treatment (buprenorphine or extended-release injectable naltrexone) per 10 000 PC patients during the 2 years postrandomization (follow-up). The secondary outcome, among patients with OUD prerandomization, was a patient-level measure of the number of days of acute care utilization during follow-up.

Results

During the baseline period, a total of 130 623 patients were seen in intervention clinics (mean [SD] age, 48.6 [17.7] years; 59.7% female), and 159 459 patients were seen in UC clinics (mean [SD] age, 47.2 [17.5] years; 63.0% female). Intervention clinics provided 8.2 (95% CI, 5.4-∞) more patient-years of OUD treatment per 10 000 PC patients compared with UC clinics (P = .002). Most of the benefit accrued in 2 health systems and in patients new to clinics (5.8 [95% CI, 1.3-∞] more patient-years) or newly treated for OUD postrandomization (8.3 [95% CI, 4.3-∞] more patient-years). Qualitative data indicated that keys to successful implementation included broad commitment to treat OUD in PC from system leaders and PC teams, full financial coverage for OUD treatment, and straightforward pathways for patients to access nurse care managers. Acute care utilization did not differ between intervention and UC clinics (relative rate, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.47-2.92; P = .70).

Conclusions and Relevance

The PROUD cluster randomized clinical trial intervention meaningfully increased PC OUD treatment, albeit unevenly across health systems; however, it did not decrease acute care utilization among patients with OUD.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03407638.

Impact of an intervention to implement provision of opioid use disorder medication among patients with and without co-occurring substance use disorders

INTRODUCTION

Co-occurring substance use disorders (SUDs) are common among people with opioid use disorder (OUD) and known to hinder receipt of medications for OUD (MOUD). It is important to understand how MOUD care implemented outside of SUD specialty settings impacts access for patients with co-occurring SUDs. The Veterans Health Administration's (VA) Stepped Care for Opioid Use Disorder Train the Trainer (SCOUTT) initiative was implemented in primary care, mental health, and pain clinics in 18 VA facilities, and was found to increase MOUD receipt. This study assessed the SCOUTT initiative's impact among patients with and without co-occurring SUDs.

METHODS

This study used a controlled interrupted time series design. We extracted electronic health record data for patients with OUD with visits in SCOUTT intervention or matched comparison clinics during the post-implementation year (9/1/2018-8/31/2019). We examined the monthly proportion of patients who received MOUD in SCOUTT intervention or comparison clinics (primary care, mental health, and pain clinics), or in a VA SUD specialty clinic (where patients may have been referred), during the pre- and post-implementation years. Segmented logistic regression models estimated pre-post changes in outcomes (immediate level change from the final month of the pre-implementation period to the first month of the post-implementation period, change in trend/slope) in intervention vs. comparison facilities, adjusting for patient characteristics and pre-implementation trends. We stratified analyses by the presence of co-occurring SUDs.

RESULTS

Among patients without co-occurring SUDs, the pre-post trend/slope change in MOUD received in SCOUTT intervention or comparison clinics was greater in intervention vs. comparison facilities (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.06, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02-1.10), and the immediate increase in MOUD received in SUD clinics was greater in intervention vs. comparison facilities (aOR: 1.12, 95% CI: 1.02-1.22). These changes did not significantly differ in intervention vs. comparison facilities among patients with co-occurring SUDs.

CONCLUSIONS

The SCOUTT initiative may have increased MOUD receipt primarily among patients without co-occurring SUDs. Focusing on increasing MOUD receipt for patients with co-occurring SUDs may improve the overall effectiveness of MOUD implementation efforts.

A Complex mHealth Coaching Intervention to Prevent Overweight, Obesity, and Diabetes in High-Risk Women in Antenatal Care: Protocol for a Hybrid Type 2 Effectiveness-Implementation Study

BACKGROUND

Women with overweight and obesity are at higher risk of developing complications in pregnancy such as gestational diabetes and longer-term chronic conditions. Research concerning health behavior change interventions during pregnancy and postpartum shows promising effects, but implementation into routine services is sparsely investigated. Most interventions focus on the antenatal or postpartum life stages, failing to meet the needs of women. IMPACT DIABETES Bump2Baby is a multicenter project across 4 high-income countries developed to test the implementation of an antenatal and postpartum evidence-based mobile health (mHealth) coaching intervention called Bump2Baby and Me (B2B&Me) designed to sit alongside usual care in the perinatal period.

OBJECTIVE

We aim to explore the feasibility and implementation of the B2B&Me intervention and investigate the effectiveness of this intervention in women at risk of gestational diabetes.

METHODS

IMPACT DIABETES Bump2Baby is a hybrid type 2 effectiveness-implementation study, which integrates an evidence-based mHealth coaching app that includes personalized health behavior change coaching provided by health care professionals alongside antenatal care from the first antenatal visit to 12 months postpartum. The mHealth app offers the possibility of synchronous calls, asynchronous contact (including coach-participant text and video messaging exchanges tailored to the participant's needs), and ongoing access to an extensive library of bespoke intervention materials. Participants will interact asynchronously with their health coach throughout the intervention via the app. This randomized controlled trial across 4 clinical sites within Ireland, the United Kingdom, Spain, and Australia will recruit 800 women in early pregnancy to evaluate the effectiveness on postpartum weight. The Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment implementation framework is the theoretical underpinning of the study. The implementation evaluation will be assessed at the individual, hospital staff, and broader community levels using the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. Data sources for the RE-AIM evaluation will include app and platform analytics, screening and training records, participant medical records, key informant interviews, participant and partner exit interviews, cost data, study questionnaires, staff surveys, and blood sample analyses.

RESULTS

The study was approved and registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry on November 19, 2020. Recruitment commenced on February 9, 2021, and data collection is ongoing. Publication of the results is expected in 2024.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first hybrid effectiveness-implementation study of an 18-month mHealth coaching intervention in at-risk women that we are aware of. As research aims to move toward real-world implementable solutions, it is critical that hybrid studies are conducted. The data from this large multicenter study will be useful in planning the potential implementation and scale-up of evidence-based perinatal health behavior change interventions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12620001240932; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=380020&isReview=true.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/51431.

Integrating Opioid Use Disorder Treatment Into Primary Care Settings

Importance

Medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) (eg, buprenorphine and naltrexone) can be offered in primary care, but barriers to implementation exist.

Objective

To evaluate an implementation intervention over 2 years to explore experiences and perspectives of multidisciplinary primary care (PC) teams initiating or expanding MOUD.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This survey-based and ethnographic qualitative study was conducted at 12 geographically and structurally diverse primary care clinics that enrolled in a hybrid effectiveness-implementation study from July 2020 to July 2022 and included PC teams (prescribing clinicians, nonprescribing behavioral health care managers, and consulting psychiatrists). Survey data analysis was conducted from February to April 2022.

Exposure

Implementation intervention (external practice facilitation) to integrate OUD treatment alongside existing collaborative care for mental health services.

Measures

Data included (1) quantitative surveys of primary care teams that were analyzed descriptively and triangulated with qualitative results and (2) qualitative field notes from ethnographic observation of clinic implementation meetings analyzed using rapid assessment methods.

Results

Sixty-two primary care team members completed the survey (41 female individuals [66%]; 1 [2%] American Indian or Alaskan Native, 4 [7%] Asian, 5 [8%] Black or African American, 5 [8%] Hispanic or Latino, 1 [2%] Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and 46 [4%] White individuals), of whom 37 (60%) were between age 25 and 44 years. An analysis of implementation meetings (n = 362) and survey data identified 4 themes describing multilevel factors associated with PC team provision of MOUD during implementation, with variation in their experience across clinics. Themes characterized challenges with clinical administrative logistics that limited the capacity to provide rapid access to care and patient engagement as well as clinician confidence to discuss aspects of MOUD care with patients. These challenges were associated with conflicting attitudes among PC teams toward expanding MOUD care.

Conclusions and Relevance

The results of this survey and qualitative study of PC team perspectives suggest that PC teams need flexibility in appointment scheduling and the capacity to effectively engage patients with OUD as well as ongoing training to maintain clinician confidence in the face of evolving opioid-related clinical issues. Future work should address structural challenges associated with workload burden and limited schedule flexibility that hinder MOUD expansion in PC settings.

Integrating MOUD and Primary Care: Outcomes of a Multicenter Learning Collaborative

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Opioid use and overdose remain a central and worsening public health emergency in the United States and abroad. Efforts to expand treatment have struggled to match the rising incidence of opioid use disorder (OUD), and treating patients in primary care settings represents one of the most promising opportunities to meet this need. Learning collaboratives (LCs) are one evidence-based strategy to improve implementation of medication treatment for opioid use disorder (MOUD) in primary care.

METHODS

We developed and studied a multidisciplinary MOUD learning collaborative involving six underserved primary care clinics. We used a mixed-methods approach to assess needs, develop curriculum, and evaluate outcomes from these clinics.

RESULTS

We recruited six clinics to participate in the collaborative. Half had an established MOUD program. Approximately 80% of participants achieved their organizational quality improvement goals for the collaborative. After the collaborative, participants also reported a significant increase in their perceived competence to implement/improve a MOUD program (pre-LC competence=2.80, post-LC competence=6.33/10, P=.02). The most consistent barrier we identified was stigma around OUD and its effects on patients' ability to access services and staff/provider ability to provide services. The most frequent enablers of program success were trainee interest, organizational leadership support, and a dedicated MOUD care team.

CONCLUSIONS

Organizations used clinical and systems improvement knowledge to enhance their existing programs or to take steps to create new programs. All participants identified the need for additional staff/clinician training, especially to overcome stigma around OUD. The outcomes demonstrated the crucial importance of long-term organizational support for program success.

Treating opioid use disorder in veterans with co-occurring substance use: a qualitative study with buprenorphine providers in primary care, mental health, and pain settings

BACKGROUND

Most people with opioid use disorder (OUD) have co-occurring substance use, which is associated with lower receipt of OUD medications (MOUD). Expanding MOUD provision and care linkage outside of substance use disorder (SUD) specialty settings is a key strategy to increase access. Therefore, it is important to understand how MOUD providers in these settings approach care for patients with co-occurring substance use. This qualitative study of Veterans Health Administration (VA) clinicians providing buprenorphine care in primary care, mental health, and pain settings aimed to understand (1) their approach to addressing OUD in patients with co-occurring substance use, (2) perspectives on barriers/facilitators to MOUD receipt for this population, and (3) support needed to increase MOUD receipt for this population.

METHODS

We interviewed a purposive sample of 27 clinicians (12 primary care, 7 mental health, 4 pain, 4 pharmacists) in the VA northwest network. The interview guide assessed domains of the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases Checklist. Interviews were transcribed and qualitatively analyzed using inductive content analysis.

RESULTS

Participants reported varied approaches to identifying co-occurring substance use and addressing OUD in this patient population. Although they reported that this topic was not clearly addressed in clinical guidelines or training, participants generally felt that patients with co-occurring substance use should receive MOUD. Some viewed their primary role as providing this care, others as facilitating linkage to OUD care in SUD specialty settings. Participants reported multiple barriers and facilitators to providing buprenorphine care to patients with co-occurring substance use and linking them to SUD specialty care, including provider, patient, organizational, and external factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Efforts are needed to support clinicians outside of SUD specialty settings in providing buprenorphine care to patients with co-occurring substance use. These could include clearer guidelines and policies, more specific training, and increased care integration or cross-disciplinary collaboration. Simultaneously, efforts are needed to improve linkage to specialty SUD care for patients who would benefit from and are willing to receive this care, which could include increased service availability and improved referral/hand-off processes. These efforts may increase MOUD receipt and improve OUD care quality for patients with co-occurring substance use.

A patient-centered nurse-supported primary care-based collaborative care program to treat opioid use disorder and depression: Design and protocol for the MI-CARE randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Opioid use disorder (OUD) contributes to rising morbidity and mortality. Life-saving OUD treatments can be provided in primary care but most patients with OUD don't receive treatment. Comorbid depression and other conditions complicate OUD management, especially in primary care. The MI-CARE trial is a pragmatic randomized encouragement (Zelen) trial testing whether offering collaborative care (CC) to patients with OUD and clinically-significant depressive symptoms increases OUD medication treatment with buprenorphine and improves depression outcomes compared to usual care.

METHODS

Adult primary care patients with OUD and depressive symptoms (n ≥ 800) from two statewide health systems: Kaiser Permanente Washington and Indiana University Health are identified with computer algorithms from electronic Health record (EHR) data and automatically enrolled. A random sub-sample (50%) of eligible patients is offered the MI-CARE intervention: a 12-month nurse-driven CC intervention that includes motivational interviewing and behavioral activation. The remaining 50% of the study cohort comprise the usual care comparison group and is never contacted. The primary outcome is days of buprenorphine treatment provided during the intervention period. The powered secondary outcome is change in Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-9 depression scores. Both outcomes are obtained from secondary electronic healthcare sources and compared in "intent-to-treat" analyses.

CONCLUSION

MI-CARE addresses the need for rigorous encouragement trials to evaluate benefits of offering CC to generalizable samples of patients with OUD and mental health conditions identified from EHRs, as they would be in practice, and comparing outcomes to usual primary care. We describe the design and implementation of the trial, currently underway.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05122676. Clinical trial registration date: November 17, 2021.

Opioid overdose prevention education in Texas during the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

Distribution of naloxone and training on its proper use are evidence-based strategies for preventing opioid overdose deaths. In-person naloxone training was conducted in major metropolitan areas and urban centers across Texas as part of a state-wide targeted opioid response program. The training program transitioned to a live, virtual format during the COVID-19 public health emergency declaration. This manuscript describes the impact of this transition through analyses of the characteristics of communities reached using the new virtual training format.

CASE PRESENTATION

Training participant addresses were compared to county rates of opioid overdose deaths and broadband internet access, and census block comparison to health services shortages, rural designation, and race/ethnicity community characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

The virtual training format reached more learners than the in-person events. Training reached nearly half of the counties in Texas, including all with recent opioid overdose deaths. Most participants lived in communities with a shortage of health service providers, and training reached rural areas, those with limited broadband internet availability, and majority Hispanic communities. In the context of restrictions on in-person gathering, the training program successfully shifted to a live, online format. This transition increased participation above rates observed pre-pandemic and reached communities with the need for equipping those most likely to witness an opioid overdose with the proper use of naloxone.

Study protocol for a factorial-randomized controlled trial evaluating the implementation, costs, effectiveness, and sustainment of digital therapeutics for substance use disorder in primary care (DIGITS Trial)

BACKGROUND

Experts recommend that treatment for substance use disorder (SUD) be integrated into primary care. The Digital Therapeutics for Opioids and Other SUD (DIGITS) Trial tests strategies for implementing reSET® and reSET-O®, which are prescription digital therapeutics for SUD and opioid use disorder, respectively, that include the community reinforcement approach, contingency management, and fluency training to reinforce concept mastery. This purpose of this trial is to test whether two implementation strategies improve implementation success (Aim 1) and achieve better population-level cost effectiveness (Aim 2) over a standard implementation approach.

METHODS/DESIGN

The DIGITS Trial is a hybrid type III cluster-randomized trial. It examines outcomes of implementation strategies, rather than studying clinical outcomes of a digital therapeutic. It includes 22 primary care clinics from a healthcare system in Washington State and patients with unhealthy substance use who visit clinics during an active implementation period (up to one year). Primary care clinics implemented reSET and reSET-O using a multifaceted implementation strategy previously used by clinical leaders to roll-out smartphone apps ("standard implementation" including discrete strategies such as clinician training, electronic health record tools). Clinics were randomized as 21 sites in a 2x2 factorial design to receive up to two added implementation strategies: (1) practice facilitation, and/or (2) health coaching. Outcome data are derived from electronic health records and logs of digital therapeutic usage. Aim 1's primary outcomes include reach of the digital therapeutics to patients and fidelity of patients' use of the digital therapeutics to clinical recommendations. Substance use and engagement in SUD care are additional outcomes. In Aim 2, population-level cost effectiveness analysis will inform the economic benefit of the implementation strategies compared to standard implementation. Implementation is monitored using formative evaluation, and sustainment will be studied for up to one year using qualitative and quantitative research methods.

DISCUSSION

The DIGITS Trial uses an experimental design to test whether implementation strategies increase and improve the delivery of digital therapeutics for SUDs when embedded in a large healthcare system. It will provide data on the potential benefits and cost-effectiveness of alternative implementation strategies.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov Identifier: NCT05160233 (Submitted 12/3/2021). https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05160233.

Design and management considerations for control groups in hybrid effectiveness-implementation trials: Narrative review & case studies

Hybrid effectiveness-implementation studies allow researchers to combine study of a clinical intervention's effectiveness with study of its implementation with the aim of accelerating the translation of evidence into practice. However, there currently exists limited guidance on how to design and manage such hybrid studies. This is particularly true for studies that include a comparison/control arm that, by design, receives less implementation support than the intervention arm. Lack of such guidance can present a challenge for researchers both in setting up but also in effectively managing participating sites in such trials. This paper uses a narrative review of the literature (Phase 1 of the research) and comparative case study of three studies (Phase 2 of the research) to identify common themes related to study design and management. Based on these, we comment and reflect on: (1) the balance that needs to be struck between fidelity to the study design and tailoring to emerging requests from participating sites as part of the research process, and (2) the modifications to the implementation strategies being evaluated. Hybrid trial teams should carefully consider the impact of design selection, trial management decisions, and any modifications to implementation processes and/or support on the delivery of a controlled evaluation. The rationale for these choices should be systematically reported to fill the gap in the literature.

Collaborative mental health care: A narrative review

The Collaborative Care model is a systematic strategy for treating behavioral health conditions in primary care through the integration of care managers and psychiatric consultants. Several randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that Collaborative Care increases access to mental health care and is more effective and cost efficient than the current standard of care for treating common mental illnesses. Large healthcare systems and organizations have begun to adopt Collaborative Care initiatives and are seeing improved treatment outcomes and provider and patient satisfaction. This review discusses current research on the effectiveness and cost-efficiency of Collaborative Care. In addition, this paper discusses its ability to adapt to specific patient populations, such as geriatrics, students, substance use, and women with perinatal depression, as well as the significance of measurement-based care and mental health screening in achieving improved clinical outcomes. Current data suggests that Collaborative Care may significantly improve patient outcomes and time-to-treatment in all reviewed settings, and successfully adapts to special patient populations. Despite the high upfront implementation burden of launching a Collaborative Care model program, these costs are generally offset by long term healthcare savings.

Baseline representativeness of patients in clinics enrolled in the PRimary care Opioid Use Disorders treatment (PROUD) trial: comparison of trial and non-trial clinics in the same health systems

BACKGROUND

Pragmatic primary care trials aim to test interventions in "real world" health care settings, but clinics willing and able to participate in trials may not be representative of typical clinics. This analysis compared patients in participating and non-participating clinics from the same health systems at baseline in the PRimary care Opioid Use Disorders treatment (PROUD) trial.

METHODS

This observational analysis relied on secondary electronic health record and administrative claims data in 5 of 6 health systems in the PROUD trial. The sample included patients 16-90 years at an eligible primary care visit in the 3 years before randomization. Each system contributed 2 randomized PROUD trial clinics and 4 similarly sized non-trial clinics. We summarized patient characteristics in trial and non-trial clinics in the 2 years before randomization ("baseline"). Using mixed-effect regression models, we compared trial and non-trial clinics on a baseline measure of the primary trial outcome (clinic-level patient-years of opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment, scaled per 10,000 primary care patients seen) and a baseline measure of the secondary trial outcome (patient-level days of acute care utilization among patients with OUD).

RESULTS

Patients were generally similar between the 10 trial clinics (n = 248,436) and 20 non-trial clinics (n = 341,130), although trial clinics' patients were slightly younger, more likely to be Hispanic/Latinx, less likely to be white, more likely to have Medicaid/subsidized insurance, and lived in less wealthy neighborhoods. Baseline outcomes did not differ between trial and non-trial clinics: trial clinics had 1.0 more patient-year of OUD treatment per 10,000 patients (95% CI: - 2.9, 5.0) and a 4% higher rate of days of acute care utilization than non-trial clinics (rate ratio: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.76, 1.42).

CONCLUSIONS

trial clinics and non-trial clinics were similar regarding most measured patient characteristics, and no differences were observed in baseline measures of trial primary and secondary outcomes. These findings suggest trial clinics were representative of comparably sized clinics within the same health systems. Although results do not reflect generalizability more broadly, this study illustrates an approach to assess representativeness of clinics in future pragmatic primary care trials.

Sex Differences in Comorbid Mental and Substance Use Disorders Among Primary Care Patients With Opioid Use Disorder

OBJECTIVE

The authors sought to characterize the 3-year prevalence of mental disorders and nonnicotine substance use disorders among male and female primary care patients with documented opioid use disorder across large U.S. health systems.

METHODS

This retrospective study used 2014-2016 data from patients ages ≥16 years in six health systems. Diagnoses were obtained from electronic health records or claims data; opioid use disorder treatment with buprenorphine or injectable extended-release naltrexone was determined through prescription and procedure data. Adjusted prevalence of comorbid conditions among patients with opioid use disorder (with or without treatment), stratified by sex, was estimated by fitting logistic regression models for each condition and applying marginal standardization.

RESULTS

Females (53.2%, N=7,431) and males (46.8%, N=6,548) had a similar prevalence of opioid use disorder. Comorbid mental disorders among those with opioid use disorder were more prevalent among females (86.4% vs. 74.3%, respectively), whereas comorbid other substance use disorders (excluding nicotine) were more common among males (51.9% vs. 60.9%, respectively). These differences held for those receiving medication treatment for opioid use disorder, with mental disorders being more common among treated females (83% vs. 71%) and other substance use disorders more common among treated males (68% vs. 63%). Among patients with a single mental health condition comorbid with opioid use disorder, females were less likely than males to receive medication treatment for opioid use disorder (15% vs. 20%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The high rate of comorbid conditions among patients with opioid use disorder indicates a strong need to supply primary care providers with adequate resources for integrated opioid use disorder treatment.

Expanding access to medications for opioid use disorder through locally-initiated implementation

Background

Despite demonstrated efficacy, medication treatment for opioid use disorder (MOUD) remain inaccessible to many patients, with barriers identified at the individual, clinic and system level. A wide array of implementation strategies have guided efforts to expand access to MOUD, with most centered around externally-facilitated approaches to practice change. While effective, such approaches may be inaccessible to those clinics and systems that lack the resources necessary to partner with an external team, suggesting a need to identify and describe change-processes that are internally developed and promoted.

Methods

Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), we utilized qualitative interviews and ethnographic observation to investigate the planning, design and implementation of a locally-initiated process to expand access to MOUD within one health care system. All study documents were coded by a primary coder and secondary reviewer using a codebook designed for use with the CFIR. To analyze data, we reviewed text tagged by key codes, compared these textual excerpts both across and within documents, and organized findings into themes. Processes identified were mapped to established implementation science constructs and strategies.

Results

Interviews with clinicians and administrators (n = 9) and ethnographic observation of planning meetings (n = 3) revealed how a self-appointed local team developed, established broad support for, and successfully implemented a Primary Care-based Buprenorphine Clinic and E-Consult Service to expand access to MOUD to patients across the health care system. First, national and local policy changes—including altered clinical practice guidelines, performance pay incentives regarding opioid prescribing, and a directive from VA Central Office increased individual staff and administrators’ perception of the need for change and willingness to invest time and resources. Then, a self-appointed interdisciplinary team utilized cross-clinic meetings and information gathering to identify appropriate, and widely supported, models of care delivery and care consultation. Finally, the team increased staff investment in these change efforts by bringing them into the planning process and encouraging collaborative problem solving.

Conclusions

This study reveals how a local team developed and built widespread support for new processes of care that were tailored to local needs and well-positioned for sustainability over time.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13722-022-00312-7.

Roles and Perceptions of Nurses During Implementation of a Medication Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder National Initiative

BACKGROUND

In the United States, a national priority exists to improve access to medication treatment for opioid use disorder (MOUD). Nurses can be an essential component of that care. We examined the perceptions and evolving roles of nurses in a national Veterans Health Administration (VHA) initiative designed to improve MOUD access within general medical settings.

METHODS

From April 15, 2021, to June 16, 2021, we recruited nurses participating in VHA's Stepped Care for Opioid Use Disorder Train the Trainer Initiative-a national program intending to implement MOUD in general medical settings-to participate in an interview about their roles, perceptions, and experiences. The respondents answered our inquiries through an interview or responded to an email solicitation with written responses, which were then recorded, transcribed, and independently coded to identify themes.

RESULTS

Nurses from 10 VHA facilities participated in an interview (n = 7) or completed the questionnaire (n = 4). Inadequate staffing, high patient-to-provider ratios, and time constraints were identified as barriers to MOUD care. Mentorship activities, existing VHA informational resources, and patients' willingness to accept treatment were identified as facilitators of MOUD care. The Stepped Care for Opioid Use Disorder Train the Trainer Initiative processes were acknowledged to promote role confidence, which in turn increased job satisfaction and empowered nurses to become content experts. Respondents often identified nurses as local lead facilitators in MOUD care.

CONCLUSIONS

In a national initiative to implement MOUD within general medical settings, nurses identified several barriers and facilitators to MOUD implementation. Nurses play vital collaborative care roles in enhancing access to MOUD.

Accessibility to Medication for Opioid Use Disorder After Interventions to Improve Prescribing Among Nonaddiction Clinics in the US Veterans Health Care System

IMPORTANCE

With increasing rates of opioid use disorder (OUD) and overdose deaths in the US, increased access to medications for OUD (MOUD) is paramount. Rigorous effectiveness evaluations of large-scale implementation initiatives using quasi-experimental designs are needed to inform expansion efforts.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate a US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) initiative to increase MOUD use in nonaddiction clinics.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This quality improvement initiative used interrupted time series design to compare trends in MOUD receipt. Primary care, pain, and mental health clinics in the VA health care system (n = 35) located at 18 intervention facilities and nonintervention comparison clinics (n = 35) were matched on preimplementation MOUD prescribing trends, clinic size, and facility complexity. The cohort of patients with OUD who received care in intervention or comparison clinics in the year after September 1, 2018, were evaluated. The preimplementation period extended from September 1, 2017, through August 31, 2018, and the postimplementation period from September 1, 2018, through August 31, 2019.

EXPOSURES

The multifaceted implementation intervention included education, external facilitation, and quarterly reports.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcomes were the proportion of patients receiving MOUD and the number of patients per clinician prescribing MOUD. Segmented logistic regression evaluated monthly proportions of MOUD receipt 1 year before and after initiative launch, adjusting for demographic and clinical covariates. Poisson regression models examined yearly changes in clinician prescribing over the same time frame.

RESULTS

Overall, 7488 patients were seen in intervention clinics (mean [SD] age, 53.3 [14.2] years; 6858 [91.6%] male; 1476 [19.7%] Black, 417 [5.6%] Hispanic; 5162 [68.9%] White; 239 [3.2%] other race [including American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and multiple races]; and 194 [2.6%] unknown) and 7558 in comparison clinics (mean [SD] age, 53.4 [14.0] years; 6943 [91.9%] male; 1463 [19.4%] Black; 405 [5.4%] Hispanic; 5196 [68.9%] White; 244 [3.2%] other race; 250 [3.3%] unknown). During the preimplementation year, the proportion of patients receiving MOUD in intervention clinics increased monthly by 5.0% (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.05; 95% CI, 1.03-1.07). Accounting for this preimplementation trend, the proportion of patients receiving MOUD increased monthly by an additional 2.3% (AOR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.00-1.04) during the implementation year. Comparison clinics increased by 2.6% monthly before implementation (AOR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.04), with no changes detected after implementation. Although preimplementation-year trends in monthly MOUD receipt were similar in intervention and comparison clinics, greater increases were seen in intervention clinics after implementation (AOR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.08). Patients treated with MOUD per clinician in intervention clinics saw greater increases from before to after implementation compared with comparison clinics (incidence rate ratio, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.28-1.77).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

A multifaceted implementation initiative in nonaddiction clinics was associated with increased MOUD prescribing. Findings suggest that engagement of clinicians in general clinical settings may increase MOUD access.

The impact of methamphetamine/amphetamine use on receipt and outcomes of medications for opioid use disorder: a systematic review

Background

Methamphetamine/amphetamine use has sharply increased among people with opioid use disorder (OUD). It is therefore important to understand whether and how use of these substances may impact receipt of, and outcomes associated with, medications for OUD (MOUD). This systematic review identified studies that examined associations between methamphetamine/amphetamine use or use disorder and 3 classes of outcomes: (1) receipt of MOUD, (2) retention in MOUD, and (3) opioid abstinence during MOUD.

Methods

We searched 3 databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL Complete) from 1/1/2000 to 7/28/2020 using key words and subject headings, and hand-searched reference lists of included articles. English-language studies of people with documented OUD/opioid use that reported a quantitative association between methamphetamine/amphetamine use or use disorder and an outcome of interest were included. Study data were extracted using a standardized template, and risk of bias was assessed for each study. Screening, inclusion, data extraction and bias assessment were conducted independently by 2 authors. Study characteristics and findings were summarized for each class of outcomes.

Results

Thirty-nine studies met inclusion criteria. Studies generally found that methamphetamine/amphetamine use or use disorder was negatively associated with receiving methadone and buprenorphine; 2 studies suggested positive associations with receiving naltrexone. Studies generally found negative associations with retention; most studies finding no association had small samples, and these studies tended to examine shorter retention timeframes and describe provision of adjunctive services to address substance use. Studies generally found negative associations with opioid abstinence during treatment among patients receiving methadone or sustained-release naltrexone implants, though observed associations may have been confounded by other polysubstance use. Most studies examining opioid abstinence during other types of MOUD treatment had small samples.

Conclusions

Overall, existing research suggests people who use methamphetamine/amphetamines may have lower receipt of MOUD, retention in MOUD, and opioid abstinence during MOUD. Future research should examine how specific policies and treatment models impact MOUD outcomes for these patients, and seek to understand the perspectives of MOUD providers and people who use both opioids and methamphetamine/amphetamines. Efforts to improve MOUD care and overdose prevention strategies are needed for this population.

Receipt of medications for opioid use disorder among youth engaged in primary care: data from 6 health systems

PURPOSE

Little is known about prevalence and treatment of OUD among youth engaged in primary care (PC). Medications are the recommended treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) for adolescents and young adults (youth). This study describes the prevalence of OUD, the prevalence of medication treatment for OUD, and patient characteristics associated with OUD treatment among youth engaged in PC.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study includes youth aged 16-25 years engaged in PC. Eligible patients had ≥ 1 PC visit during fiscal years (FY) 2014-2016 in one of 6 health systems across 6 states. Data from electronic health records and insurance claims were used to identify OUD diagnoses, office-based OUD medication treatment, and patient demographic and clinical characteristics in the FY of the first PC visit during the study period. Descriptive analyses were conducted in all youth, and stratified by age (16-17, 18-21, 22-25 years).

RESULTS

Among 303,262 eligible youth, 2131 (0.7%) had a documented OUD diagnosis. The prevalence of OUD increased by ascending age groups. About half of youth with OUD had documented depression or anxiety and one third had co-occurring substance use disorders. Receipt of medication for OUD was lowest among youth 16-17 years old (14%) and highest among those aged 22-25 (39%).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study of youth engaged in 6 health systems across 6 states, there was low receipt of medication treatment, and high prevalence of other substance use disorders and mental health disorders. These findings indicate an urgent need to increase medication treatment for OUD and to integrate treatment for other substance use and mental health disorders.