Opioid-dependence treatment in the era of recovery: insights from a UK survey of physicians, patients and out-of-treatment opioid users

Sorting through life: evaluating patient-important measures of success in a medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) treatment program

BACKGROUND

Medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) is the gold standard treatment for opioid use disorder. Traditionally, "success" in MOUD treatment is measured in terms of program retention, adherence to MOUD, and abstinence from opioid and other drug use. While clinically meaningful, these metrics may overlook other aspects of the lives of people with opioid use disorder (OUD) and surprisingly do not reflect the diagnostic criteria for OUD.

METHODS

Authors identified items for a pilesorting task to identify participant-driven measures of MOUD treatment success through semi-structured interviews. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded in Nvivo using directed and conventional content analysis to identify measures related to treatment success and quality of life goals. Participants of a low-threshold MOUD program were recruited and asked to rank identified measures in order of importance to their own lives. Multidimensional scaling (MDS) compared the similarity of items while non-metric MDS in R specified a two-dimensional solution. Descriptive statistics of participant demographics were generated in SPSS.

RESULTS

Sixteen semi-structured interviews were conducted between June and August 2020 in Philadelphia, PA, USA, and 23 measures were identified for a pilesorting activity. These were combined with 6 traditional measures for a total list of 29 items. Data from 28 people were included in pilesorting analysis. Participants identified a combination of traditional and stakeholder-defined recovery goals as highly important, however, we identified discrepancies between the most frequent and highest ranked items within the importance categories. Measures of success for participants in MOUD programs were complex, multi-dimensional, and varied by the individual. However, some key domains such as emotional well-being, decreased drug use, and attendance to basic functioning may have universal importance. The following clusters of importance were identified: emotional well-being, decreased drug use, and human functioning.

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes from this research have practical applications for those working to provide services in MOUD programs. Programs can use aspects of these domains to both provide patient-centered care and to evaluate success. Specifics from the pilesorting results may also inform approaches to collaborative goal setting during treatment.

The Inclusion of Patients’ Reported Outcomes to Inform Treatment Effectiveness Measures in Opioid Use Disorder. A Systematic Review

Introduction

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Systematic Review Registration

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.