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.

Changes in adherence to statins and subsequent lipid profiles during and following breast cancer treatment.

Breast cancer tends to arise in older women who are also burdened with comorbidities such as cardiovascular disease (CVD). Increasing numbers of breast cancer survivors and an aging population warrant a better understanding of CVD management and adherence to preventive therapies. We estimated adherence to statins and therapeutic goal lipid values during the year before breast cancer diagnosis or baseline, treatment period, and in subsequent years of clinical management among breast cancer survivors. We sampled women from an existing cohort of 4,221 women diagnosed with incident early stage (I, II) invasive breast cancer from 1990 to 2008 and enrolled in a large integrated group practice health plan. Among prevalent statin users (N = 1,393), medication adherence and persistence were measured by medication possession ratio (MPR), % adherent (MPR < 0.80), and discontinuation rates. Laboratory data on LDL and HDL were obtained for the coinciding periods. Mean MPR for statin use (0.78 vs. 0.68; P < 0.001) and proportion adherent (67.0 vs. 51.9 %; P < 0.001) declined from baseline to the treatment period. Mean LDL (143 mg/dL baseline vs. 150 mg/dL treatment period; P < 0.001) and proportion not at LDL goal (60.1 vs. 70.8 %; P < 0.001) coincided with decreases in adherence. During treatment, non-adherent statin users had the highest mean LDL (160.4 mg/dL) and proportion not at goal LDL (91.8 %) overall. Adherence did not return to baseline in subsequent years following treatment although LDL levels did. HDL did not differ by periods of interest or adherence levels. Adherence to statins in this population was poor, particularly in the treatment period, and lagged in returning to baseline. Understanding the influence of life events such as cancer diagnosis and treatment on management of comorbidities and adherence to preventive therapies are important to the growing population of breast cancer survivors.

Provider knowledge, beliefs, and self-efficacy to deprescribe opioids and sedative-hypnotics.

BACKGROUND: While many studies have assessed and measured patient attitudes toward deprescribing, less quantitative research has addressed the provider perspective. We thus sought to describe provider knowledge, beliefs, and self-efficacy to deprescribe, with a focus on opioids and sedative-hypnotics. METHODS: An electronic anonymous survey was distributed to primary care providers at Kaiser Permanente Washington. Two reminder emails were sent. The survey included 10 questions on general deprescribing, and six questions each specific to opioid and sedative-hypnotic deprescribing. Knowledge questions used a multiple-choice response option format. Questions addressing beliefs and self-efficacy (i.e., confidence) used a 0-10 Likert scale. Scales were dichotomized at ≥7 to define agreement (belief questions) or confidence (self-efficacy questions). We calculated descriptive statistics to summarize the responses. RESULTS: Of 370 eligible primary care providers, 95 (26%) completed the survey. For general deprescribing questions, a majority believed that lack of patient willingness, withdrawal symptoms and fear of symptom return, and time constraints impeded deprescribing. Approximately half chose the correct answers about opioid deprescribing, 21% were confident that they could alleviate patient concerns about opioid tapering, and 32% were confident managing chronic non-cancer pain without opioids. For sedative-hypnotics, 64%-87% of respondents correctly answered questions about risks and the relative effectiveness of alternatives, but only one-third correctly answered a question about sedative-hypnotic tapering. Roughly half were confident in their ability to successfully engage patients in sedative deprescribing conversations and select alternatives. Only 54% and 34% were confident in writing a tapering protocol for opioids and sedative-hypnotics, respectively. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that raising provider awareness of patient willingness to deprescribe, addressing knowledge gaps, and increasing self-efficacy for deprescribing are important targets for improving deprescribing. Support for writing tapering protocols and prescribing evidence-based drug and non-drug alternatives may be important to improve care.

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.