Antagonists in the medical management of opioid use disorders: Historical and existing treatment strategies.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a chronic condition with potentially severe health and social consequences. Many who develop moderate to severe OUD will repeatedly seek treatment or interact with medical care via emergency department visits or hospitalizations. Thus, there is an urgent need to develop feasible and effective approaches to help persons with OUD achieve and maintain abstinence from opioids. Treatment that includes one of the three FDA-approved medications is an evidence-based strategy to manage OUD. The purpose of this review is to address practices for managing persons with moderate to severe OUD with a focus on opioid withdrawal and naltrexone-based relapse-prevention treatment. METHODS: Literature available on PubMed was used to review the evolution of treatment strategies from the 1960s onward to manage opioid withdrawal and initiate treatment with naltrexone. RESULTS: Emerging practices for extended-release naltrexone induction include the use of agonist tapers and adjuvant medications. Clinical challenges frequently encountered when initiating this therapy include managing withdrawal and ongoing opioid use during treatment. Clinical factors may inform decisions regarding patient selection and length of naltrexone treatment, such as recent opioid use and patient preferences. CONCLUSIONS AND SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE: Treatment strategies to manage opioid withdrawal have evolved, but many patients with OUD do not receive medication for the prevention of relapse. Clinical strategies for induction onto extended-release naltrexone are now available and can be safely and effectively implemented in specialty and select primary care settings. (© 2018 The Authors. The American Journal on Addictions Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of The American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry (AAAP);27:177-187).

Substance use disorder and its effects on outcomes in men with advanced-stage prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Substance use disorder in patients with cancer has implications for outcomes. The objective of this study was to analyze the effects of the type and timing of substance use on outcomes in elderly Medicare recipients with advanced prostate cancer. METHODS: This was an observational cohort study using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked data from 2000 to 2009. Among men who were diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer between 2001 and 2004, we identified those who had a claim for substance use disorder in the year before cancer diagnosis, 1 year after cancer diagnosis, and an additional 4 years after diagnosis. The outcomes investigated were use of health services, costs, and mortality. RESULTS: The prevalence of substance use disorder was 10.6%. The category drug psychoses and related had greater odds of inpatient hospitalizations (odds ratio [OR], 2.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9-2.8), outpatient hospital visits (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.9-3.6), and emergency room visits (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.2-2.4). Substance use disorder in the follow-up phase was associated with greater odds of inpatient hospitalizations (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.8-2.2), outpatient hospital visits (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.7-2.4), and emergency room visits (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.5-2.1). Compared with men who did not have substance use disorder, those in the category drug psychoses and related had 70% higher costs, and those who had substance use disorder during the follow-up phase had 60% higher costs. The hazard of all-cause mortality was highest for patients in the drug psychoses and related category (hazard ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.7) and the substance use disorder in treatment phase category (hazard ratio, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.3-1.7). CONCLUSIONS: The intersection of advanced prostate cancer and substance use disorder may adversely affect outcomes. Incorporating substance use screening and treatments into prostate cancer care guidelines and coordination of care is desirable.

Opioid detoxification and naltrexone induction strategies: recommendations for clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Opioid dependence is a significant public health problem associated with high risk for relapse if treatment is not ongoing. While maintenance on opioid agonists (i.e., methadone, buprenorphine) often produces favorable outcomes, detoxification followed by treatment with the µ-opioid receptor antagonist naltrexone may offer a potentially useful alternative to agonist maintenance for some patients. METHOD: Treatment approaches for making this transition are described here based on a literature review and solicitation of opinions from several expert clinicians and scientists regarding patient selection, level of care, and detoxification strategies. CONCLUSION: Among the current detoxification regimens, the available clinical and scientific data suggest that the best approach may be using an initial 2-4 mg dose of buprenorphine combined with clonidine, other ancillary medications, and progressively increasing doses of oral naltrexone over 3-5 days up to the target dose of naltrexone. However, more research is needed to empirically validate the best approach for making this transition.

Health and economic outcomes of treatment with extended-release naltrexone among pre-release prisoners with opioid use disorder (HOPPER): protocol for an evaluation of two randomized effectiveness trials.

BACKGROUND: Persons with an opioid use disorder (OUD) who were incarcerated face many challenges to remaining abstinent; concomitantly, opioid-overdose is the leading cause of death among this population, with the initial weeks following release proving especially fatal. Extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX) is the most widely-accepted, evidence-based OUD pharmacotherapy in criminal justice settings, and ensures approximately 30 days of protection from opioid overdose. The high cost of XR-NTX serves as a barrier to uptake by many prison/jail systems; however, the cost of the medication should not be viewed in isolation. Prison/jail healthcare budgets are ultimately determined by policymakers, and the benefits/cost-offsets associated with effective OUD treatment will directly and indirectly affect their overall budgets, and society as a whole. METHODS: This protocol describes a study funded by the National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA) to: evaluate changes in healthcare utilization, health-related quality-of-life, and other resources associated with different strategies of XR-NTX delivery to persons with OUD being released from incarceration; and estimate the relative "value" of each strategy. Data from two ongoing, publicly-funded, randomized-controlled trials will be used to evaluate these questions. In Study A, (XR-NTX Before vs. After Reentry), participants are randomized to receive their first XR-NTX dose before release, or at a nearby program post-release. In Study B, (enhanced XR-NTX vs. XR-NTX), both arms receive XR-NTX prior to release; the enhanced arm receives mobile medical (place of residence) XR-NTX treatment post-release, and the XR-NTX arm receives referral to a community treatment program post-release. The economic data collection instruments required to evaluate outcomes of interest were incorporated into both studies from baseline. Moreover, because the same instruments are being used in both trials on comparable populations, we have the opportunity to not only assess differences in outcomes between study arms within each trial, but also to merge the data sets and test for differences across trials. DISCUSSION: Initiating XR-NTX for OUD prior to release from incarceration may improve patient health and well-being, while also producing downstream cost-offsets. This study offers the unique opportunity to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of multiple strategies, according to different stakeholder perspectives.

Dissemination and feasibility of a cognitive-behavioral treatment for substance use disorders and posttraumatic stress disorder in the Veterans Administration.

This article describes a small dissemination effort and provides initial efficacy data for use of Seeking Safety, a cognitive-behavioral treatment for comorbid substance use disorders (SUD) and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), in a VA setting. After providing a daylong interactive training in Seeking Safety to front-line clinicians, a cotherapist group practice model was implemented. Following 14 months of clinician training and an uncontrolled pilot study of four groups with 18 veterans, initial efficacy data indicate significant symptom reduction for patients and acceptability to clinicians. Findings are encouraging in that Seeking Safety treatment appears to have the potential to be beneficial for veterans with SUD-PTSD and also appeal to clinicians. Dissemination of Seeking Safety is feasible in the VA, yet there are likely barriers to sustaining it as a routine treatment. Recommendations for future dissemination are proposed, including ways VA administration can facilitate this process.

Opioid addicted buprenorphine injectors: drug use during and after 12-weeks of buprenorphine-naloxone or methadone in the Republic of Georgia.

AIMS: The aim of this study is to assess the prevalence of non-opioid drug use among opioid-addicted, buprenorphine injecting individuals in Georgia, during and after a 12-week course of buprenorphine-naloxone (Suboxone®) or methadone. METHODS: Randomized controlled trial with daily observed Suboxone® or methadone and weekly counseling, urine tests and timeline followback (TLFB) in weeks 0-12 and 20, and the Addiction Severity Index (ASI) at weeks 0, 4, 8, 12, 20. RESULTS: Of the 80 patients (40/group, 4 women), 68 (85%) completed the 12-weeks of study treatment and 66 (82.5%) completed the 20-week follow-up. At baseline, injecting more than one drug in the last 30 days was reported by 68.4% of patients in the methadone and 72.5% in the Suboxone® groups. Drug use was markedly reduced in both treatment conditions but there were significant differences in the prevalence of specific drugs with more opioid (1.5 vs. 0.2%; p=0.03), less amphetamine (0.2 vs. 2.8%; p<0.001) and less marijuana (1.7 vs. 10.2%; p<0.001) positive urine tests in the methadone vs. Suboxone® groups. At the 20-week follow-up, TLFB results on the 34 that continued methadone or the 3 on Suboxone® showed less opioid (5.6 vs. 27.6%; p<0.001), illicit buprenorphine (2.7 vs. 13.8%; p=0.005), benzodiazepine (13.5 vs. 34.5%; p<0.001), and marijuana (2.8 vs. 20.7%; p<0.001) use than the 29 who did not continue opioid substitution therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Despite small but significant differences in opioid and other drug use, both treatments were highly effective in reducing opioid and non-opioid drug use.

An independent assessment of MEDWatch reporting for abuse/dependence and withdrawal from Ultram (tramadol hydrochloride).

OBJECTIVE: Assess the validity of medical products reporting program (MEDWatch) reports of abuse/dependence and withdrawal associated with Ultram (tramadol). METHODS: Reports of possible abuse/dependence or withdrawal associated with Ultram during 13 quarters following launch were spontaneously reported to the manufacturer Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical (OMP) and also solicited from 255 NIDA grantees and addiction treatment professionals by an Independent Steering Committee (ISC). Reports were classified by the ISC using DSM-IV criteria, by the Drug Safety and Surveillance (DSS) units of Robert Wood Johnson Pharmaceutical Research Institute (PRI) using World Health Organization Adverse Reaction Terms (WHOART) terms, and reported to the food and drug administration (FDA) via MEDWatch. Rates of abuse/dependence and withdrawal per 100000 persons exposed were calculated separately for classifications made by the PRI and the ISC, and confidence intervals calculated to determine the degree to which they agreed. RESULTS: For 681 reports submitted to PRI, confidence intervals of ISC ratings contained PRI ratings 12 of 13 times for abuse/dependence, and 12 of 13 times for withdrawal. For 242 reports submitted to the ISC, confidence intervals of ISC ratings contained PRI ratings 10 of 13 times for abuse/dependence, and 12 of 13 times for withdrawal. Proactive surveillance increased the total number of cases of abuse/dependence but not withdrawal. Many cases of withdrawal without signs or symptoms of abuse/dependence were identified. CONCLUSIONS: There was good/excellent concordance between MEDWatch and ISC classifications. Proactive surveillance increased cases of abuse/dependence but not withdrawal. Withdrawal with no signs or symptoms of dependence was common. More use of proactive surveillance is likely to improve assessments of public health risks associated with adverse events.

HIV risk reduction with buprenorphine-naloxone or methadone: findings from a randomized trial.

OBJECTIVES: Compare HIV injecting and sex risk in patients being treated with methadone (MET) or buprenorphine-naloxone (BUP). METHODS: Secondary analysis from a study of liver enzyme changes in patients randomized to MET or BUP who completed 24 weeks of treatment and had 4 or more blood draws. The initial 1:1 randomization was changed to 2:1 (BUP:MET) after 18 months due to higher dropout in BUP. The Risk Behavior Survey measured HIV risk before 30 days at baseline and weeks 12 and 24. RESULTS: Among 529 patients randomized to MET, 391 (74%) were completers; among 740 randomized to BUP, 340 (46%) were completers; 700 completed the Risk Behavior Survey. There were significant reductions in injecting risk (P < 0.0008) with no differences between groups in mean number of times reported injecting heroin, speedball, other opiates, and number of injections; or percent who shared needles; did not clean shared needles with bleach; shared cookers; or engaged in front/back loading of syringes. The percent having multiple sex partners decreased equally in both groups (P < 0.03). For males on BUP, the sex risk composite increased; for males on MET, the sex risk decreased resulting in significant group differences over time (P < 0.03). For females, there was a significant reduction in sex risk (P < 0.02) with no group differences. CONCLUSIONS: Among MET and BUP patients who remained in treatment, HIV injecting risk was equally and markedly reduced; however, MET retained more patients. Sex risk was equally and significantly reduced among females in both treatment conditions, but it increased for males on BUP and decreased for males on MET.

Buprenorphine/Naloxone and methadone effects on laboratory indices of liver health: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Buprenorphine/naloxone (BUP) and methadone (MET) are efficacious treatments for opioid dependence, although concerns about a link between BUP and drug-induced hepatitis have been raised. This study compares the effects of BUP and MET on liver health in opioid-dependent participants. METHODS: This was a randomized controlled trial of 1269 opioid-dependent participants seeking treatment at 8 federally licensed opioid treatment programs and followed for up to 32 weeks between May 2006 and August 2010; 731 participants met "evaluable" criteria defined as completing 24 weeks of medication and providing at least 4 blood samples for transaminase testing. Participants were randomly assigned to receive BUP or MET for 24 weeks. Shift table analysis determined how many evaluable participants moved between categories of low and elevated transaminase levels. Predictors of moving from low to high transaminase levels were identified. RESULTS: Changes in transaminase levels did not differ by medication condition. Baseline infection with hepatitis C or B was the only significant predictor of moving from low to elevated transaminase levels; 9 BUP and 15 MET participants showed extreme liver test elevations and were more likely than those without extreme elevations to have seroconverted to both hepatitis B and C during the study, or to use illicit drugs during the first 8 weeks of treatment. MET participants were retained longer in treatment than BUP participants. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated no evidence of liver damage during the initial 6 months of treatment in either condition. Physicians can prescribe either medication without major concern for liver injury.

Randomized controlled trial of osmotic-release methylphenidate with cognitive-behavioral therapy in adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and substance use disorders.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of osmotic-release methylphenidate (OROS-MPH) compared with placebo for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and the impact on substance treatment outcomes in adolescents concurrently receiving cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for substance use disorders (SUD). METHOD: This was a 16-week, randomized, controlled, multi-site trial of OROS-MPH + CBT versus placebo + CBT in 303 adolescents (aged 13 through 18 years) meeting DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for ADHD and SUD. Primary outcome measures included the following: for ADHD, clinician-administered ADHD Rating Scale (ADHD-RS), adolescent informant; for substance use, adolescent-reported days of use in the past 28 days. Secondary outcome measures included parent ADHD-RS and weekly urine drug screens (UDS). RESULTS: There were no group differences on reduction in ADHD-RS scores (OROS-MPH: -19.2, 95% confidence interval [CI], -17.1 to -21.2; placebo, -21.2, 95% CI, -19.1 to -23.2) or reduction in days of substance use (OROS-MPH: -5.7 days, 95% CI, 4.0-7.4; placebo: -5.2 days, 95% CI, 3.5-7.0). Some secondary outcomes favored OROS-MPH, including lower parent ADHD-RS scores at 8 (mean difference = 4.4, 95% CI, 0.8-7.9) and 16 weeks (mean difference =6.9; 95% CI, 2.9-10.9) and more negative UDS in OROS-MPH (mean = 3.8) compared with placebo (mean = 2.8; p = .04). CONCLUSIONS: OROS-MPH did not show greater efficacy than placebo for ADHD or on reduction in substance use in adolescents concurrently receiving individual CBT for co-occurring SUD. However, OROS-MPH was relatively well tolerated and was associated with modestly greater clinical improvement on some secondary ADHD and substance outcome measures. Clinical Trial Registration Information-Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in Adolescents with Substance Use Disorders (SUD); http://www.clinicaltrials.gov; NCT00264797.

Drug treatment as HIV prevention: a research update.

Drug use continues to be a major factor fueling the global epidemic of HIV infection. This article reviews the current literature on the ability of drug treatment programs to reduce HIV transmission among injection and noninjection drug users. Most data come from research on the treatment of opiate dependence and provide strong evidence on the effectiveness of medication-assisted treatment for reducing the frequency of drug use, risk behaviors, and HIV infections. This has been a consistent finding since the epidemic began among diverse populations and cultural settings. Use of medications other than methadone (such as buprenorphine/naloxone and naltrexone) has increased in recent years with promising data on their effectiveness as HIV prevention and as new treatment options for communities heavily affected by opiate use and HIV infection. However, few treatment interventions for stimulant abuse and dependence have shown efficacy in reducing HIV risk. The cumulative literature provides strong support of drug treatment programs for improving access and adherence to antiretroviral treatment. Drug users in substance abuse treatment are significantly more likely to achieve sustained viral suppression, making viral transmission less likely. Although there are challenges to implementing drug treatment programs for maximum impact, the scientific literature leaves no doubt about the effectiveness of drug treatment as an HIV prevention strategy.

Implications of cannabis use and heavy alcohol use on HIV drug risk behaviors in Russian heroin users.

Cannabis and heavy alcohol use potentially increase HIV transmission by increasing risky drug behaviors. We studied 404 subjects entering treatment for heroin dependence, in St. Petersburg, Russia. We used the HIV Risk Assessment Battery (RAB) drug subscale to measure risky drug behavior. Although all heavy alcohol users had risky drug behaviors, their drug RAB scores did not differ from non-heavy alcohol users in unadjusted or adjusted analyses. Cannabis use was significantly associated with drug RAB scores in unadjusted analyses (mean difference 1.7 points) and analyses adjusted for age, sex, and employment (mean difference 1.3 points). When also adjusting for stimulant use, the impact of cannabis use was attenuated and no longer statistically significant (mean difference 1.1 points). Because of the central role of risky drug behaviors in the Russian HIV epidemic, it is important to understand how the use of multiple substances, including cannabis and alcohol, impacts risky drug behaviors.

Research findings on psychotherapy of addictive disorders.

Psychoanalytically trained physicians working in methadone programs in the 1980s theorized that adding psychotherapy to addiction treatment would improve outcomes. Since then, a number of clinical studies have evaluated the effect of psychotherapy, drug counseling, and twelve-step intervention on treatment outcomes in methadone maintenance or cocaine and alcohol addiction programs. These studies have shown consistently that psychosocial treatments are helpful for patients with addictive disorders, with an effect size that ranges from mild to moderate. Major studies of psychotherapy in the treatment of addictive disorders are reviewed, and background information on psychotherapy and drug counseling is presented.