Factors Associated with Medical Cannabis Use After Certification: A Three-Month Longitudinal Study.

Background: Over the past decade, there has been increased utilization of medical cannabis (MC) in the United States. Few studies have described sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with MC use after certification and more specifically, factors associated with use of MC products with different cannabinoid profiles. Methods: We conducted a longitudinal cohort study of adults (N=225) with chronic or severe pain on opioids who were newly certified for MC in New York State and enrolled in the study between November 2018 and January 2022. We collected data over participants' first 3 months in the study, from web-based assessment of MC use every 2 weeks (unit of analysis). We used generalized estimating equation models to examine associations of sociodemographic and clinical factors with (1) MC use (vs. no MC use) and (2) use of MC products with different cannabinoid profiles. Results: On average, 29% of the participants used predominantly high delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) MC products within the first 3 months of follow-up, 30% used other MC products, and 41% did not use MC products. Non-Hispanic White race, pain at multiple sites, and past 30-day sedative use were associated with a higher likelihood of MC use (vs. no MC use). Current tobacco use, unregulated cannabis use, and enrollment in the study during the COVID-19 pandemic were associated with a lower likelihood of MC use (vs. no MC use). Among participants reporting MC use, female gender and older age were associated with a lower likelihood of using predominantly high-THC MC products (vs. other MC products). Conclusion: White individuals were more likely to use MC after certification, which may be owing to access and cost issues. The findings that sedative use was associated with greater MC use, but tobacco and unregulated cannabis were associated with less MC use, may imply synergism and substitution that warrant further research. From the policy perspective, additional measures are needed to ensure equitable availability of and access to MC. Health practitioners should check patients' history and current use of sedative, tobacco, and unregulated cannabis before providing an MC recommendation and counsel patients on safe cannabis use. clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03268551).

First-Year Trajectories of Medical Cannabis Use Among Adults Taking Opioids for Chronic Pain: An Observational Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe first-year trajectories of medical cannabis use and identify characteristics associated with patterns of use in a cohort of adults using opioids for chronic pain. DESIGN: Latent class trajectory analysis of a prospective cohort study using data on the 14-day frequency of medical cannabis use. SETTING: A large academic medical center and four medical cannabis dispensaries in the New York City metropolitan area. SUBJECTS: Adults with chronic pain using opioids and newly certified for medical cannabis in New York between 2018 and 2020. METHODS: Using latent class trajectory analysis, we identified clusters of participants based on the 14-day frequency of medical cannabis use. We used logistic regression to determine factors associated with cluster membership, including sociodemographic characteristics, pain, substance use, and mental health symptoms. RESULTS: Among 99 participants, the mean age was 53 years; 62% were women, and 52% were White. We identified three clusters of medical cannabis use: infrequent use (n = 30, mean use = 1.5 days/14-day period), occasional use (n = 28, mean = 5.7 days/14-day period), and frequent use (n = 41, mean = 12.1 days/14-day period). Within clusters, use patterns did not vary significantly over 52 weeks. Differences were observed in two sociodemographic variables: Frequent (vs infrequent) use was associated with non-Hispanic White race/ethnicity (adjusted odds ratio 4.54, 95% confidence interval 1.49-14.29), while occasional (vs infrequent) use was associated with employment (adjusted odds ratio 13.84, 95% confidence interval 1.21-158.74). CONCLUSIONS: Three clusters of medical cannabis use patterns emerged and were stable over time. Results suggest that structural factors related to race/ethnicity and employment may be major drivers of medical cannabis use, even among adults certified for its use.

Medical Marijuana and Opioids (MEMO) Study: protocol of a longitudinal cohort study to examine if medical cannabis reduces opioid use among adults with chronic pain.

INTRODUCTION: In the USA, opioid analgesic use and overdoses have increased dramatically. One rapidly expanding strategy to manage chronic pain in the context of this epidemic is medical cannabis. Cannabis has analgesic effects, but it also has potential adverse effects. Further, its impact on opioid analgesic use is not well studied. Managing pain in people living with HIV is particularly challenging, given the high prevalence of opioid analgesic and cannabis use. This study's overarching goal is to understand how medical cannabis use affects opioid analgesic use, with attention to Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol content, HIV outcomes and adverse events. METHODS AND ANALYSES: We are conducting a cohort study of 250 adults with and without HIV infection with (a) severe or chronic pain, (b) current opioid use and (c) who are newly certified for medical cannabis in New York. Over 18 months, we collect data via in-person visits every 3 months and web-based questionnaires every 2 weeks. Data sources include: questionnaires; medical, pharmacy and Prescription Monitoring Program records; urine and blood samples; and physical function tests. Using marginal structural models and comparisons within participants' 2-week time periods (unit of analysis), we will examine how medical cannabis use (primary exposure) affects (1) opioid analgesic use (primary outcome), (2) HIV outcomes (HIV viral load, CD4 count, antiretroviral adherence, HIV risk behaviours) and (3) adverse events (cannabis use disorder, illicit drug use, diversion, overdose/deaths, accidents/injuries, acute care utilisation). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study is approved by the Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine institutional review board. Findings will be disseminated through conferences, peer-reviewed publications and meetings with medical cannabis stakeholders. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT03268551); Pre-results.

Abstinence-reinforcing contingency management improves HIV viral load suppression among HIV-infected people who use drugs: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: HIV-infected people who use drugs (PWUD) have poor HIV outcomes. Few studies tested interventions to improve HIV outcomes among PWUD. Abstinence-reinforcing contingency management (CM) reduces drug use and could also improve HIV outcomes. METHODS: From 2012-2017, we conducted a randomized controlled trial testing whether a 16-week abstinence-reinforcing CM intervention improved HIV viral load (VL) among HIV-infected adults using opioids or cocaine. In the CM intervention, drug-free urines led to escalating value of vouchers ($2.50-$80/voucher, $1320 total maximum). In intention-to-treat mixed-effects linear and logistic regression analyses, we examined whether the CM intervention improved log10 VL (primary outcome), abstinence and antiretroviral adherence (secondary outcomes). RESULTS: Thirty-seven participants were randomized to the CM intervention and 36 to control. Median age was 49.2 years; most were male (61.6%) and non-Hispanic black (46.6%). In CM (vs. control) participants, mean reduction in log10 VL was greater (-0.16 log10 VL copies/mL per 4-week period; 95% CI: -0.29 to -0.03, p < 0.05). Over 16 weeks, CM participants had a mean reduction of 0.64 copies/mL in log10 VL greater than control participants. The CM intervention was not significantly associated with abstinence or adherence. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to demonstrate improvements in HIV VL via an abstinence-reinforcing CM intervention. Because the CM intervention did not significantly affect abstinence or adherence, the mechanism of its effect is unclear. To end the HIV epidemic, innovative strategies must address individuals with poor HIV outcomes. Abstinence-reinforcing CM may be one potential strategy to improve HIV outcomes among a select group of PWUD.

Cannabis Use is Associated with Lower Odds of Prescription Opioid Analgesic Use Among HIV-Infected Individuals with Chronic Pain.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is common in the United States and prescribed opioid analgesics use for noncancer pain has increased dramatically in the past two decades, possibly accounting for the current opioid addiction epidemic. Co-morbid drug use in those prescribed opioid analgesics is common, but there are few data on polysubstance use patterns. OBJECTIVE: We explored patterns of use of cigarette, alcohol, and illicit drugs in HIV-infected people with chronic pain who were prescribed opioid analgesics. METHODS: We conducted a secondary data analysis of screening interviews conducted as part of a parent randomized trial of financial incentives to improve HIV outcomes among drug users. In a convenience sample of people with HIV and chronic pain, we collected self-report data on demographic characteristics; pain; patterns of opioid analgesic use (both prescribed and illicit); cigarette, alcohol, and illicit drug use (including cannabis, heroin, and cocaine) within the past 30 days; and current treatment for drug use and HIV. RESULTS: Almost half of the sample of people with HIV and chronic pain reported current prescribed opioid analgesic use (N = 372, 47.1%). Illicit drug use was common (N = 505, 63.9%), and cannabis was the most commonly used illicit substance (N = 311, 39.4%). In multivariate analyses, only cannabis use was significantly associated with lower odds of prescribed opioid analgesic use (adjusted odds ratio = 0.57; 95% confidence interval: 0.38-0.87). Conclusions/Importance: Our data suggest that new medical cannabis legislation might reduce the need for opioid analgesics for pain management, which could help to address adverse events associated with opioid analgesic use.

Development and evaluation of a community-based buprenorphine treatment intervention.

BACKGROUND: The majority of Americans with opioid use disorder remain out of treatment. Operating in 33 states, Washington DC, and Puerto Rico, harm reduction agencies, which provide sterile syringes and other health services to people who inject drugs, are a key venue to reach out-of-treatment opioid users. Aiming to link out-of-treatment individuals with opioid use disorder to buprenorphine treatment, we developed a community-based buprenorphine treatment (CBBT) intervention in collaboration with New York City harm reduction agencies. METHODS: Intervention development included formative data collection, feasibility testing at one harm reduction agency, and pilot testing for preliminary effectiveness at a second harm reduction agency. We used a pre-post design for both feasibility and pilot testing. In the CBBT intervention, we trained harm reduction agency staff to provide (1) buprenorphine education, (2) motivational interviewing, (3) referrals to buprenorphine-prescribing doctors, and (4) treatment retention support. We assessed feasibility by measuring staff satisfaction with the intervention and changes in knowledge about buprenorphine. We assessed preliminary effectiveness by comparing rates of buprenorphine initiation among groups of harm reduction agency clients before and after intervention implementation. RESULTS: Among staff members at the first harm reduction agency, knowledge increased from 52% correct answers pre-intervention to 79% correct post-intervention. Among clients at the second harm reduction agency, initiation of buprenorphine treatment was low and did not differ between pre- and post-intervention groups. CONCLUSIONS: The CBBT intervention was feasible and well-received, but initiation of buprenorphine treatment among harm reduction agency clients was low. More robust interventions may be necessary to increase initiation of buprenorphine treatment.

Characteristics of methadone maintenance treatment patients prescribed opioid analgesics.

BACKGROUND: Opioid analgesic use and disorders have dramatically increased among the general American population and those receiving methadone maintenance treatment (MMT). Most research among MMT patients focuses on opioid analgesics misuse or disorders; few studies focus on MMT patients prescribed opioid analgesics. We describe demographic, clinical, and substance use characteristics of MMT patients prescribed opioid analgesics and compare them with MMT patients not prescribed opioid analgesics. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional secondary data analysis using screening interviews from a parent study. From 2012 to 2015, we recruited adults from 3 MMT Bronx clinics. Questionnaire data included patterns of opioid analgesic use, substance use, comorbid illnesses, and demographic characteristics. Our main dependent variable was patients' report of currently taking prescribed opioid analgesics. To compare characteristics between MMT patients prescribed and not prescribed opioid analgesics, we conducted chi-square tests, t tests, and Mann-Whitney U tests. RESULTS: Of 611 MMT patients, most reported chronic pain (62.0%), hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection (52.1%), and current use of illicit substances (64.2%). Of the 29.8% who reported currently taking prescribed opioid analgesics, most misused their opioid analgesics (57.5%). Patients prescribed (versus not prescribed) opioid analgesics were more likely to report human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.6, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.1-2.3) and chronic pain (aOR = 7.6, 95% CI: 4.6-12.6). CONCLUSION: Among MMT patients primarily in 3 Bronx clinics, nearly one third reported taking prescribed opioid analgesics. Compared with patients not prescribed opioid analgesics, those prescribed opioid analgesics were more likely to report chronic pain and HIV infection. However, between these patients, there was no difference in illicit substance use. These findings highlight the complexity of addressing chronic pain in MMT patients.

Socio-psychological factors in the Expanded Health Belief Model and subsequent colorectal cancer screening.

OBJECTIVE: CRC screening interventions tailored to the Expanded Health Belief Model (EHBM) socio-psychological factors have been developed, but the contributions of individual factors to screening outcomes are unclear. METHODS: In observational analyses of data from a randomized intervention trial, we examined the independent associations of five EHBM factors - CRC screening knowledge, self-efficacy, stage of readiness, barriers, and discussion with a provider - with objectively measured CRC screening after one year. RESULTS: When all five factors were added simultaneously to a base model including other patient and visit characteristics, three of the factors were associated with CRC screening: self-efficacy (OR=1.32, p=0.001), readiness (OR=2.72, p<0.001), and discussion of screening with a provider (OR=1.59, p=0.009). Knowledge and barriers were not independently associated with screening. Adding the five socio-psychological factors to the base model improved prediction of CRC screening (area under the curve) by 7.7%. CONCLUSION: Patient CRC screening self-efficacy, readiness, and discussion with a provider each independently predicted subsequent screening. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Self-efficacy and readiness measures might be helpful in parsimoniously predicting which patients are most likely to engage in CRC screening. The importance of screening discussion with a provider suggests the potential value of augmenting patient-focused EHBM-tailored interventions with provider-focused elements.

Illicit buprenorphine use, interest in and access to buprenorphine treatment among syringe exchange participants.

Poor access to buprenorphine maintenance treatment (BMT) may contribute to illicit buprenorphine use. This study investigated illicit buprenorphine use and barriers to BMT among syringe exchange participants. Computer-based interviews conducted at a New York City harm reduction agency determined: prior buprenorphine use; barriers to BMT; and interest in BMT. Of 102 opioid users, 57 had used illicit buprenorphine and 32 had used prescribed buprenorphine. When illicit buprenorphine users were compared to non-users: barriers to BMT ("did not know where to get treatment") were more common (64 vs. 36%, p<0.01); mean levels of interest in BMT were greater (3.37 ± 1.29 vs. 2.80 ± 1.34, p=0.03); and more participants reported themselves likely to initiate treatment (82 vs. 50%, p<0.01). Illicit buprenorphine users were interested in BMT but did not know where to go for treatment. Addressing barriers to BMT could reduce illicit buprenorphine use.

Smoking cessation treatment among office-based buprenorphine treatment patients.

Opioid-dependent patients smoke at high rates, and office-based buprenorphine treatment provides an opportunity to offer cessation treatment. We examined tobacco use and smoking cessation treatment patterns among office-based buprenorphine treatment patients. We reviewed records of 319 patients treated with buprenorphine from 2005 to 2010. We examined smoking status, cessation medication prescriptions, and factors associated with receipt of cessation prescriptions. Mean age was 43.9 years; most were men (74.2%) and Hispanic (70.9%). At buprenorphine initiation, 21.9% had no documentation of smoking status, while 67.4% were current, 10% former, and 0.9% never smokers. Of current smokers, 16.8% received smoking cessation prescriptions. Patients retained (vs. not retained) in buprenorphine treatment were more likely to receive smoking cessation medications (26.3% vs. 11.2%, p<0.005). We observed a high tobacco use prevalence among buprenorphine patients, and limited provision of cessation treatment. This is a missed opportunity to impact the high tobacco use burden in opioid-dependent persons.

I heard about it from a friend: assessing interest in buprenorphine treatment.

BACKGROUND: In the United States, opioid abuse and dependence continue to be a growing problem, whereas treatment for opioid abuse and dependence remains fairly static. Buprenorphine treatment for opioid dependence is safe and effective but underutilized. Prior research has demonstrated low awareness and use of buprenorphine among marginalized groups. This study investigates syringe exchange participants' awareness of, exposure to, and interest in buprenorphine treatment. METHODS: Syringe exchange participants were recruited from a mobile unit performing outreach to 9 street-side sites in New York City. Computer-based interviews were conducted to determine (1) opioid users' awareness of, exposure to, and interest in buprenorphine treatment; and (2) the association between awareness or exposure and interest in buprenorphine treatment. Logistic regression models were used to examine the associations between awareness of, direct exposure (i.e., having taken buprenorphine) or indirect exposure (i.e., knowing someone who had taken buprenorphine)S to, and interest in buprenorphine treatment. RESULTS: Of 158 opioid users, 70% were aware of, 32% had direct exposure to, and 31% had indirect exposure to buprenorphine; 12% had been prescribed buprenorphine. Of 138 opioid users who had never been prescribed buprenorphine, 57% were interested in buprenorphine treatment. In multivariate models, indirect exposure was associated with interest in buprenorphine treatment (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 2.65, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.22-5.77), but awareness and direct exposure were not. CONCLUSIONS: Syringe exchange participants were mostly aware of buprenorphine and interested in treatment, but few had actually been prescribed buprenorphine. Because indirect exposure to buprenorphine was associated with interest in treatment, future interventions could capitalize on indirect exposure, such as through peer mentorship, to address underutilization of buprenorphine treatment.

A buprenorphine education and training program for primary care residents: implementation and evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Although substance use disorders are highly prevalent, resident preparation to care for patients with these disorders is frequently insufficient. With increasing rates of opioid abuse and dependence, and the availability of medication-assisted treatment, one strategy to improve resident skills is to incorporate buprenorphine treatment into training settings. METHODS: In this study, esidency faculty delivered the BupEd education and training program to 71 primary care residents. BupEd included (1) a didactic session on buprenorphine, (2) an interactive motivational interviewing session, (3) monthly case conferences, and (4) supervised clinical experience providing buprenorphine treatment. To evaluate BupEd, the authors assessed (1) residents' provision of buprenorphine treatment during residency, (2) residents' provision of buprenorphine treatment after residency, and (3) treatment retention among patients treated by resident versus attending physicians. RESULTS: Of 71 residents, most served as a covering or primary provider to at least 1 buprenorphine-treated patient (84.5 and 66.2%, respectively). Of 40 graduates, 27.5% obtained a buprenorphine waiver and 17.5% prescribed buprenorphine. Treatment retention was similar between patients cared for by resident PCPs versus attending PCPs (90-day retention: 63.6% [n = 35] vs. 67.9% [n = 152]; P = .55). CONCLUSION: These results show that BupEd is feasible, provides residents with supervised clinical experience in treating opioid-dependent patients, and can serve as a model to prepare primary care physicians to care for patients with opioid dependence.

Prior buprenorphine experience is associated with office-based buprenorphine treatment outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: As buprenorphine treatment and illicit buprenorphine use increase, many patients seeking buprenorphine treatment will have had prior experience with buprenorphine. Little evidence is available to guide optimal treatment strategies for patients with prior buprenorphine experience. We examined whether prior buprenorphine experience was associated with treatment retention and opioid use. We also explored whether type of prior buprenorphine use (prescribed or illicit use) was associated with these treatment outcomes. METHODS: We analyzed interview and medical record data from a longitudinal cohort study of 87 individuals who initiated office-based buprenorphine treatment. We examined associations between prior buprenorphine experience and 6-month treatment retention using logistic regression models, and prior buprenorphine experience and any self-reported opioid use at 1, 3, and 6 months using nonlinear mixed models. RESULTS: Most (57.4%) participants reported prior buprenorphine experience; of these, 40% used prescribed buprenorphine and 60% illicit buprenorphine only. Compared with buprenorphine-naïve participants, those with prior buprenorphine experience had better treatment retention (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 2.65, 95% CI = 1.05-6.70). Similar associations that did not reach significance were found when exploring prescribed and illicit buprenorphine use. There was no difference in opioid use when comparing participants with prior buprenorphine experience with those who were buprenorphine-naive (AOR = 1.33, 95% CI = 0.38-4.65). Although not significant, qualitatively different results were found when exploring opioid use by type of prior buprenorphine use (prescribed buprenorphine vs buprenorphine-naïve, AOR = 2.20, 95% CI = 0.58-8.26; illicit buprenorphine vs buprenorphine-naïve, AOR = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.07-3.46). CONCLUSIONS: Prior buprenorphine experience was common and associated with better retention. Understanding how prior buprenorphine experience affects treatment outcomes has important clinical and public health implications.

Buprenorphine treatment outcomes among opioid-dependent cocaine users and non-users.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: National treatment guidelines state that polysubstance users, including cocaine users, may not be appropriate candidates for office-based buprenorphine treatment. However, data to support this recommendation are sparse and conflicting, and the implications of this recommendation may include limiting the usefulness of buprenorphine treatment, as cocaine use is common among opioid-dependent individuals seeking buprenorphine treatment. We compared buprenorphine treatment outcomes (6-month treatment retention and self-reported opioid use over 6 months) in opioid-dependent cocaine users versus non-users who initiated buprenorphine treatment at an urban community health center. METHODS: We followed 87 participants over 6 months, collecting interview and medical record data. We used logistic regression models to test whether baseline cocaine use was associated with treatment retention and mixed effects nonlinear models to test whether baseline cocaine use was associated with self-reported opioid use. RESULTS: At baseline, 39.1% reported cocaine use. In all participants, self-reported opioid use decreased from 89.7% to 27.4% over 6 months, and 6-month treatment retention was 54.5%. We found no significant difference in 6-month treatment retention (AOR = 1.56, 95% CI: .58-4.17, p = .38) or self-reported opioid use (AOR = .89, 95% CI: .26-3.07, p = .85) between cocaine users and non-users. CONCLUSIONS AND SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE: This study demonstrates that buprenorphine treatment retention is not worse in cocaine users than non-users, with clinically meaningful improvements in self-reported opioid use. These findings suggest that opioid-dependent cocaine users attain considerable benefits from office-based buprenorphine treatment and argue for the inclusion of these patients in office-based buprenorphine treatment programs.

Consumer attitudes about opioid addiction treatment: a focus group study in New York City.

OBJECTIVE: To develop effective programs for people who are opioid dependent and to impact the opioid epidemic in New York City, it is crucial to monitor attitudes about opioid addiction treatments among opioid users who have experienced barriers to engagement and retention in addiction treatment. DESIGN: The authors conducted a qualitative study using focus groups. METHODS: Six focus groups in three needle exchanges in New York City were audio recorded, transcribed, and systematically coded. The authors report on the main themes related to the study objectives. PARTICIPANTS: Participants of each needle exchange who were opioid dependent and had some knowledge of both methadone and buprenorphine were eligible. RESULTS: There were four main findings. Participants felt the following: 1) buprenorphine is an appropriate option for those heroin users who are motivated to stop using, 2) they have less control over their addiction treatment with methadone than they would have with buprenorphine, 3) buprenorphine treatment is not accessible to many New York City residents who would benefit from this treatment, and 4) lack of access to buprenorphine treatment is a cause of treatment-related diversion. CONCLUSIONS: Both methadone maintenance and buprenorphine treatment opportunities are necessary to address the diverse treatment needs of opioid-dependent people in New York City. However, the current medical model of buprenorphine treatment may be too restrictive for some opioid-dependent people and may be contributing to the use of illicit buprenorphine. New models to deliver buprenorphine treatment may address these problems.

Awareness of, experience with, and attitudes toward buprenorphine among opioid users visiting a New York City syringe exchange program.

OBJECTIVE: To examine awareness of, experience with, and attitudes toward buprenorphine, to begin to understand why opioid users may not access buprenorphine treatment. Factors associated with attitudes toward buprenorphine were also explored. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: A community-based organization's syringe exchange program in mobile units at nine street-side outreach sites in New York City. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred eighty-six adult opioid users visiting a syringe exchange program. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Awareness of, experiences with, and attitudes toward buprenorphine. RESULTS: Most (68.5 percent) participants were aware of buprenorphine, 27.8 percent had taken buprenorphine, and 58.6 percent knew someone who had taken buprenorphine. Of the 98 who had taken or knew someone who had taken buprenorphine, 85.7 percent endorsed positive attitudinal statements about its effectiveness, and up to 31.6 percent endorsed statements about its limited access. Participants' attitudes about the need for formal buprenorphine treatment were mixed. Current heroin users were more likely than nonusers to have heard of buprenorphine (76.0 percent vs 61.5 percent, p < 0.05), have taken buprenorphine (46.8 percent vs 9.6 percent, p < 0.01), endorse buprenorphine's effectiveness (96.3 percent vs 72.7 percent, p < 0.01), and believe that illicit and prescribed buprenorphine have similar benefits (35.2 percent vs 13.6 percent, p < 0.02) CONCLUSIONS: Most opioid users visiting a syringe exchange program had positive attitudes about buprenorphine's effectiveness, and few believed that buprenorphine was difficult to access. Attitudes about the benefits of illicit versus prescribed buprenorphine use were inconsistent. Understanding awareness of, experience with, and attitudes toward buprenorphine is important, as these factors are likely to influence opioid users' decisions about engaging in buprenorphine treatment.

Pain is not associated with worse office-based buprenorphine treatment outcomes.

Physical pain is common among individuals seeking treatment for opioid dependence. Pain may negatively impact addiction treatment. The authors prospectively studied opioid-dependent individuals initiating office-based buprenorphine treatment, comparing buprenorphine treatment outcomes (treatment retention and opioid use) among participants with and without pain (baseline pain or persistent pain). Among 82 participants, 60% reported baseline pain and 38% reported persistent pain. Overall, treatment retention was 56% and opioid use decreased from 89% to 26% over 6 months. In multivariable analyses, the authors found no association between pain and buprenorphine treatment outcomes. Opioid-dependent individuals with and without pain can achieve similar success with buprenorphine treatment.

A comparison of buprenorphine induction strategies: patient-centered home-based inductions versus standard-of-care office-based inductions.

Although novel buprenorphine induction strategies are emerging, they have been inadequately studied. To examine our newly developed patient-centered home-based inductions, we conducted a subgroup analysis of 79 opioid-dependent individuals who had buprenorphine inductions at an urban community health center. Participants chose their induction strategy. Standard-of-care office-based inductions were physician driven, with multiple assessments, and observed, and the patient-centered home-based inductions emphasized patient self-management and included a "kit" for induction at home. We conducted interviews and extracted medical records. Using mixed nonlinear models, we examined associations between induction strategy and opioid use and any drug use. Compared with those with standard-of-care office-based inductions, participants with patient-centered home-based inductions had no significant differences in opioid use (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 0.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.13-2.97) but greater reductions in any drug use (AOR = 0.05, 95% CI = 0.01-0.37). Taking into account the limitations of our observational cohort study design, we conclude that participants with patient-centered home-based inductions had similar reductions in opioid use and greater reductions in any drug use than those with standard-of-care office-based inductions. It is essential that new induction strategies be based on existing models or theories and be well studied.

Strategies to improve access to and utilization of health care services and adherence to antiretroviral therapy among HIV-infected drug users.

We review five innovative strategies to improve access, utilization, and adherence for HIV-infected drug users and suggest areas that need further attention. In addition, we highlight two innovative programs. The first increases access and utilization through integrated HIV and opioid addiction treatment with buprenorphine in a community health center, and the second incorporates adherence counseling for antiretroviral therapy in methadone programs. Preliminary evaluations demonstrated that these strategies may improve both HIV and opioid addiction outcomes and may be appropriate for wider dissemination. Further refinement and expansion of strategies to improve outcomes of HIV-infected drug users is warranted.

Factors associated with complicated buprenorphine inductions.

Despite data supporting its efficacy, barriers to implementation of buprenorphine for office-based treatment are present. Complications can occur during buprenorphine inductions, yet few published studies have examined this phase of treatment. To examine factors associated with complications during buprenorphine induction, we conducted a retrospective chart review of the first 107 patients receiving buprenorphine treatment in an urban community health center. The primary outcome, defined as complicated induction (precipitated or protracted withdrawal), was observed in 18 (16.8%) patients. Complicated inductions were associated with poorer treatment retention (than routine inductions) and decreased over time. Factors independently associated with complicated inductions included recent use of prescribed methadone, recent benzodiazepine use, no prior experience with buprenorphine, and a low initial dose of buprenorphine/naloxone. Findings from this study and further investigation of patient characteristics and treatment characteristics associated with complicated inductions can help guide buprenorphine treatment strategies.