Rapid Initiation of Injection Naltrexone for Opioid Use Disorder: A Stepped-Wedge Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Injectable extended-release (XR)-naltrexone is an effective treatment option for opioid use disorder (OUD), but the need to withdraw patients from opioid treatment prior to initiation is a barrier to implementation. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of the standard procedure (SP) with the rapid procedure (RP) for XR-naltrexone initiation. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Surmounting Withdrawal to Initiate Fast Treatment with Naltrexone study was an optimized stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial conducted at 6 community-based inpatient addiction treatment units. Units using the SP were randomly assigned at 14-week intervals to implement the RP. Participants admitted with OUD received the procedure the unit was delivering at the time of their admission. Participant recruitment took place between March 16, 2021, and July 18, 2022. The last visit was September 21, 2022. Interventions: Standard procedure, based on the XR-naltrexone package insert (approximately 5-day buprenorphine taper followed by a 7- to 10-day opioid-free period and RP, defined as 1 day of buprenorphine at minimum necessary dose, 1 opioid-free day, and ascending low doses of oral naltrexone and adjunctive medications (eg, clonidine, clonazepam, antiemetics) for opioid withdrawal. Main Outcomes and Measures: Receipt of XR-naltrexone injection prior to inpatient discharge (primary outcome). Secondary outcomes included opioid withdrawal scores and targeted safety events and serious adverse events. All analyses were intention-to-treat. Results: A total of 415 participants with OUD were enrolled (mean [SD] age, 33.6 [8.48] years; 205 [49.4%] identified sex as male); 54 [13.0%] individuals identified as Black, 91 [21.9%] as Hispanic, 290 [69.9%] as White, and 22 [5.3%] as multiracial. Rates of successful initiation of XR-naltrexone among the RP group (141 of 225 [62.7%]) were noninferior to those of the SP group (68 of 190 [35.8%]) (odds ratio [OR], 3.60; 95% CI, 2.12-6.10). Withdrawal did not differ significantly between conditions (proportion of days with a moderate or greater maximum Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale score (>12) for RP vs SP: OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.62-2.50). Targeted safety events (RP: 12 [5.3%]; SP: 4 [2.1%]) and serious adverse events (RP: 15 [6.7%]; SP: 3 [1.6%]) were infrequent but occurred more often with RP than SP. Conclusions and Relevance: In this trial, the RP of XR-naltrexone initiation was noninferior to the standard approach and saved time, although it required more intensive medical management and safety monitoring. The results of this trial suggest that rapid initiation could make XR-naltrexone a more viable treatment for patients with OUD. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04762537.

Reducing overdose deaths among persons with opioid use disorder in connecticut.

BACKGROUND: People in Connecticut are now more likely to die of a drug-related overdose than a traffic accident. While Connecticut has had some success in slowing the rise in overdose death rates, substantial additional progress is necessary. METHODS: We developed, verified, and calibrated a mechanistic simulation of alternative overdose prevention policy options, including scaling up naloxone (NLX) distribution in the community and medications for opioid use disorder (OUD) among people who are incarcerated (MOUD-INC) and in the community (MOUD-COM) in a simulated cohort of people with OUD in Connecticut. We estimated how maximally scaling up each option individually and in combinations would impact 5-year overdose deaths, life-years, and quality-adjusted life-years. All costs were assessed in 2021 USD, employing a health sector perspective in base-case analyses and a societal perspective in sensitivity analyses, using a 3% discount rate and 5-year and lifetime time horizons. RESULTS: Maximally scaling NLX alone reduces overdose deaths 20% in the next 5 years at a favorable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER); if injectable rather than intranasal NLX was distributed, 240 additional overdose deaths could be prevented. Maximally scaling MOUD-COM and MOUD-INC alone reduce overdose deaths by 14% and 6% respectively at favorable ICERS. Considering all permutations of scaling up policies, scaling NLX and MOUD-COM together is the cost-effective choice, reducing overdose deaths 32% at ICER $19,000/QALY. In sensitivity analyses using a societal perspective, all policy options were cost saving and overdose deaths reduced 33% over 5 years while saving society $338,000 per capita over the simulated cohort lifetime. CONCLUSIONS: Maximally scaling access to naloxone and MOUD in the community can reduce 5-year overdose deaths by 32% among people with OUD in Connecticut under realistic budget scenarios. If societal cost savings due to increased productivity and reduced crime costs are considered, one-third of overdose deaths can be reduced by maximally scaling all three policy options, while saving money.

Low-dose naltrexone for post-COVID fatigue syndrome: a study protocol for a double-blind, randomised trial in British Columbia.

INTRODUCTION: A significant proportion of individuals suffering from post COVID-19 condition (PCC, also known as long COVID) can present with persistent, disabling fatigue similar to myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and post-viral fatigue syndromes. There remains no clear pharmacological therapy for patients with this subtype of PCC, which can be referred to as post-COVID fatigue syndrome (PCFS). A low dose of the opioid antagonist naltrexone (ie, low-dose naltrexone (LDN)) has emerged as an off-label treatment for treating fatigue and other symptoms in PCC. However, only small, non-controlled studies have assessed LDN in PCC, so randomised trials are urgently required. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A prospective, randomised, double-blind, parallel arm, placebo-controlled phase II trial will be performed to assess the efficacy of LDN for improving fatigue in PCFS. The trial will be decentralised and open to eligible individuals throughout the Canadian province of British Columbia (BC). Participants will be recruited through the province-wide Post-COVID-19 Interdisciplinary Clinical Care Network (PC-ICCN) and research volunteer platform (REACH BC). Eligible participants will be 19-69 years old, have had a confirmed or physician-suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection at least 3 months prior and meet clinical criteria for PCFS adapted from the Institute of Medicine ME/CFS criteria. Individuals who are taking opioid medications, have a history of ME/CFS prior to COVID-19 or history of significant liver disease will be excluded. Participants will be randomised to an LDN intervention arm (n=80) or placebo arm (n=80). Participants in each arm will be prescribed identical capsules starting at 1 mg daily and follow a prespecified schedule for up-titration to 4.5 mg daily or the maximum tolerated dose. The trial will be conducted over 16 weeks, with assessments at baseline, 6, 12 and 16 weeks. The primary outcome will be fatigue severity at 16 weeks evaluated by the Fatigue Severity Scale. Secondary outcomes will include pain Visual Analogue Scale score, overall symptom severity as measured by the Patient Phenotyping Questionnaire Short Form, 7-day step count and health-related quality of life measured by the EuroQol 5-Dimension questionnaire. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial has been authorised by Health Canada and approved by The University of British Columbia/Children's and Women's Health Centre of British Columbia Research Ethics Board. On completion, findings will be disseminated to patients, caregivers and clinicians through engagement activities within existing PCC and ME/CFS networks. Results will be published in academic journals and presented at conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05430152.

Using quality improvement approaches to increase emergency department provider engagement in research participant enrollment during COVID-19 and opioid overdose public health emergencies.

PURPOSE: We utilized quality improvement (QI) approaches to increase emergency department (ED) provider engagement with research participant enrollment during the opioid crisis and coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. The context of this work is the Evaluating Microdosing in the Emergency Department (EMED) study, a randomized trial offering buprenorphine/naloxone to ED patients through randomization to standard or microdosing induction. Engaging providers is crucial for participant recruitment to our study. Anticipating challenges sustaining long-term engagement after a 63% decline in provider referrals four months into enrollments, we applied Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles to develop and implement an engagement strategy to increase and sustain provider engagement by 50% from baseline within 9 months. METHODS: Our engagement strategy was centered on Coffee Carts rounds: 5-min study-related educational presentations for providers on shift; and a secondary initiative, a Suboxone Champions program, to engage interested providers as study-related peer educators. We used provider referrals to our team as a proxy for study engagement and report the percent change in mean weekly referrals across two PDSA cycles relative to our established referral baseline. RESULTS: A QI approach afforded real-time review of interventions based on research and provider priorities, increasing engagement via mean weekly provider referrals by 14.5% and 49% across two PDSA cycles relative to baseline, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our Coffee Carts and Suboxone Champions program are efficient, low-barrier, educational initiatives to convey study-related information to providers. This work supported our efforts to maximally engage providers, minimize burden, and provide life-saving buprenorphine/naloxone to patients at risk of fatal overdose.

RéSUMé: BUT: Nous avons utilisé des approches d'amélioration de la qualité (AQ) pour accroître l'engagement des fournisseurs des services d'urgence (SU) avec l'inscription des participants à la recherche pendant la crise des opioïdes et la pandémie de maladie à coronavirus (COVID-19). Le contexte de ce travail est l'étude Evaluating Microdosing in the Emergency Department (EMED), un essai randomisé offrant de la buprénorphine/naloxone aux patients aux urgences par randomisation à l'induction standard ou au microdosage. L'engagement des fournisseurs est crucial pour le recrutement des participants à notre étude. En anticipant les difficultés à maintenir un engagement à long terme après une baisse de 63 % des recommandations de fournisseurs quatre mois après les inscriptions, nous avons appliqué le Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles d'élaboration et de mise en œuvre d'une stratégie d'engagement visant à accroître et à maintenir l'engagement des fournisseurs de 50 % par rapport au niveau de référence dans les neuf mois. MéTHODES: Notre stratégie de mobilisation était axée sur les tournées de Coffee Carts : des présentations éducatives de cinq minutes sur l'étude pour les fournisseurs sur le quart de travail; et une initiative secondaire, un programme Suboxone Champions, pour mobiliser les fournisseurs intéressés en tant que pairs éducateurs liés à l'étude. Nous avons utilisé les recommandations des fournisseurs à notre équipe comme indicateur de la participation à l'étude et nous avons signalé le pourcentage de changement dans les recommandations hebdomadaires moyennes pour deux cycles PDSA par rapport à notre base de référence établie. RéSULTATS: Une approche d'AQ a permis d'examiner en temps réel les interventions en fonction des priorités de la recherche et des fournisseurs, ce qui a augmenté l'engagement par l'intermédiaire des recommandations hebdomadaires moyennes des fournisseurs de 14,5 % et de 49 % au cours de deux cycles de PDSA par rapport au niveau de référence, respectivement. CONCLUSION: Notre programme Coffee Carts and Suboxone Champions est une initiative éducative efficace et peu contraignante qui permet de transmettre aux fournisseurs des renseignements sur les études. Ce travail a appuyé nos efforts visant à mobiliser au maximum les fournisseurs, à réduire au minimum le fardeau et à fournir de la buprénorphine/naloxone vitale aux patients à risque de surdose mortelle.

A case of naltrexone-induced acute eosinophilic pneumonia.

Acute eosinophilic pneumonia (AEP) is a rare cause of acute respiratory failure. Clinical presentations can range from dyspnoea, fever and cough, to rapidly progressive and potentially fulminant respiratory failure. While its exact cause is often unknown, associations with inhalational injuries and exposures to new medications have been described.We report a case of a middle-aged, non-smoking man with a history of alcohol use disorder. He presented with 4 days of shortness of breath that started hours after taking injectable naltrexone (Vivitrol). The patient had rapidly worsening hypoxaemia, necessitating emergent bronchoscopy with transbronchial biopsies and bronchoalveolar lavage which showed 66% eosinophils. The patient was intubated for the procedure and unable to get extubated due to worsening hypoxaemic respiratory failure with high fractional inspired oxygen requirements. Chest radiograph showed worsening lung infiltrates and with a high index of suspicion for AEP, he was started empirically on methylprednisolone. He had rapid improvement in his respiratory status and was extubated on day 5 of admission then discharged on day 8. Histopathological examination confirmed acute/subacute eosinophilic pneumonia. A 3-week post-discharge follow-up chest radiograph confirmed the full resolution of pulmonary infiltrates.Naltrexone-induced AEP is rare, with only six other cases reported in the literature. Careful history taking and prompt evaluation for AEP are important given the potential for rapid progression to acute hypoxic respiratory failure and the excellent response to steroid treatment.

Topiramate Versus Naltrexone for Alcohol Use Disorder: A Genotype-Stratified Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: There have been no well-controlled and well-powered comparative trials of topiramate with other pharmacotherapies for alcohol use disorder (AUD), such as naltrexone. Moreover, the literature is mixed on the effects of two polymorphisms-rs2832407 (in GRIK1) and rs1799971 (in OPRM1)-on response to topiramate and naltrexone, respectively. The authors sought to examine the comparative effectiveness of topiramate and naltrexone in improving outcomes in AUD and to examine the role of the rs2832407 and rs1799971 polymorphisms, respectively, on response to these medications. METHODS: In a 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, multisite, genotype-stratified (rs2832407 and rs1799971) clinical trial comparing topiramate and naltrexone in treating AUD, 147 patients with AUD were randomly assigned to treatment with topiramate or naltrexone, stratified by genotype (rs2832407*CC and *AC/AA genotypes and rs1799971*AA and *AG/GG genotypes). The predefined primary outcome was number of heavy drinking days per week. Predefined secondary outcomes included standard drinks per drinking day per week, body mass index (BMI), craving, markers of liver injury, mood, and adverse events. RESULTS: For the number of heavy drinking days per week, there was a near-significant time-by-treatment interaction. For the number of standard drinks per drinking day per week, there was a significant time-by-treatment interaction, which favored topiramate. There were significant time-by-treatment effects, with greater reductions observed with topiramate than naltrexone for BMI, craving, and gamma-glutamyltransferase level. Withdrawal due to side effects occurred in 8% and 5% of the topiramate and naltrexone groups, respectively. Neither polymorphism showed an effect on treatment response. CONCLUSIONS: Topiramate is at least as effective and safe as the first-line medication, naltrexone, in reducing heavy alcohol consumption, and superior in reducing some clinical outcomes. Neither rs2832407 nor rs1799971 had effects on topiramate and naltrexone treatments, respectively.

How Ohio public library systems respond to opioid-related substance use: a descriptive analysis of survey results.

BACKGROUND: Public libraries in the United States have experienced increases in opioid-related substance use in their communities and on their premises. This includes fatal and non-fatal overdose events. Some libraries have adopted response measures in their branches to deter substance use or prevent overdose. A small number of libraries around the nation have decided to stock the opioid antagonist naloxone (Narcan) for staff to administer to patrons who experience overdose. This response measure has generated extensive media attention. Although Ohio ranks fourth in age-adjusted drug mortality rate in the United States, there has been no investigation of whether Ohio libraries are observing opioid-related transactions, consumption, and/or overdose events, or which measures they have adopted in response to these activities. We conducted a multimethod survey with Ohio public library directors to identify the response measures they have adopted. We present descriptive findings from the quantitative and qualitative items in our survey. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional 54-item multimethod survey of public library system directors (one per system) in Ohio. Directors of each of Ohio's public library systems were invited to participate via email. RESULTS: Of 251 library systems, 56 responded (22.3% response rate), with 34 respondents (60.7%) indicating awareness of opioid-related transactions, consumption, and/or overdose on their premises. Most (n = 43, 76.8%) did not stock naloxone in their buildings. Over half (n = 34, 60.7%) reported implementing one or more non-naloxone response measures. These measures focus on improving security for staff and patrons, deterring opioid-related transactions (purchases and exchanges) and consumption, and providing educational events on substance use. Nearly half (n = 25, 47.2%) partner with community organizations to provide opioid response measures. A similar proportion reported adequate funding to respond to opioid-related substance use (n = 23, 45.1%), and most (n = 38, 74.5%) reported adequate support from their boards and communities. Few respondents have implemented evaluations of their response measures. CONCLUSIONS: Ohio public libraries are responding to evidence of opioid-related transactions, consumption, and/or overdose on their premises with a range of measures that focus on substance use prevention and deterrence. Most Ohio library systems do not stock naloxone. Respondents indicated they prefer to call 911 and let first responders handle overdose events. The majority of respondents indicated their library systems have political capacity to respond to evidence of opioid-related substance use on their premises, but have limited operational and functional capacity. Findings suggest the need to revisit assumptions that public libraries are willing to stock naloxone to respond to overdose events, and that libraries have the resources to respond robustly to opioid-related transactions, consumption, and/or overdose on their premises.

High-dose naloxone formulations are not as essential as we thought.

Naloxone is an effective FDA-approved opioid antagonist for reversing opioid overdoses. Naloxone is available to the public and can be administered through intramuscular (IM), intravenous (IV), and intranasal spray (IN) routes. Our literature review investigates the adequacy of two doses of standard IM or IN naloxone in reversing fentanyl overdoses compared to newer high-dose naloxone formulations. Moreover, our initiative incorporates the experiences of people who use drugs, enabling a more practical and contextually-grounded analysis. The evidence indicates that the vast majority of fentanyl overdoses can be successfully reversed using two standard IM or IN dosages. Exceptions include cases of carfentanil overdose, which necessitates ≥ 3 doses for reversal. Multiple studies documented the risk of precipitated withdrawal using ≥ 2 doses of naloxone, notably including the possibility of recurring overdose symptoms after resuscitation, contingent upon the half-life of the specific opioid involved. We recommend distributing multiple doses of standard IM or IN naloxone to bystanders and educating individuals on the adequacy of two doses in reversing fentanyl overdoses. Individuals should continue administration until the recipient is revived, ensuring appropriate intervals between each dose along with rescue breaths, and calling emergency medical services if the individual is unresponsive after two doses. We do not recommend high-dose naloxone formulations as a substitute for four doses of IM or IN naloxone due to the higher cost, risk of precipitated withdrawal, and limited evidence compared to standard doses. Future research must take into consideration lived and living experience, scientific evidence, conflicts of interest, and the bodily autonomy of people who use drugs.

Implementation and Evaluation of a Bystander Naloxone Training Course.

Introduction: Bystander provision of naloxone is a key modality to reduce opioid overdose-related death. Naloxone training courses are available, but no standardized program exists. As part of a bystander empowerment course, we created and evaluated a brief naloxone training module. Methods: This was a retrospective evaluation of a naloxone training course, which was paired with Stop the Bleed training for hemorrhage control and was offered to administrative staff in an office building. Participants worked in an organization related to healthcare, but none were clinicians. The curriculum included the following topics: 1) background about the opioid epidemic; 2) how to recognize the signs of an opioid overdose; 3) actions not to take when encountering an overdose victim; 4) the correct steps to take when encountering an overdose victim; 5) an overview of naloxone products; and 6) Good Samaritan protection laws. The 20-minute didactic section was followed by a hands-on session with nasal naloxone kits and a simulation mannequin. The course was evaluated with the Opioid Overdose Knowledge (OOKS) and Opioid Overdose Attitudes (OOAS) scales for take-home naloxone training evaluation. We used the paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test to compare scores pre- and post-course. Results: Twenty-eight participants completed the course. The OOKS, measuring objective knowledge about opioid overdose and naloxone, had improved scores from a median of 73.2% (interquartile range [IQR] 68.3%-79.9%) to 91.5% (IQR 85.4%-95.1%), P < 0.001. The three domains on the OOAS score also showed statistically significant results. Competency to manage an overdose improved on a five-point scale from a median of 2.5 (IQR 2.4-2.9) to a median of 3.7 (IQR 3.5-4.1), P < 0.001. Concerns about managing an overdose decreased (improved) from a median of 2.3 (IQR 1.9-2.6) to median 1.8 (IQR 1.5-2.1), P < 0.001. Readiness to intervene in an opioid overdose improved from a median of 4 (IQR 3.8-4.2) to a median of 4.2 (IQR 4-4.2), P < 0.001. Conclusion: A brief course designed to teach bystanders about opioid overdose and naloxone was feasible and effective. We encourage hospitals and other organizations to use and promulgate this model. Furthermore, we suggest the convening of a national consortium to achieve consensus on program content and delivery.

Addressing System and Clinician Barriers to Emergency Department-initiated Buprenorphine: An Evaluation of Post-intervention Physician Outcomes.

Introduction: Emergency departments (ED) are in the unique position to initiate buprenorphine, an evidence-based treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD). However, barriers at the system and clinician level limit its use. We describe a series of interventions that address these barriers to ED-initiated buprenorphine in one urban ED. We compare post-intervention physician outcomes between the study site and two affiliated sites without the interventions. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study conducted at three affiliated urban EDs where the intervention site implemented OUD-related electronic note templates, clinical protocols, a peer navigation program, education, and reminders. Post-intervention, we administered an anonymous, online survey to physicians at all three sites. Survey domains included demographics, buprenorphine experience and knowledge, comfort with addressing OUD, and attitudes toward OUD treatment. Physician outcomes were compared between the intervention site and the control sites with bivariate tests. We used logistic regression controlling for significant demographic differences to compare physicians' buprenorphine experience. Results: Of 113 (51%) eligible physicians, 58 completed the survey: 27 from the intervention site, and 31 from the control sites. Physicians at the intervention site were more likely to spend <75% of their work week in clinical practice and to be in medical practice for <7 years. Buprenorphine knowledge (including status of buprenorphine prescribing waiver), comfort with addressing OUD, and attitudes toward OUD treatment did not differ significantly between the sites. Physicians were 4.5 times more likely to have administered buprenorphine at the intervention site (odds ratio [OR] 4.5, 95% confidence interval 1.4-14.4, P = 0.01), which remained significant after adjusting for clinical time and years in practice, (OR 3.5 and 4.6, respectively). Conclusion: Physicians exposed to interventions addressing system- and clinician-level implementation barriers were at least three times as likely to have administered buprenorphine in the ED. Physicians' buprenorphine knowledge, comfort with addressing and attitudes toward OUD treatment did not differ significantly between sites. Our findings suggest that ED-initiated buprenorphine can be facilitated by addressing implementation barriers, while physician knowledge, comfort, and attitudes may be harder to improve.

Retrospective study investigating naloxone prescribing and cost in US Medicaid and Medicare patients.

BACKGROUND: Opioid overdoses in the USA have increased to unprecedented levels. Administration of the opioid antagonist naloxone can prevent overdoses. OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to reveal the pharmacoepidemiologic patterns in naloxone prescribing to Medicaid patients from 2018 to 2021 as well as Medicare in 2019. DESIGN: Observational pharmacoepidemiologic study SETTING: US Medicare and Medicaid naloxone claims INTERVENTION: The Medicaid State Drug Utilisation Data File was utilised to extract information on the number of prescriptions and the amount prescribed of naloxone at a national and state level. The Medicare Provider Utilisation and Payment was also utilised to analyse prescription data from 2019. OUTCOME MEASURES: States with naloxone prescription rates that were outliers of quartile analysis were noted. RESULTS: The number of generic naloxone prescriptions per 100 000 Medicaid enrollees decreased by 5.3%, whereas brand naloxone prescriptions increased by 245.1% from 2018 to 2021. There was a 33.1-fold difference in prescriptions between the highest (New Mexico=1809.5) and lowest (South Dakota=54.6) states in 2019. Medicare saw a 30.4-fold difference in prescriptions between the highest (New Mexico) and lowest states (also South Dakota) after correcting per 100 000 enrollees. CONCLUSIONS: This pronounced increase in the number of naloxone prescriptions to Medicaid patients from 2018 to 2021 indicates a national response to this widespread public health emergency. Further research into the origins of the pronounced state-level disparities is warranted.

Buprenorphine Prescribing and Challenges Faced Among National Health Service Corps Clinicians.

Importance: The National Health Service Corps (NHSC) Loan Repayment Program (LRP) expansion in fiscal year (FY) 2019 intended to improve access to medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) by adding more clinicians who could prescribe buprenorphine. However, some clinicians still face barriers to prescribing, which may vary between rural and nonrural areas. Objective: To examine the growth in buprenorphine prescribing by NHSC clinicians for Medicaid beneficiaries during the NHSC LRP expansion and describe the challenges to prescribing that persist in rural and nonrural areas. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study analyzed preexpansion and postexpansion Medicaid claims data to evaluate the percentage of prescriptions of buprenorphine filled during FY 2017 through 2021. This study also analyzed challenges and barriers to prescribing MOUD between rural and urban areas, using results from annual surveys conducted with NHSC clinicians and sites from FY 2019 through FY 2021. Exposure: Prescribing of buprenorphine by NHSC clinicians. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were the percentage and number of Medicaid beneficiaries with opioid use disorder (OUD) who filled a prescription for buprenorphine before and after the LRP expansion and the challenges NHSC clinicians and sites faced in providing substance use disorder and OUD services. Survey results were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: During FYs 2017 through 2021, 7828 NHSC clinicians prescribed buprenorphine (standard LRP: mean [SD] age, 38.1 [8.4] years and 4807 females [78.9%]; expansion LRPs: mean [SD] age, 39.4 [8.1] years and 1307 females [75.0%]). A total of 3297 NHSC clinicians and 4732 NHSC sites responded to at least 1 survey question to the 3 surveys. The overall percentage of Medicaid beneficiaries with OUD who filled a prescription for buprenorphine during the first 2.5 years post expansion increased significantly from 18.9% before to 43.7% after expansion (an increase of 123 422 beneficiaries; P < .001). The percentage more than doubled among beneficiaries living in areas with a high Social Vulnerability Index score (from 17.0% to 36.7%; an increase of 31 964) and among beneficiaries living in rural areas (from 20.8% to 55.7%; an increase of 45 523). However, 773 of 2140 clinicians (36.1%; 95% CI, 33.6%-38.6%) reported a lack of mental health services to complement medication for OUD treatment, and 290 of 1032 clinicians (28.1%; 95% CI, 24.7%-31.7%) reported that they did not prescribe buprenorphine due to a lack of supervision, mentorship, or peer consultation. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that although the X-waiver requirement has been removed and Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration guidelines encourage all eligible clinicians to screen and offer patients with OUD buprenorphine, as permissible by state law, more trained health care workers and improved care coordination for counseling and referral services are needed to support comprehensive OUD treatment.

Barriers to Buprenorphine Dispensing by Medicaid-Participating Community Retail Pharmacies.

Importance: Controlled substances have regulatory requirements under the US Federal Controlled Substance Act that must be met before pharmacies can stock and dispense them. However, emerging evidence suggests there are pharmacy-level barriers in access to buprenorphine for treatment for opioid use disorder even among pharmacies that dispense other opioids. Objective: To estimate the proportion of Medicaid-participating community retail pharmacies that dispense buprenorphine, out of Medicaid-participating community retail pharmacies that dispense other opioids and assess if the proportion dispensing buprenorphine varies by Medicaid patient volume or rural-urban location. Design, Setting, and Participants: This serial cross-sectional study included Medicaid pharmacy claims (2016-2019) data from 6 states (Kentucky, Maine, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia) participating in the Medicaid Outcomes Distributed Research Network (MODRN). Community retail pharmacies serving Medicaid-enrolled patients were included, mail-order pharmacies were excluded. Analyses were conducted from September 2022 to August 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: The proportion of pharmacies dispensing buprenorphine approved for opioid use disorder among pharmacies dispensing an opioid analgesic or buprenorphine prescription to at least 1 Medicaid enrollee in each state. Pharmacies were categorized by median Medicaid patient volume (by state and year) and rurality (urban vs rural location according to zip code). Results: In 2016, 72.0% (95% CI, 70.9%-73.0%) of the 7038 pharmacies that dispensed opioids also dispensed buprenorphine to Medicaid enrollees, increasing to 80.4% (95% CI, 79.5%-81.3%) of 7437 pharmacies in 2019. States varied in the percent of pharmacies dispensing buprenorphine in Medicaid (range, 73.8%-96.4%), with significant differences between several states found in 2019 (χ2 P < .05), when states were most similar in the percent of pharmacies dispensing buprenorphine. A lower percent of pharmacies with Medicaid patient volume below the median dispensed buprenorphine (69.1% vs 91.7% in 2019), compared with pharmacies with above-median patient volume (χ2 P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this serial cross-sectional study of Medicaid-participating pharmacies, buprenorphine was not accessible in up to 20% of community retail pharmacies, presenting pharmacy-level barriers to patients with Medicaid seeking buprenorphine treatment. That some pharmacies dispensed opioid analgesics but not buprenorphine suggests that factors other than compliance with the Controlled Substance Act influence pharmacy dispensing decisions.

Managing emergency department patients with opioid use disorder.

As the United States continues to grapple with the opioid crisis, emergency clinicians are on the front lines of managing patients with opioid use disorder. This issue reviews tools and best practices in emergency department management of patients with opioid overdose and opioid withdrawal, and how substance use history will inform treatment planning and disposition. As growing evidence shows that medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD)- buprenorphine, methadone, and naltrexone-can have lasting impacts on patients' addiction recovery, strategies for assessing patient readiness for MOUD and overcoming barriers to emergency department initiation of these medications are reviewed. Newer approaches to buprenorphine dosing (high-dose, low-dose, home induction, and long-acting injectable dosing) are also reviewed.

Association of buprenorphine retention and subsequent adverse outcomes following non-fatal overdose: An analysis using statewide linked Maryland databases.

INTRODUCTION: Patients receiving buprenorphine after a non-fatal overdose have lower risk of future nonfatal or fatal overdose, but less is known about the relationship between buprenorphine retention and the risk of adverse outcomes in the post-overdose year. OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between the total number of months with an active buprenorphine prescription (retention) and the odds of an adverse outcome within the 12 months following an index non-fatal overdose. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We studied a cohort of people with an index non-fatal opioid overdose in Maryland between July 2016 and December 2020 and at least one filled buprenorphine prescription in the 12-month post-overdose observation period. We used individually linked Maryland prescription drug and hospital admissions data. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine buprenorphine retention and associated odds of experiencing a second non-fatal overdose, all-cause emergency department visits, and all-cause hospitalizations. RESULTS: Of 5439 people, 25% (n=1360) experienced a second non-fatal overdose, 78% had an (n=4225) emergency department visit, and 37% (n=2032) were hospitalized. With each additional month of buprenorphine, the odds of experiencing another non-fatal overdose decreased by 4.7%, all-cause emergency department visits by 5.3%, and all-cause hospitalization decreased by 3.9% (p<.0001, respectively). Buprenorphine retention for at least nine months was a critical threshold for reducing overdose risk versus shorter buprenorphine retention. CONCLUSIONS: Buprenorphine retention following an index non-fatal overdose event significantly decreases the risk of future overdose, emergency department use, and hospitalization even among people already on buprenorphine.

Is a randomised controlled trial of take home naloxone distributed in emergency settings likely to be feasible and acceptable? Findings from a UK qualitative study exploring perspectives of people who use opioids and emergency services staff.

OBJECTIVE: Distribution of take-home naloxone (THN) by emergency services may increase access to THN and reduce deaths and morbidity from opioid overdose. As part of a feasibility study for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of distribution of THN kits and education within ambulance services and Emergency Departments (EDs), we used qualitative methods to explore key stakeholders' perceptions of feasibility and acceptability of delivering the trial. METHODS: We undertook semi-structured interviews and focus groups with 26 people who use opioids and with 20 paramedics and ED staff from two intervention sites between 2019 and 2021. Interviews and focus groups were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using Framework Analysis. RESULTS: People using opioids reported high awareness of overdose management, including personal experience of THN use. Staff perceived emergency service provision of THN as a low-cost, low-risk intervention with potential to reduce mortality, morbidity and health service use. Staff understood the trial aims and considered it compatible with their work. All participants supported widening access to THN but reported limited trial recruitment opportunities partly due to difficulties in consenting patients during overdose. Procedural problems, restrictive recruitment protocols, limited staff buy-in and patients already owning THN limited trial recruitment. Determining trial effectiveness was challenging due to high levels of alternative community provision of THN. CONCLUSIONS: Distribution of THN in emergency settings was considered feasible and acceptable for stakeholders but an RCT to establish the effectiveness of THN delivery is unlikely to generate further useful evidence due to difficulties in recruiting patients and assessing benefits.