Buprenorphine Prescribing Characteristics Following Relaxation of X-Waiver Training Requirements.

Importance: Local-level data are needed to understand whether the relaxation of X-waiver training requirements for prescribing buprenorphine in April 2021 translated to increased buprenorphine treatment. Objective: To assess whether relaxation of X-waiver training requirements was associated with changes in the number of clinicians waivered to and who prescribe buprenorphine for opioid use disorder and the number of patients receiving treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: This serial cross-sectional study uses an interrupted time series analysis of 2020-2022 data from the HEALing Communities Study (HCS), a cluster-randomized, wait-list-controlled trial. Urban and rural communities in 4 states (Kentucky, Massachusetts, New York, and Ohio) with a high burden of opioid overdoses that had not yet received the HCS intervention were included. Exposure: Relaxation of X-waiver training requirements (ie, allowing training-exempt X-waivers) on April 28, 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: The monthly number of X-waivered clinicians, X-waivered buprenorphine prescribers, and patients receiving buprenorphine were each summed across communities within a state. Segmented linear regression models to estimate pre- and post-policy change by state were used. Results: The number of individuals in 33 participating HCS communities included 347 863 in Massachusetts, 815 794 in Kentucky, 971 490 in New York, and 1 623 958 in Ohio. The distribution of age (18-35 years: range, 29.4%-32.4%; 35-54 years: range, 29.9%-32.5%; ≥55 years: range, 35.7%-39.3%) and sex (female: range, 51.1%-52.6%) was similar across communities. There was a temporal increase in the number of X-waivered clinicians in the pre-policy change period in all states, which further increased in the post-policy change period in each state except Ohio, ranging from 5.2% (95% CI, 3.1%-7.3%) in Massachusetts communities to 8.4% (95% CI, 6.5%-10.3%) in Kentucky communities. Only communities in Kentucky showed an increase in the number of X-waivered clinicians prescribing buprenorphine associated with the policy change (relative increase, 3.2%; 95% CI, 1.5%-4.9%), while communities in other states showed no change or a decrease. Similarly, only communities in Massachusetts experienced an increase in patients receiving buprenorphine associated with the policy change (relative increase, 1.7%; 95% CI, 0.8%-2.6%), while communities in other states showed no change. Conclusions and Relevance: In this serial cross-sectional study, relaxation of X-waiver training requirements was associated with an increase in the number of X-waivered clinicians but was not consistently associated with an increase in the number of buprenorphine prescribers or patients receiving buprenorphine. These findings suggest that training requirements may not be the primary barrier to expanding buprenorphine treatment.

Medication and procedural abortion uptake during a period of increasing abortion hostility.

Hundreds of state-level abortion restrictions were implemented in the US between 2010 and 2020. Medication abortion was being widely adopted during this same period. Understanding the impact of health policies and political climate will improve the delivery of and access to reproductive healthcare in a period of rapid change. To measure the association between state abortion hostility and mifepristone and procedural abortion rates, we conducted a state-level repeated cross-sectional study using 2010-2020 employer-sponsored insurance claims data from Merative MarketScan. The exposure of interest was a 13-point state-level abortion hostility score based on the presence of policies which either reduce or protect access to abortion. Outcomes of interest were annual mifepristone and procedural abortion claims per 100,000 enrollees. We used a linear mixed model adjusting for urbanicity, age group, and year. We assessed whether temporal trends in abortion claims were modified by state abortion hostility by interacting year with two measurements of abortion hostility: baseline score in 2010 and change from baseline score. We found that median state-level mifepristone claims increased from 20 to 37 per 100,000 included enrollees; meanwhile, median procedural abortions claims decreased from 69 to 20 per 100. For mifepristone, every unit increase in a state's baseline abortion hostility score was associated with 7.5 (CI, -12 to -3.6) fewer mifepristone claims per 100,000 in 2010. For states with baseline hostility and change scores of zero, we did not observe a significant time trend over the 11 year study period. For every unit increase in baseline hostility, the time trend changed by 0.5 fewer claims (CI, -0.8 to -0.2) per 100,000 per year. States with higher baseline abortion hostility had fewer overall abortions, less uptake of mifepristone abortions, and slower decline in procedural abortions between 2010 and 2020. Changes in hostility from new restrictions during this time period did not significantly impact claims. Advocates for abortion access must simultaneously attend to individual abortion policies and the overall political climate. Updated research on the relationship between political climate and the evolving clinical landscape of abortion care is needed to inform this work.

Insurance Instability for Patients With Opioid Use Disorder in the Year After Diagnosis.

Importance: Transitions in insurance coverage may be associated with worse health care outcomes. Little is known about insurance stability for individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD). Objective: To examine insurance transitions among adults with newly diagnosed OUD in the 12 months after diagnosis. Design, Setting, and Participants: Longitudinal cohort study using data from the Massachusetts Public Health Data Warehouse. The cohort includes adults aged 18 to 63 years diagnosed with incident OUD between July 1, 2014, and December 31, 2014, who were enrolled in commercial insurance or Medicaid at diagnosis; individuals diagnosed after 2014 were excluded from the main analyses due to changes in the reporting of insurance claims. Data were analyzed from November 10, 2022, to May 6, 2024. Exposure: Insurance type at time of diagnosis (commercial and Medicaid). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the cumulative incidence of insurance transitions in the 12 months after diagnosis. Logistic regression models were used to generate estimated probabilities of insurance transitions by insurance type and diagnosis for several characteristics including age, race and ethnicity, and whether an individual started medication for OUD (MOUD) within 30 days after diagnosis. Results: There were 20 768 individuals with newly diagnosed OUD between July 1, 2014, and December 31, 2014. Most individuals with newly diagnosed OUD were covered by Medicaid (75.4%). Those with newly diagnosed OUD were primarily male (67% in commercial insurance, 61.8% in Medicaid). In the 12 months following OUD diagnosis, 30.4% of individuals experienced an insurance transition, with adjusted models demonstrating higher transition rates among those starting with Medicaid (31.3%; 95% CI, 30.5%-32.0%) compared with commercial insurance (27.9%; 95% CI, 26.6%-29.1%). The probability of insurance transitions was generally higher for younger individuals than older individuals irrespective of insurance type, although there were notable differences by race and ethnicity. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that nearly 1 in 3 individuals experience insurance transitions in the 12 months after OUD diagnosis. Insurance transitions may represent an important yet underrecognized factor in OUD treatment outcomes.

Treating Benzodiazepine Withdrawal in a Bridge Clinic.

BACKGROUND: Benzodiazepine-involved overdose deaths are rising, driven by increasing use of nonprescribed benzodiazepine pills. For patients who wish to stop nonprescribed benzodiazepine use, rapid inpatient tapers are typically the only option to treat benzodiazepine withdrawal. Substance use disorder bridge clinics can provide the high-touch care needed to manage outpatient benzodiazepine tapers in patients at high risk due to other substance use disorders. OBJECTIVE: Describe the implementation and short-term outcomes of an outpatient benzodiazepine taper protocol to treat benzodiazepine withdrawal in a substance use disorder bridge clinic. METHODS: The clinical team developed a 4- to 6-week intensive outpatient taper protocol using diazepam. Patients with benzodiazepine use disorder were eligible if they had benzodiazepine withdrawal, lacked a prescriber, wanted to stop benzodiazepines completely, and agreed to daily visits. For patients who initiated a taper between April 2021 and December 2022, we evaluated the proportion of patients who completed a taper (i.e., tapered to a last prescribed dose of diazepam 10 mg/d or less); likelihood of remaining on the taper over time; and seizure, overdose, or death documented at the study institution during or within 1 month of taper completion or discontinuation. Other secondary outcomes included HIV testing and prevention, hepatitis C testing, and referrals to recovery coaching or psychiatry. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients initiated a total of 60 benzodiazepine tapers. The population was mostly male (61%) and non-Hispanic White (85%). Nearly all patients had opioid use disorder (96%), and most (80%) were taking methadone or buprenorphine for opioid use disorder before starting the taper. Patients reported using multiple substances in addition to benzodiazepines, most commonly fentanyl (75%), followed by cocaine (41%) and methamphetamine (21%). Fourteen patients (23%) completed a taper with a median duration of 34 days (IQR 27.8-43.5). Most tapers were stopped when the patient was lost to follow-up (57%), or the team recommended inpatient care (18%). Two patients had a seizure, and 4 had a presumed opioid-involved overdose during or within 1 month after the last taper visit, all individuals who did not complete a taper. No deaths occurred during or within 1 month of taper completion or discontinuation. Challenges included frequent loss to follow-up in the setting of other unstable substance use. Patients received other high-priority care during the taper including HIV testing (32%), PrEP initiation (6.7%), hepatitis C testing (30%), and referrals to recovery coaches (18%) and psychiatry (6.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Managing benzodiazepine withdrawal with a 4- to 6-week intensive outpatient taper in patients with benzodiazepine and opioid use disorders is challenging. More work is needed to refine patient selection, balance safety risks with feasibility, and study long-term, patient-centered outcomes.

Target trial emulation for comparative effectiveness research with observational data: Promise and challenges for studying medications for opioid use disorder.

Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) increase retention in care and decrease mortality during active treatment; however, information about the comparative effectiveness of different forms of MOUD is sparse. Observational comparative effectiveness studies are subject to many types of bias; a robust framework to minimize bias would improve the quality of comparative effectiveness evidence. This paper discusses the use of target trial emulation as a framework to conduct comparative effectiveness studies of MOUD with administrative data. Using examples from our planned research project comparing buprenorphine-naloxone and extended-release naltrexone with respect to the rates of MOUD discontinuation, we provide a primer on the challenges and approaches to employing target trial emulation in the study of MOUD.

Novel Uses of Methadone Under the "72-Hour Rule" to Facilitate Transitions of Care and Low-Dose Buprenorphine Induction in an Outpatient Bridge Clinic.

BACKGROUND: Federal regulations restrict methadone for opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment to licensed opioid treatment programs (OTPs). However, providers in other settings can administer methadone for opioid withdrawal under the "72-hour rule" while linking to further care. Prior work has demonstrated that methadone initiation in a low-barrier bridge clinic is associated with high OTP linkage and 1-month retention rates. We describe 2 other novel applications of the 72-hour rule in which methadone withdrawal management facilitated linkage to inpatient hospitalization and outpatient buprenorphine induction. CASE PRESENTATIONS: Patient 1 was a 46-year-old woman with OUD complicated by serious injection-related infections. Severe opioid withdrawal limited her ability to tolerate emergency department wait times and receive inpatient care. We administered methadone for opioid withdrawal in an outpatient bridge clinic immediately before emergency department referral; this enabled hospital admission for intravenous antibiotics and anticoagulation. Patient 2 was a 36-year-old man with OUD desiring buprenorphine treatment. He had been unable to complete traditional buprenorphine induction without experiencing precipitated withdrawal. Thus, we recommended a low-dose buprenorphine induction overlapping with a full opioid agonist. Given the patient's preference to stop using fentanyl immediately, he received 72 hours of methadone for withdrawal treatment during the induction phase and successfully transitioned to buprenorphine without significant concomitant fentanyl use. CONCLUSION: In addition to facilitating OTP linkage, on-demand 72-hour methadone administration for opioid withdrawal can reduce barriers to acute medical care and buprenorphine treatment.