Superiority and cost-effectiveness of monthly extended-release buprenorphine versus daily standard of care medication: a pragmatic, parallel-group, open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

Background: Daily methadone maintenance or buprenorphine treatment is the standard-of-care (SoC) medication for opioid use disorder (OUD). Subcutaneously injected, extended-release buprenorphine (BUP-XR) may be more effective-but there has been no superiority evaluation. Methods: This pragmatic, parallel-group, open-label, multi-centre, effectiveness superiority randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial was conducted at five National Health Service community-based treatment clinics in England and Scotland. Participants (adults aged ≥ 18 years; all meeting DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for moderate or severe OUD at admission to their current maintenance treatment episode) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive continued daily SoC (liquid methadone (usual dose range: 60-120 mg) or sublingual/transmucosal buprenorphine (usual dose range: 8-24 mg) for 24 weeks; or monthly BUP-XR (Sublocade;® two injections of 300 mg, then four maintenance injections of 100 mg or 300 mg, with maintenance dose selected by response and preference) for 24 weeks. In the intent-to-treat population (senior statistician blinded to blinded to treatment group allocation), and with a seven-day grace period after randomisation, the primary endpoint was the count of days abstinent from non-medical opioids between days 8-168 (i.e., weeks 2-24; range: 0-161 days). Safety was reported for the intention-to- treat population. Adopting a broad societal perspective inclusive of criminal justice, NHS and personal social service costs, a trial-based cost-utility analysis estimated the Incremental Cost-effectiveness Ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of BUP-XR versus SoC at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold. The study was registered EudraCT (2018-004460-63) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05164549), and is completed. Findings: Between Aug 9, 2019 and Nov 2, 2021, 314 participants were randomly allocated to receive SoC (n = 156) or BUP-XR (n = 158). Participants were abstinent from opioids for an adjusted mean of 104.37 days (standard error [SE] 9.89; range: 0-161 days) in the SoC group and an adjusted mean of 123.43 days (SE 4.76; range: 24-161 days) in the BUP-XR group (adjusted incident rate ratio [IRR] 1.18, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-1.33; p-value 0.004). The incidence of any adverse event was higher in the BUP-XR group than the SoC group (128 [81.0%] of 158 participants versus 67 [42.9%] of 156 participants, respectively-most commonly rapidly-resolving (mild-moderate range) pain from drug administration in the BUP-XR group (121 [26.9%] of 450 adverse events). There were 11 serious adverse events (7.0%) in the 158 participants in the BUP-XR group, and 18 serious adverse events (11.5%) in the 156 participants in the SoC group-none judged to be related to study treatment. The BUP-XR treatment group had a mean incremental cost of £1033 (95% central range [CR] -1189 to 3225) and was associated with a mean incremental QALY of 0.02 (95% CR 0.00-0.05), and an ICER of £47,540 (0.37 probability of being cost-effective at the £30,000/QALY gained willingness-to-pay threshold). However, BUP-XR dominated the SoC among participants who were rated more severe at study baseline, and among participants in maintenance treatment for more that 28 days at study enrolment. Interpretation: Evaluated against the daily oral SoC, monthly BUP-XR is clinically superior, delivering greater abstinence from opioids, and with a comparable safety profile. BUP-XR was not cost-effective in a base case cost-utility analysis using the societal perspective, but it was more effective and less costly (dominant) among participants with more severe OUD, or those whose current treatment episode was longer than 28 days. Further trials are needed to evaluate if BUP-XR is associated with better clinical and health economic outcomes over the longer term. Funding: Indivior.

A study protocol for a European, mixed methods, prospective, cohort study of the effectiveness of naloxone administration by community members, in reversing opioid overdose: NalPORS.

BACKGROUND: Worldwide, opioid use causes more than 100,000 overdose deaths annually. Naloxone has proven efficacy in reversing opioid overdoses and is approved as an emergency antidote to opioid overdose. Take home naloxone (THN) programmes have been introduced to provide 'community members', who are likely to observe opioid overdoses, with naloxone kits and train them to recognise an overdose and administer naloxone. The acceptability and feasibility of THN programmes has been demonstrated, but the real-life effectiveness of naloxone administration by community members is not known. In recent years, the approval of several concentrated naloxone nasal-spray formulations (in addition to injectable formulations, eg.prenoxad) potentially increases acceptability and scope for wider provision. This study aims to determine the effectiveness of THN (all formulations) in real-world conditions. METHODS: A European, multi-country, prospective cohort study, to assess the use of THN by community members to reverse opioid overdoses in a six-month, follow-up period. Participants provided with THN from participating harm reduction and drug treatment sites will be recruited to the study and followed-up for six months. We are particularly interested in the experiences of community members who have been provided with THN and have witnessed an opioid overdose. All participants who witness an opioid overdose during the six-month period (target approx. 600) will be asked to take part in a structured interview about this event. Of these, 60 will be invited to participate in a qualitative interview. A Post Authorisation Efficacy Study (PAES) for the concentrated nasal naloxone, Nyxoid, has been integrated into the study design. DISCUSSION: There are many challenges involved in evaluating the real-life effectiveness of THN. It is not possible to use a randomised trial design, recruitment of community members provided with THN will depend upon recruitment sites distributing THN kits, and the type of THN received by participants will depend on regulations and on local clinical and policy decision-makers. Following up this population, some of whom may be itinerant, over the 6-month study period will be challenging, but we plan to maintain contact with participants through regular text message reminders and staff contact. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05072249. Date of Registration: 8.10.2021.

Interprofessional simulation as an enhancement of psychological fidelity: A focus group study of medical and nursing students.

Background and Aims: Interprofessional simulation has the potential to enhance the perceived realism of clinical simulation in the education of different healthcare professionals. This study considers how the inclusion of more than one profession in clinical simulation contributes to this psychological fidelity, defined as the subjective perception of the realism of a simulation, and the cues identified by medical and nursing students. Methods: Eight focus groups were carried out with 27 medical and 18 nursing students in Newcastle and Oxford, UK. These were carried out immediately after students' participation in simulation sessions consisting of three acute scenarios. Focus group discussions encompassed perceptions of the realism of the simulation and of participants' own and other professional groups. Thematic analysis was carried out on transcripts. Results: The analysis identified features of psychological fidelity that were influenced by the interprofessional element of the simulation. These included overall impressions of realism, and the perceived roles and expectations of doctors and nurses within the simulation. In particular, the presence of the other professional group afforded a more authentic response. Other features varied with the viewpoint of the student groups, in particular the realism of the patient manikin, which held lower psychological fidelity for the nursing students, because it did not allow them to fulfill their perceived role of delivering holistic, relational care. Conclusion: Recognizing "psychological fidelity" as a subjective response to simulation allows greater consideration of the limitations of fidelity as a designed or engineered property of a simulation. While interprofessional involvement directly enhances psychological fidelity in some ways, potential differences in the views of students from different professional groups should be considered when implementing interprofessional simulation.

Patients' perceptions of self-administered dosing to opioid agonist treatment and other changes during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: During the COVID-19 pandemic, addiction treatment services received official guidance asking them to limit face-to-face contact with patients and to prescribe opioid agonist treatment (OAT) medication flexibly. With the aim for most patients to receive take-home supplies for self-administration rather than attendance for observed daily dosing. DESIGN: This was a theory-driven, clinically applied qualitative study, with data for thematic analysis collected by semi-structured, audio-recorded, telephone interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-seven adults (aged ≥18 years) enrolled in sublingual (tablet) buprenorphine and oral (liquid) methadone OAT. SETTING: Community addictions centre in the London Borough of Lambeth operated by South London and Maudsley NHS Trust. RESULTS: Three major themes were identified: (1) dissatisfaction and perceived stigma with OAT medication dispensing arrangements before the pandemic; (2) positive adaptations in response to COVID-19 by services; (3) participants recommended that, according to preference and evidence of adherence, OAT should be personalised to offer increasing medication supplies for self-administration from as early as 7 days after commencement of maintenance prescribing. CONCLUSIONS: In an applied qualitative study of patients enrolled in OAT during the COVID-19 pandemic, participants endorsed their opportunity to take medication themselves at home and with virtual addiction support. Most patients described a preference for self-administration with increased dispensing supplies, from as early as 7 days into maintenance treatment, if they could demonstrate adherence to their prescription.

Experience and response to a randomised controlled trial of extended-release injectable buprenorphine versus sublingual tablet buprenorphine and oral liquid methadone for opioid use disorder: protocol for a mixed-methods evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a debilitating and persistent disorder. The standard-of-care treatment is daily maintenance dosing of sublingual buprenorphine (BUP-SL) or oral methadone (MET). Monthly, extended-release, subcutaneous injectable buprenorphine (BUP-XR) has been developed to enhance treatment effectiveness. This study aims to investigate the experiences of participants who have been offered BUP-XR (evaluation 1), health-related quality-of-life among participants who have opted to receive BUP-XR longer term (evaluation 2) and the experiences of participants allocated to receive BUP-XR or BUP-SL or MET with the offer of adjunctive personalised psychosocial intervention (evaluation 3). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Three qualitative-quantitative (mixed-methods) evaluations embedded in a five-centre, head-to-head, randomised controlled trial of BUP-XR versus BUP-SL and MET in the UK. Evaluation 1 is a four-centre interview anchored on an OUD-related topic guide and conducted after the 24-week trial endpoint. Evaluation 2 is a two-centre interview anchored on medications for opioid use disorder-specific quality-of-life topic guide conducted among participants after 12-24 months. Evaluation 3: single-centre interview after the 24-week trial endpoint. All evaluations include selected trial clinical measures, with evaluation 2 incorporating additional questionnaires. Target participant recruitment for evaluations 1 and 2 is 15 participants per centre (n=60 and n=30, respectively). Recruitment for evaluation 3 is 15 participants per treatment arm (n=30). Each evaluation will be underpinned by theory, drawing on constructs from the behavioural model for health service use or the health-related quality-of-life model. Qualitative data analysis will be by iterative categorisation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Study protocol, consent materials and questionnaires were approved by the London-Brighton and Sussex research ethics committee (reference: 19/LO/0483) and the Health Research Authority (IRAS project number 255522). Participants will be provided with information sheets and informed written consent will be obtained for each evaluation. Study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed scientific journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 2018-004460-63.

Extended-release pharmacotherapy for opioid use disorder (EXPO): protocol for an open-label randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of injectable buprenorphine versus sublingual tablet buprenorphine and oral liquid methadone.

BACKGROUND: Sublingual tablet buprenorphine (BUP-SL) and oral liquid methadone (MET) are the daily, standard-of-care (SOC) opioid agonist treatment medications for opioid use disorder (OUD). A sizable proportion of the OUD treatment population is not exposed to sufficient treatment to attain the desired clinical benefit. Two promising therapeutic technologies address this deficit: long-acting injectable buprenorphine and personalised psychosocial interventions (PSI). This study will determine (A) the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness - monthly injectable, extended-release (BUP-XR) in a head-to-head comparison with BUP-SL and MET, and (B) the effectiveness of BUP-XR with adjunctive PSI versus BUP-SL and MET with PSI. Safety, retention, craving, substance use, quality-adjusted life years, social functioning, and subjective recovery from OUD will be also evaluated. METHODS: This is a pragmatic, multi-centre, open-label, parallel-group, superiority RCT, with a qualitative (mixed-methods) evaluation. The study population is adults. The setting is five National Health Service community treatment centres in England and Scotland. At each centre, participants will be randomly allocated (1:1) to BUP-XR or SOC. At the London study co-ordinating centre, there will also be allocation of participants to BUP-XR with PSI or SOC with PSI. With 24 weeks of study treatment, the primary outcome is days of abstinence from non-medical opioids during study weeks 2-24 combined with up to 12 urine drug screen tests for opioids. For 90% power (alpha, 5%; 15% inflation for attrition), 304 participants are needed for the BUP-XR versus SOC comparison. With the same planning parameters, 300 participants are needed for the BUP-XR and PSI versus SOC and PSI comparison. Statistical and health economic analysis plans will be published before data-lock on the Open Science Framework. Findings will be reported in accordance with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards. DISCUSSION: This pragmatic randomised controlled trial is the first evaluation of injectable BUP-XR versus the SOC medications BUP-SL and MET, with personalised PSI. If there is evidence for the superiority of BUP-XR over SOC medication, study findings will have substantial implications for OUD clinical practice and treatment policy in the UK and elsewhere. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EU Clinical Trials register 2018-004460-63.

A rapid assessment of take-home naloxone provision during COVID-19 in Europe.

BACKGROUND: In March 2020, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a global pandemic. In the following weeks, most European countries implemented national lockdowns to mitigate viral spread. Services for people who use drugs had to quickly revise their operating procedures to rearrange service provision while adhering to lockdown requirements. Given the scarcity of literature published on overdose prevention during COVID-19 in Europe, we aimed to examine how these changes to service provision affected take-home naloxone (THN) programmes and naloxone availability across Europe. METHODS: Between November 2020 and January 2021, we conducted a rapid assessment with country experts from European countries that provide THN. We sent country experts a template to report monthly THN distribution data (January 1, 2019-October 31, 2020) and a structured 6-item survey for completion. RESULTS: Responses were received from 14 of the 15 European countries with THN provision of which 11 participated in the rapid assessment: Austria, Denmark, England, Estonia, Lithuania, Northern Ireland, Norway, Scotland, Spain (Catalonia only), Sweden, and Wales. All reported reduced organisational capacity during COVID-19, and some put into place a range of novel approaches to manage the restrictions on face-to-face service provision. In six countries, the introduction of programme innovation occurred alongside the publication of government guidelines recommending increased THN provision during COVID-19. Eight of the eleven participating countries managed to maintain 2019-level monthly THN distribution rates or even increase provision during the pandemic. CONCLUSION: Through programme innovation supported by public guidelines, many European THN programmes managed to ensure stable or even increased THN provision during the pandemic, despite social distancing and stay-at-home orders affecting client mobility.

Take-Home Naloxone Kits: Attitudes and Likelihood-Of-Use Outcomes from a European Survey of Potential Overdose Witnesses.

BACKGROUND: Injectable naloxone is already provided as take-home naloxone (THN), and new concentrated intranasal naloxone is now being introduced in Europe. Despite evidence of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of THN, little is known about the attitudes of key target populations: people who use opioids (PWUO), family/friends, and staff. We examined the acceptability of different naloxone devices (ampoule, prefilled syringe, and concentrated nasal spray) across 5 European countries. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare THN target groups (PWUO vs. family/friends vs. staff) in their past rates of witnessed overdose and THN administration (as indicators of future use), current THN device preference, and THN carriage on the day of survey. METHOD: Cross-sectional survey of respondents (age ≥18) in addiction treatment, harm reduction, and recovery services in Denmark, England, Estonia, Norway, and Scotland. A purpose-developed questionnaire (59 items) was administered in the local language electronically or in a pen-and-paper format. RESULTS: Among n = 725 participants, 458 were PWUO (63.2%), 214 staff (29.5%), and 53 (7.3%) family members. The groups differed significantly in their likelihood-of-future THN use (p < 0.001): PWUO had the highest rate of previously witnessing overdoses (352; 77.7%), and staff members reported the highest past naloxone use (62; 30.1%). Across all groups, most respondents (503; 72.4%) perceived the nasal spray device to be the easiest to use. Most reported willingness to use the spray in an overdose emergency (508; 73.5%), followed by the prefilled syringe (457; 66.2%) and ampoules (64; 38.2%). Average THN carriage was 18.6%, ranging from 17.4% (PWUO) to 29.6% (family members). CONCLUSION: Respondents considered the concentrated naloxone nasal spray the easiest device to use. Still, most expressed willingness to use the nasal spray as well as the prefilled syringe in an overdose emergency. Carriage rates were generally low, with fewer than 1 in 5 respondents carrying their THN kit on the day of the survey.

Effects of a single interprofessional simulation session on medical and nursing students' attitudes toward interprofessional learning and professional identity: a questionnaire study.

BACKGROUND: Participation in simulation-based interprofessional education (sim-IPE) may affect students' attitudes towards interprofessional learning (through gaining experience with others) and their professional identity (by increasing the 'fit' of group membership). We examined this in two questionnaire studies involving students from four universities in two areas of the UK. METHOD: Questionnaire data were collected before and after students took part in a sim-IPE session consisting of three acute scenarios. Questionnaires included the Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale (RIPLS) and measures of professional identity derived from the social identity theory literature. In Study 1, only identification with Professional Group (doctor or nurse) was measured, while in Study 2 identification with Student Group (medical or nursing student) and the immediate interprofessional Team worked with in the simulation were also measured. Linear mixed effects regression analysis examined the effect of the simulation session, and differences between medical and nursing students, sites and identity measures. RESULTS: A total of 194 medical and 266 nursing students completed questionnaires. A five-item subset of RIPLS (RIPLSCore) was used in analysis. In both studies RIPLSCore increased for all groups following participation in sim-IPE, although this was larger for nursing students in Study 1. Nursing students had consistently higher RIPLSCore scores than medical students at one site. Effects of the session on identity varied between sites, and dimensions of identity. Notably, while positive emotions associated with group membership (Ingroup Affect) increased for Student Group, Professional Group and Team, the sense of belonging (Ingroup Ties) and importance (Centrality) of the group increased only for Team. Nursing students had consistently higher identification scores than medical students. CONCLUSIONS: Participation in a sim-IPE session can improve attitudes towards interprofessional learning. It can also enhance professional identity, particularly as related to emotional aspects of group membership, with possible benefits for wellbeing. Changes in identification with the immediate Team suggest positive psychological consequences of ad hoc Team formation in the workplace. Differences between medical and nursing students suggest their differing opportunities to work with other professions during training may change baseline attitudes and identity. However, a single sim-IPE session can still have an additive effect.