Opioid-Related Emergency Department Visits Before and During COVID-19: Association with Community-Level Factors.

Background: The purpose of the study was to investigate the relationship between community-level variables and emergency department (ED) visit rates before and during COVID-19. The focus was on opioid-related ED visits. Despite large declines in overall ED visits during COVID-19, opioid-related visits increased. While visits for avoidable conditions decreased, the opposite was true for opioid-related visits. Methods: We combined data from Florida EDs with community-level variables from the 2020 American Community Survey. The outcome measures of the study were quarterly ZIP code tabulation-area-level ED visit rates for opioid-related ED visits as well as visit rates for all other causes. Associations with opioid-related visit rates were estimated before and during COVID-19. Results: The associations between community-level variables and opioid-related visit rates did not match those found when analyzing overall ED visit rates. The increase in opioid-related visits during COVID-19 was not unique to or more prevalent in areas with a larger percentage of racial/ethnic minority populations. However, socioeconomic status was important, as areas with higher unemployment, lower income, lower home ownership, and higher uninsured had higher overall ED visit rates and opioid visit rates during the pandemic. In addition, the negative association with income increased during the pandemic. Conclusion: These results suggest socioeconomic status should be the focus of prevention and treatment efforts to reduce opioid-related visits in future pandemics. Healthcare organizations can use these results to target their prevention and treatment efforts during future pandemics.

Effect of a peer-led emergency department behavioral intervention on non-fatal opioid overdose: 18-month outcome in the Navigator randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Emergency departments (EDs) provide an opportunity to identify people at risk of overdose and reduce the risk. We evaluated the effect of an ED behavioral intervention delivered by peer recovery support specialists (PRSSs) on non-fatal opioid overdose. DESIGN: Two-arm, randomized trial. SETTING: Two EDs in Rhode Island, USA. PARTICIPANTS: ED patients presenting with an opioid overdose, complications of opioid use disorder or a recent history of opioid overdose (November 2018-May 2021). Among 648 participants, the mean age was 36.9 years, 68.2% were male and 68.5% were White. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Participants were randomized to receive a behavioral intervention from a PRSS (n = 323) or a licensed clinical social worker (LICSW) (n = 325). PRSS and LICSW used evidence-based interviewing and intervention techniques, informed by their lived experience (PRSS) or clinical theory and practice (LICSW). MEASUREMENTS: We identified non-fatal opioid overdoses in the 18 months following the ED visit through linkage to statewide emergency medical services data using a validated case definition. The primary outcome was any non-fatal opioid overdose during the 18-month follow-up period. FINDINGS: Among 323 participants randomized to the PRSS arm, 81 (25.1%) had a non-fatal opioid overdose during follow-up, compared with 95 (29.2%) of 325 participants randomized to the LICSW arm (P = 0.24). There was no statistically significant difference in the effectiveness of randomization to the PRSS arm versus the LICSW arm on the risk of non-fatal opioid overdose, adjusting for the history of previous overdose (relative risk = 0.86, 95% confidence interval = 0.67-1.11). CONCLUSIONS: In Rhode Island, USA, over one-in-four emergency department patients at high risk of overdose experience a non-fatal opioid overdose in the 18 months post-discharge. We found no evidence that the risk of non-fatal opioid overdose differs for emergency department patients receiving a behavioral intervention from a peer recovery support specialist versus a licensed clinical social worker.

Improving access to buprenorphine for rural veterans in a learning health care system.

OBJECTIVE: To describe a learning health care system research process designed to increase buprenorphine prescribing for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) in rural primary care settings within U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) treatment facilities. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: Using national administrative data from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse, we identified six rural VA health care systems that had improved their rate of buprenorphine prescribing within primary care from 2015 to 2020 (positive deviants). We conducted qualitative interviews with leaders, clinicians, and staff involved in buprenorphine prescribing within primary care from these sites to inform the design of an implementation strategy. STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative interviews to inform implementation strategy development. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded by a primary coder and secondary reviewer. Analysis utilized a mixed inductive/deductive approach. To develop an implementation strategy, we matched clinical needs identified within interviews with resources and strategies participants had utilized to address these needs in their own sites. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Interview participants (n = 30) identified key clinical needs and strategies for implementing buprenorphine in rural, primary care settings. Common suggestions included the need for clinical mentorship or a consult service, buprenorphine training, and educational resources. Building upon interview findings and in partnership with a clinical team, we developed an implementation strategy composed of an engaging case-based training, an audit and feedback process, and educational resources (e.g., Buprenorphine Frequently Asked Questions, Rural Care Model Infographic). CONCLUSIONS: We describe a learning health care system research process that leveraged national administrative data, health care provider interviews, and clinical partnership to develop an implementation strategy to encourage buprenorphine prescribing in rural primary care settings.

Rate and predictors of postoperative opioid use and high opioid exposure after surgery in New Zealand: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Although excessive opioid use is a significant global health issue, there is a lack of literature on the prescribing patterns for postoperative opioid use and exposure after discharge among surgical patients. This study aimed to examine the rate and predictors of opioid dispensing and high opioid exposure after hospital discharge from surgery in New Zealand (NZ) between January 2007 to December 2019. METHODS: This is a retrospective population-based cohort study inclusive of all ages and surgical specialties. Data were obtained from the NZ Ministry of Health's national health databases. RESULTS: 1 781 059 patients were included in the study and 20.9% (n = 371 882) of surgical patients received opioids within 7 days after hospital discharge. From those who were dispensed with opioids after hospital discharge, 36.6% (n = 134 646) had high opioid exposure. Orthopaedic surgery (AOR 6.97; 95% CI 6.82-7.13) and history of opioid use (AOR 3.18; 95% CI 2.86-3.53) increased the odds of postoperative opioid dispensing and high opioid exposure respectively. Severe multi-morbidity burden (AOR 0.76; 95% CI 0.73-0.78) and alcohol misuse (AOR 0.84; 95% CI 0.77-0.93) lowered the odds of postoperative opioid dispensing and high opioid exposure respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest a concerning rate of high opioid exposure among surgical patients after discharge. The predictors for postoperative opioid dispensing and high opioid exposure identified in our study provide insight into opioid prescribing patterns in NZ and inform future postoperative pain management.

Comparing methadone policy and practice in France and the US: Implications for US policy reform.

Despite being among the most effective treatments for opioid use disorder, methadone is largely unavailable in the United States, due primarily to federal and other policies that limit its availability and regulate clinical decisions about doses, visit frequency, and drug testing. There is unprecedented momentum to change decades-old US methadone policies. Yet uncertainty remains as to whether reforms will be adopted and how policies will be implemented. France has among the best methadone access and lowest overdose death rates worldwide. 87 % of French people with opioid use disorder receive methadone or buprenorphine, versus an estimated 13-20 % in the US. France's opioid-related overdose rates are far lower than the US. This article compares French and US systems, including current and proposed US policies, and underscores potential implications for US policymakers. In France, methadone can be initiated in specialty addiction settings and hospitals, with subsequent handoff to primary care. Methadone can be dispensed in community pharmacies and filled like other opioids, without requirements for supervised dosing. Decisions about visit frequency, medication doses, and drug testing are governed by clinical best practices and patient-clinician shared decision-making. In the US, methadone for opioid use disorder is regulated unlike any other medication (including methadone for pain) and is governed by strict federal controls, including from law enforcement and healthcare. With few exceptions, methadone for opioid use disorder is only available in Opioid Treatment Programs. US clinicians cannot prescribe methadone for opioid use disorder. Federal rules determine minimum visit frequency, initial dose limits, and other conditions of treatment, which states may further limit. Policies assert strong influence on patient experience, treatment access, and health outcomes. Despite being less restrictive than the US, the French model includes limits designed to avoid or minimize potential harms. French policies have important implications for potential US reforms.

The Analgesic Effects of the Thoracic Paravertebral Block on Post-percutaneous Nephrolithotripsy: A Retrospective Study.

INTRODUCTION: Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (PCNL) is a minimally invasive procedure for treating large and complex kidney stones, often resulting in significant post-operative pain and increased opioid use. This study aims to compare pain scores between patients undergoing PCNL who did and did not receive a preoperative single-shot thoracic paravertebral block (PVB) at the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) usage on post-operative day 1 (POD 1), total opioid consumption on PACU and POD 1, and post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on the medical records of 341 patients who underwent PCNL from July 2014 to April 2016 in a single major academic center. PVB was administered at thoracic levels T7-9 using a volume of 20 cc of bupivacaine, ranging from 0.25% to 0.5%, to achieve the desired analgesic effect. RESULTS: After excluding 34 patients, the study included 123 in the no block (NB) group and 149 in the regional anesthesia (RA) group. There were no differences in demographics, including age, sex, weight and height, BMI, and indication for PCNL. The results revealed that the RA group experienced a statistically significant reduction in PCA usage in both crude and adjusted models (adjusted logistic regression analysis: OR = 0.19, 95% CI = 0.05-0.60; p = 0.008). However, there were no significant changes in total opioid consumption, pain scores, or incidents of PONV. CONCLUSION: The retrospective analysis did not reveal any discernible advantage in pain management associated with the use of PVB for post-PCNL analgesia, except for reducing the percentage of PCA narcotics used. Future investigations with larger sample sizes and meticulous control for surgical indications and complexity are imperative to accurately assess the efficacy of this block in the context of post-PCNL surgery.

Barriers and Facilitators to Using a Clinical Decision Support Tool for Opioid Use Disorder in Primary Care.

PURPOSE: Clinical decision support (CDS) tools are designed to help primary care clinicians (PCCs) implement evidence-based guidelines for chronic disease care. CDS tools may also be helpful for opioid use disorder (OUD), but only if PCCs use them in their regular workflow. This study's purpose was to understand PCC and clinic leader perceptions of barriers to using an OUD-CDS tool in primary care. METHODS: PCCs and leaders (n = 13) from clinics in an integrated health system in which an OUD-CDS tool was implemented participated in semistructured qualitative interviews. Questions aimed to understand whether the CDS tool design, implementation, context, and content were barriers or facilitators to using the OUD-CDS in primary care. Recruitment stopped when thematic saturation was reached. An inductive thematic analysis approach was used to generate overall themes. RESULTS: Five themes emerged: (1) PCCs prefer to minimize conversations about OUD risk and treatment; (2) PCCs are enthusiastic about a CDS tool that addresses a topic of interest but lack interest in treating OUD; (3) contextual barriers in primary care limit PCCs' ability to use CDS to manage OUD; (4) CDS needs to be simple and visible, save time, and add value to care; and (5) CDS has value in identifying and screening patients and facilitating referrals. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified several factors that impact use of an OUD-CDS tool in primary care, including PCC interest in treating OUD, contextual barriers, and CDS design. These results may help others interested in implementing CDS for OUD in primary care.

A Machine Learning Application to Classify Patients at Differing Levels of Risk of Opioid Use Disorder: Clinician-Based Validation Study.

Background: Despite restrictive opioid management guidelines, opioid use disorder (OUD) remains a major public health concern. Machine learning (ML) offers a promising avenue for identifying and alerting clinicians about OUD, thus supporting better clinical decision-making regarding treatment. Objective: This study aimed to assess the clinical validity of an ML application designed to identify and alert clinicians of different levels of OUD risk by comparing it to a structured review of medical records by clinicians. Methods: The ML application generated OUD risk alerts on outpatient data for 649,504 patients from 2 medical centers between 2010 and 2013. A random sample of 60 patients was selected from 3 OUD risk level categories (n=180). An OUD risk classification scheme and standardized data extraction tool were developed to evaluate the validity of the alerts. Clinicians independently conducted a systematic and structured review of medical records and reached a consensus on a patient's OUD risk level, which was then compared to the ML application's risk assignments. Results: A total of 78,587 patients without cancer with at least 1 opioid prescription were identified as follows: not high risk (n=50,405, 64.1%), high risk (n=16,636, 21.2%), and suspected OUD or OUD (n=11,546, 14.7%). The sample of 180 patients was representative of the total population in terms of age, sex, and race. The interrater reliability between the ML application and clinicians had a weighted kappa coefficient of 0.62 (95% CI 0.53-0.71), indicating good agreement. Combining the high risk and suspected OUD or OUD categories and using the review of medical records as a gold standard, the ML application had a corrected sensitivity of 56.6% (95% CI 48.7%-64.5%) and a corrected specificity of 94.2% (95% CI 90.3%-98.1%). The positive and negative predictive values were 93.3% (95% CI 88.2%-96.3%) and 60.0% (95% CI 50.4%-68.9%), respectively. Key themes for disagreements between the ML application and clinician reviews were identified. Conclusions: A systematic comparison was conducted between an ML application and clinicians for identifying OUD risk. The ML application generated clinically valid and useful alerts about patients' different OUD risk levels. ML applications hold promise for identifying patients at differing levels of OUD risk and will likely complement traditional rule-based approaches to generating alerts about opioid safety issues.

At a Crossroads: Opioid Use Disorder, the X-Waiver, and the Road Ahead.

Background: Buprenorphine/naloxone (Suboxone) is widely considered the first-line treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD), which causes significant morbidity and mortality in the United States, but prior to 2023, practitioners interested in prescribing buprenorphine/naloxone for OUD needed a special Drug Enforcement Administration certification (the X-Waiver) that imposed a patient cap and other limitations. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 considerably decreased the restrictions on prescribing practitioners. Buprenorphine/naloxone can now be prescribed like any other prescription opioid, excluding methadone. The historic context for the opioid crisis, OUD, the X-Waiver, and additional initiatives that may be needed beyond legislative change to effectively address OUD are the subjects of this review. Methods: To develop this review of the opioid crisis, OUD, and OUD treatment, we conducted a literature search of the PubMed database and constructed a timeline of the opioid crisis and changes in OUD treatment, specifically the X-Waiver, to characterize the historic context of OUD and the X-Waiver against the background of the opioid crisis. Results: The opioid crisis has had pervasive public health and economic impacts in the United States. Major changes to the treatment of OUD have occurred as a result of the Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 2000 that imposed the X-Waiver and the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 that repealed the X-Waiver. Conclusion: The repeal of the X-Waiver is predicted to increase the accessibility of buprenorphine/naloxone in the United States. However, additional work beyond legislative change, including institutional support and reduction of stigma and disparities, is needed to substantially improve outcomes for OUD patients.

Withdrawal interference scale: a novel measure of withdrawal-related life disruption in opioid use disorder and alcohol use disorder.

Background: Hyperkatifeia describes amplified emotional and motivational withdrawal due to addiction-related sensitization of brain-stress-systems. Hyperkatifeia has been proposed as a target for addiction treatment development. However, translation of basic research in this area will require new tools designed to measure hyperkatifeia and related phenomena outside of laboratory settings.Objectives: We define a novel concept, withdrawal interference, and introduce a new tool - the Withdrawal Interference Scale (WIS) - which measures the impact of withdrawal on daily life among individuals with OUD or AUD.Methods: Described are the combined results of three separate cross-sectional studies. The structural validity, convergent validity, construct validity, trans-diagnostic (AUD/OUD) configural, metric, and scalar invariance, internal consistency, and composite reliability of WIS was tested among three independent samples of 1) treatment-seeking adults with OUD (n = 132), 2) treatment-seeking adults with AUD (n = 123), and 3) non-treatment-seeking adults with OUD (n = 140). Males numbered 218 and females were 163.Results: WIS exhibited structural validity (1 factor), convergent validity (average variance extracted .670-.676), construct validity, trans-diagnostic configural (χ2/df = 2.10), metric (Δχ2 = 5.70, p = .681), and scalar invariance (Δχ2 = 12.34, p = .338), internal consistency (α .882-928), and composite reliability (.924-.925).Conclusion: These results suggest WIS is a valid and reliable instrument for measuring withdrawal-related life disruption in AUD and OUD. Further, given our findings of transdiagnostic measurement invariance, WIS scores of individuals with AUD and OUD can be meaningfully compared in future statistical analyses.

Characterising methamphetamine/amphetamine use among opioid agonist therapy-seeking adults with prescription-type opioid use disorder in Canada.

INTRODUCTION: There has been a significant increase in methamphetamine/amphetamine use in North America, particularly among people who use opioids. Despite its association with several negative health consequences, the population of people who use methamphetamine/amphetamine with opioids is not well characterised. The aim of this study was to investigate correlates of methamphetamine/amphetamine use among adults with prescription-type opioid use disorder (POUD) starting methadone or buprenorphine/naloxone as part of a pragmatic randomised treatment trial in Canada. METHODS: Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to determine factors associated with baseline methamphetamine/amphetamine use (measured by urine drug test [UDT]) among participants of a pan-Canadian pragmatic trial conducted between 2017 and 2020 comparing supervised methadone versus flexible take-home dosing buprenorphine/naloxone models of care in people with POUD (e.g., licit or illicit, including fentanyl, prescribed or not). RESULTS: The sample included 269 participants, of which 142 (52.8%) had positive baseline methamphetamine/amphetamine UDT. In the multivariable model, positive fentanyl UDT (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 13.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 6.45, 28.30), non-fatal overdose in the last 6 months (AOR 2.26, CI 1.01, 5.17) and a lifetime history of opioid agonist therapy exposure prior to study entry (AOR 2.30, CI 1.09, 4.87) remained positively associated with baseline methamphetamine/amphetamine use. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: In this sample of people with POUD, methamphetamine/amphetamine use was associated with markers of complex and severe OUD, including overdose risk. This suggests the need for targeted interventions to optimise treatment outcomes and prevent future overdoses in this population. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Available at: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03033732.

Post-Overdose Extended-Release Buprenorphine Initiation Facilitated by a Partnership Between Emergency Medical Services and an Outpatient Substance Use Disorder Observation Unit.

BACKGROUND: People who experience a nonfatal opioid overdose and receive naloxone are at high risk of subsequent overdose death but experience gaps in access to medications for opioid use disorder. The immediate post-naloxone period offers an opportunity for buprenorphine initiation. Limited data indicate that buprenorphine administration by emergency medical services (EMS) after naloxone overdose reversal is safe and feasible. We describe a case in which a partnership between a low-barrier substance use disorder (SUD) observation unit and EMS allowed for buprenorphine initiation with extended-release injectable buprenorphine after naloxone overdose reversal. CASE: A man in his 40's with severe opioid use disorder and numerous prior opioid overdoses experienced overdose in the community. EMS was activated and he was successfully resuscitated with intranasal naloxone, administered by bystanders and EMS. He declined emergency department (ED) transport and consented to transport to a 24/7 SUD observation unit. The patient elected to start buprenorphine due to barriers attending opioid treatment programs daily. His largest barrier was unsheltered homelessness. His severe opioid withdrawal symptoms were successfully treated with 16/4 mg sublingual buprenorphine/naloxone and 300 mg extended-release injectable buprenorphine (XR-buprenorphine), without precipitated withdrawal. Two weeks later, he reported no interval fentanyl use. DISCUSSION: We describe the case of a patient successfully initiated onto XR-buprenorphine in the immediate post-naloxone period via a partnership between an outpatient low-barrier addiction programs and EMS. Such partnerships offer promise in expanding buprenorphine access and medication choice, particularly for the high-risk population of patients who decline ED transport.

Surgical removal of extended-release buprenorphine depot due to adverse reactions.

Extended-release formulations of buprenorphine offer less frequent dosing, provide consistent medication delivery, and improve adherence for treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD). Although buprenorphine is a partial agonist with seemingly less precipitated withdrawal and easier initiation than full opioid agonists used for OUD, its use is not benign and understanding of the different extended-release formulations is necessary. We report a case of a patient that received a long-acting buprenorphine formulation (Sublocade®) administered subcutaneously that presented to the emergency department with tachycardia, hyperglycemia, elevated anion gap, and sustained nausea and vomiting refractory to pharmacotherapy requiring surgical removal of the buprenorphine depot for resolution of nausea and vomiting symptoms.

"They Ask Questions, But They Don't Want the Answers"-Perceptions of Clinical Communication Among Veterans Discontinuing Buprenorphine for the Treatment of Opioid Use Disorder.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) discontinue treatment prematurely, increasing their risk of opioid-related overdose and death. While patient-centered care is considered the gold standard in treating chronic illness, it may be practiced less frequently in the context of OUD care. Patient-provider communication can influence patients' care experiences, potentially having an impact on treatment retention and care decision-making. METHODS: This study was conducted at the VA Portland Health Care System from March 2021 to April 2022. We conducted qualitive interviews with patients who had discontinued buprenorphine for the treatment of OUD within the past year. Coding and analysis were guided by inductive qualitative content analysis. Retrospective medical record review identified clinical and demographic characteristics of participants. RESULTS: Twenty patients completed an interview. Participant age ranged from 28 to 74 years (median 63 years). Ninety percent of participants were white and 90% male. Many participants expressed frustration and feelings of disempowerment in OUD care processes. Patients with a history of long-term prescribed opioid use frequently expressed stigmatizing views of OUD, and perceptions of disagreement with providers over diagnosis and care choices. Elderly patients and those with multiple comorbidities expressed confusion over significant aspects of their care, as well as difficulty navigating treatment logistics like appointment requirements and medication dose changes. Some patients reported later restarting buprenorphine in new settings, and described feeling respected and involved in care decisions as a facilitator for continuing treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Prioritizing patient-centered communication in OUD treatment could improve the patient experience and potentially support treatment retention. Subgroups of OUD patients, such as those with a history of long-term prescribed opioid use, elderly patients with multiple comorbidities, or those who express stigmatizing medication views, could particularly benefit from tailored communication strategies that address their individual concerns.

GPs' practices when prescribing buprenorphine in primary care: A survey among the Sentinelles network.

INTRODUCTION: France is a leading country for opioid agonist treatment providing, with a predominance of buprenorphine. General practitioners (GPs) are the main prescribers of buprenorphine, but they seem to be less involved over the last 10 years. This work is the second part of a larger study analysing buprenorphine prescribing among French GPs working in primary care, and aims to describe GPs' practices when prescribing buprenorphine. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study conducted in France from March to July 2021 among a sample of GPs in the Sentinelles network, a national epidemiologic surveillance system. Data about the last situations of initiation and renewal of buprenorphine were collected. RESULTS: Among the 237 participants (34.3% response rate), 156 responded to the questionnaire about the last situation of renewal and 41 about the last situation of initiation. The last initiation occurred more than 12 months earlier for 46.3% of respondents, whereas the last renewal occurred less than 1 month ago for 68.6%. There was an over-representation of the male gender among the patients who were consulting (initiation 70.7%, renewal 68.6%). A majority of patients had an illicit opioid use disorder (initiation 78.0%, renewal 82.7%). Overall, GPs were involved in the general care of patients with opioids use disorder and in opioids harm reduction (initiation 87.8% and 82.9%, renewal 88.5% and 51.9%). CONCLUSION: Among buprenorphine prescribers, initiations were infrequent unlike renewals and involved mainly illicit opioid users.

Stepped Care for Patients to Optimize Whole Recovery (SC-POWR): An Effectiveness Trial Evaluating a Stepped Care Model for Individuals With Opioid Use Disorder and Chronic Pain.

Many patients who receive treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) report experiencing chronic pain (CP), which is associated with high levels of ongoing nonmedical opioid use and low retention in OUD treatment. In pilot studies of patients with OUD receiving buprenorphine or methadone who had CP, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) attenuated nonmedical opioid use compared with treatment-as-usual (TAU), but patients in both treatment arms exhibited similar pain improvements. Adding exercise and stress reduction to this model may augment pain-related outcomes. With funding from National Institutes of Health, we plan to conduct a randomized clinical trial of 316 patients with OUD and CP to test the effectiveness of TAU compared with Stepped Care for Patients to Optimize Whole Recovery (SC-POWR) to reduce nonmedical opioid use and pain (primary outcomes) (Aim 1) and decrease pain intensity and interference, alcohol use, anxiety, depression and stress, and improve sleep (secondary outcomes) (Aim 2). Eligible participants will be randomized to receive TAU (buprenorphine or methadone and at least once a month individual or group counseling) or SC-POWR (ie, TAU and up to 12 CBT sessions) for 24 weeks. Based on prespecified nonresponse criteria, SC-POWR may be stepped up at week 6 to receive onsite weekly group sessions of exercise (Wii Fit, Tai Chi) and "stepped up" again at week 15 to receive weekly group sessions of stress reduction (relaxation training, auricular acupuncture). They will be followed for another 24 weeks to evaluate durability of treatment response for illicit opioid use, alcohol use, pain, anxiety, depression, stress, sleep, and retention in medications for OUD (Aim 3).

Impact of Depressive Symptom Severity on Buprenorphine/Naloxone and Methadone Outcomes in People With Prescription-Type Opioid Use Disorder: Results From a Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of depressive symptom severity on opioid use and treatment retention in individuals with prescription-type opioid use disorder (POUD). METHOD: We analyzed data from a multi-centric, pragmatic, open-label, randomized controlled trial comparing buprenorphine/naloxone to methadone models of care in 272 individuals with POUD. Opioid use was self-reported every two weeks for 24 weeks using the Timeline Followback. Depressive symptom severity was self-reported with the Beck Depression Inventory at baseline, week 12 and week 24. RESULTS: Baseline depressive symptom severity was not associated with opioid use nor treatment retention. At week 12, moderate depressive symptoms were associated with greater opioid use while mild to severe depressive symptoms were associated with lowered treatment retention. At week 24, moderate depressive symptoms were associated with greater opioid use. CONCLUSIONS: Ongoing depressive symptoms lead to poorer outcomes in POUD. Clinicians are encouraged to use integrative approaches to optimize treatment outcomes. This study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03033732) on January 27th, 2017, prior to participants enrollment.

Updated guidelines for prescribing opioids to treat patients with chronic non-cancer pain in Korea: developed by committee on hospice and palliative care of the Korean Pain Society.

There are growing concerns regarding the safety of long-term treatment with opioids of patients with chronic non-cancer pain. In 2017, the Korean Pain Society (KPS) developed guidelines for opioid prescriptions for chronic non-cancer pain to guide physicians to prescribe opioids effectively and safely. Since then, investigations have provided updated data regarding opioid therapy for chronic non-cancer pain and have focused on initial dosing schedules, reassessment follow-ups, recommended dosage thresholds considering the risk-benefit ratio, dose-reducing schedules for tapering and discontinuation, adverse effects, and inadvertent problems resulting from inappropriate application of the previous guidelines. Herein, we have updated the previous KPS guidelines based on a comprehensive literature review and consensus development following discussions among experts affiliated with the Committee on Hospice and Palliative Care in the KPS. These guidelines may assist physicians in prescribing opioids for chronic non-cancer pain in adult outpatient settings, but should not to be regarded as an inflexible standard. Clinical judgements by the attending physician and patient-centered decisions should always be prioritized.