Rapid Methadone Induction in a General Hospital Setting: A Retrospective, Observational Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Outpatient methadone guidelines recommend starting at a low dose and titrating slowly. As fentanyl prevalence and opioid-related mortality increases, there is a need for individuals to rapidly achieve a therapeutic methadone dose. Hospitalization offers a monitored setting for methadone initiation, however dosing practices and safety are not well described. METHODS: Retrospective, observational analysis of hospitalized patients with opioid use disorder seen by an inpatient addiction consult team in an academic medical center who were newly initiated on methadone between 2016 and 2022. We calculated initial daily dose, maximum daily dose, timing interval of dose escalation, whether patients were connected to an opioid treatment program (OTP) prior to discharge, whether adverse effects or safety events occurred during the hospitalization, and whether such events were definitely or probably related versus possibly related or unrelated to methadone. RESULTS: One hundred twelve patients were included. The mean initial daily methadone dose administered was 32 mg (range: 10-90 mg). The mean maximum dose reached was 76.8 mg (range 30-165 mg). The mean number of days from initial to peak dose was 5.6 days (range 1-19 days). Overall, 30% of patients experienced a safety event, most commonly sedation. Only 4 safety events were deemed probably or definitely related to methadone. In regression analyses, there was no significant difference between starting doses among patients with or without sedation but there was a relationship between last dose and the likelihood of any possibly related event, with those ending at a dose of 100 mg or higher having a higher likelihood event, compared to those ending at lower doses (47.8% vs 12.4%, P < .001). Seventy-six percent were connected to OTP before discharge. CONCLUSION: Among hospitalized patients initiating methadone, rapid dose titration was infrequently associated with related safety events and most were connected to community-based methadone treatment before discharge.

Attitudes Toward Injection Practices Among People Who Inject Drugs Utilizing Medical Services: Opportunities for Harm Reduction Counseling in Health Care Settings.

Hospitals are an important setting to provide harm reduction services to people who inject drugs (PWID). This study aimed to characterize PWID's injection practices, the perceived risk and benefits of those practices, and the immediate IDU risk environment among individuals seeking medical care. Surveys were administered to 120 PWID seeking medical services at an urban hospital. Poisson regression was used to examine the effect of perceived risk or importance of injection practices on the rate of engaging in those practices. The mean participant reported "often" reusing syringes and "occasionally" cleaning their hands or skin prior to injection. 78% of participants reported that syringes were extremely risky to share, which was associated with lower likelihood of sharing them (ARR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.36-0.95). 38% of participants reported it was extremely important to use a new syringe for each injection, and these participants were more likely to report never reusing syringes >5 times (ARR: 1.62, 95% CI: 1.11-2.35). Other factors that may influence injection practices-including fear of arrest, withdrawal, lack of access to supplies, and injecting outdoors-were common among participants. In conclusion, practices that place PWID at risk of injury and infection are common, and risk-benefit perception is associated with some, but not all, injection practices. Injecting in challenging environments and conditions is common. Therefore, harm reduction counseling in medical settings must be accompanied by other strategies to reduce risk, including facilitating access to supplies. Ultimately, structural interventions, such as affordable housing, are needed to address the risk environment.

The impact of access to addiction specialist on attitudes, beliefs and hospital-based opioid use disorder related care: A survey of hospitalist physicians.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalizations for complications related to opioid use disorder (OUD) are increasing. Hospitalists care for most hospitalized patients in the United States, yet little is known about their attitudes, beliefs, and clinical practices regarding OUD-related care.Methods: We distributed an online survey to hospitalists in the United States to measure how access to addiction specialists affected attitudes and beliefs regarding hospital-based OUD care, OUD screening practices, naloxone prescribing, and buprenorphine initiation.Results: Among 262 respondents, 67.9% (n = 178) reported having access to addiction specialists. While 84.5% (n = 221) reported often or always caring for patients with OUD, 48.2% (n = 126) rarely or never screened for OUD, 57.1% (n = 149) rarely or never prescribed or recommended naloxone as harm reduction, and 88.9% (n = 233) rarely or never initiated buprenorphine. In multivariable analyses, compared to hospitalists without access to addiction specialists, hospitalist with access to addiction specialists were more likely to feel supported to screen and refer patients to treatment (aOR = 4.4, 95% CI 2.1 - 9.1; ρ < 0.001), to be aware of local treatment resources (aOR = 3.4, 95% CI 1.8 - 6.3; ρ < 0.001), and refer patients to treatment (aOR = 3.0, 95% CI 1.7 - 5.6; ρ < 0.001).Conclusions: Many hospitalists do not provide life-saving treatment to patients with OUD. Access to addiction specialists may increase provision of OUD-related care by hospitalists.

Trends in buprenorphine treatment disparities during the COVID pandemic in Massachusetts.

Background: Racial, sex, and age disparities in buprenorphine treatment have previously been demonstrated. We evaluated trends in buprenorphine treatment disparities before and after the onset of the COVID pandemic in Massachusetts. Methods: This cross-sectional study used data from an integrated health system comparing 12-months before and after the March 2020 Massachusetts COVID state of emergency declaration, excluding March as a washout period. Among patients with a clinical encounter during the study periods with a diagnosis of opioid use disorder or opioid poisoning, we extracted outpatient buprenorphine prescription rates by age, sex, race and ethnicity, and language. Generating univariable and multivariable Poisson regression models, we calculated the probability of receiving buprenorphine. Results: Among 4,530 patients seen in the period before the COVID emergency declaration, 57.9% received buprenorphine. Among 3,653 patients seen in the second time period, 55.1% received buprenorphine. Younger patients (<24) had a lower likelihood of receiving buprenorphine in both time periods (adjusted prevalence ratio (aPR), 0.56; 95% CI, 0.42-0.75 before vs. aPR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.60-0.96 after). Male patients had a greater likelihood of receiving buprenorphine compared to female patients in both time periods (aPR: 1.05; 95% CI, 1.00-1.11 vs. aPR: 1.09; 95% CI, 1.02-1.16). Racial disparities emerged in the time period following the COVID pandemic, with non-Hispanic Black patients having a lower likelihood of receiving buprenorphine compared to non-Hispanic white patients in the second time period (aPR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72-0.99). Conclusions: Following the onset of the COVID pandemic in Massachusetts, ongoing racial, age, and gender disparities were evident in buprenorphine treatment with younger, Black, and female patients less likely to be treated with buprenorphine across an integrated health system.

Societal Biases, Institutional Discrimination, and Trends in Opioid Use in the USA.

History has demonstrated cyclical trends in opioid use in the USA, alternating between high rates of prescribing driven by compassion and marketing and restrictive prescribing driven by stigma and fear of precipitating addiction and other harms. Two under-recognized yet powerful forces driving these trends are societal biases against individuals who use and are addicted to drugs, as well as a recognized social determinant of health, institutional discrimination. In the context of these influential forces, which are often based on racist and classist ideologies, we examine the history of opioid use in the USA from the 1800s when the vast majority of those addicted to opioids were middle- to upper-class women to the present-day white-washed narrative of the opioid crisis. As the demographics of those affected by opioid use and addiction has started to shift from white communities to communities of color, we cannot allow the preliminary success observed in white communities to obscure rising mortality rates from opioids in black and Latinx communities. To do so, we highlight ways to prevent racist and classist ideologies from further shaping responses towards opioid use. It is important to acknowledge the long history that has influenced responses to opioid use in the USA and take active steps towards promoting a sense of compassion towards all individuals who use and those who are addicted to drugs.

Rapid buprenorphine microdosing for opioid use disorder in a hospitalized patient receiving very high doses of full agonist opioids for acute pain management: Titration, implementation barriers, and strategies to overcomes.

Background: Conventional buprenorphine inductions for OUD are clinically useful but require patients to experience mild to moderate opioid withdrawal symptoms to avoid precipitated withdrawal. This may be intolerable/unreasonable for some, which may have precluded successful buprenorphine treatment in the past. Microdosing buprenorphine, allowing for full agonist opioid overlap, has emerged as a clinically useful strategy for those unable to complete conventional buprenorphine induction. However, many questions remain such as preclusions regarding the amount of full agonist opioid overlap, speed of buprenorphine microdose titration, and overcoming implementation barriers in U.S. hospitals. Case presentation: A female between the ages of 30 and 40 with severe OUD admitted to the hospital for IDU-related osteomyelitis wished to begin buprenorphine for OUD. Her hospitalization was subject to premature discharge at any time due to competing interests of potential foreclosure on her home, so buprenorphine needed to be started rapidly for safety and improved outcomes. Due to her significant acute pain requirements managed with full agonist opioids, it was unreasonable to consider conventional buprenorphine induction. Buprenorphine microdose strategy was employed at more rapid titration and previously described in the literature, starting at 1 mg TDD on day 1, 3 mg TDD on day 2, and 8 mg TDD on day 3 with full agonist opioid overlap starting at 1,944 MME tapered down to 473 MME. The patient prematurely left the hospital, at which time buprenorphine 8 mg TDD was held at this dose for days 3-8 while full agonist opioid was tapered from 473 MME to 117 MME. BUP was then further titrated to 8 mg TID. This patient tolerated buprenorphine microdosing well, without any treatment-emergent opioid symptoms or worsening of baseline symptoms. Discussion: This case demonstrates the success of buprenorphine microdose induction despite very high doses of full agonist opioid overlap and demonstrates the ability to titrate buprenorphine microdoses faster than originally described. Strategies to overcoming implementation barriers are also discussed.

A hospital-wide initiative to redesign substance use disorder care: Impact on pharmacotherapy initiation.

Background: Substance use disorder (SUD) treatment in general medical settings remains underutilized. We evaluated 5 years of a hospital-wide SUD initiative which included an inpatient addiction consult team (ACT), low-threshold Bridge Clinic, recovery coaches, and office-based addiction treatment (OBAT) nurses. Methods: Naturalistic registry study. We calculated frequencies of patient contacts, types of substance use diagnoses, and medication treatment initiation and duration. Results: From 2014 to 2019, 7,036 unique patients were seen, including 4,959 by ACT, 1,197 in Bridge Clinic, 2,250 by a recovery coach, and 979 by an OBAT nurse. The median age was 47, 31% were women, 80% were white, 7% were black, 6% were Hispanic/Latinx, and 25% were experiencing homelessness. Alcohol use disorder was seen in 62%, opioid use disorder in 54%, cocaine use disorder in 29%, benzodiazepine use disorder in 14%, and stimulant use disorder in 7%. Co-occurring medical and psychiatric illnesses were common; 35% had hepatitis C, 59% depression, 66% anxiety, and 13% schizophrenia. 1,623 patients received a prescription for buprenorphine during the study period (42% of patients with OUD), 877 for oral naltrexone, and 163 for extended-release naltrexone. The mean length of continuous treatment was 178.4 days for buprenorphine, 47.7 days for oral naltrexone, and 1.29 injections for extended-release naltrexone. Conclusion: A hospital SUD initiative effectively initiated SUD pharmacotherapy with naltrexone and buprenorphine. Medication treatment episodes were longer with buprenorphine.

The effectiveness of post-discharge navigation added to an inpatient addiction consultation for patients with substance use disorder; a randomized controlled trial.

Background: It is unknown whether post-discharge navigation enhances the impact of hospital-initiated addiction care. This study tested the incremental benefit of telephonic linkage to a post-discharge navigator for patients who received an addiction consultation during hospitalization. Methods: A two-arm, randomized controlled trial of 395 hospitalized adults with substance use disorder who received an addiction consultation. The intervention group received post-discharge phone calls from a navigator to review the recommended treatment plan and address barriers to engagement on days 3, 7, 14, and 21. The primary outcome was days of alcohol or drug use in the past 30 assessed by Timeline Follow-back at 1 month. Results: Follow-up assessment completion rates were 46% at 1 month, and 41%, at 2 months. At baseline, intervention and control groups did not differ in substance use patterns; 45% reported primary alcohol use, 43% drugs, and 12% both. Heroin was the most common drug. At baseline, mean days of past 30-day alcohol or drug use were 13.6 in the intervention and 14.9 in the control group. The median number of navigation calls completed was 3 out of 4. At 1 month, both groups reported less use (decrease of 4.8 in intervention vs. 4.2 days in control group, p = 0.49). There were no differences between groups at 2 months. Compared to controls, participants who received all four calls had a greater decrease in use with a mean 8.6 days decrease from baseline (difference of 4.4 days, p = 0.0009). Conclusion: Post-discharge telephonic patient navigation did not further improve substance use outcomes following addiction consultation.

Relative Cost Differences of Initial Treatment Strategies for Newly Diagnosed Opioid Use Disorder: A Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Relative costs of care among treatment options for opioid use disorder (OUD) are unknown. METHODS: We identified a cohort of 40,885 individuals with a new diagnosis of OUD in a large national de-identified claims database covering commercially insured and Medicare Advantage enrollees. We assigned individuals to 1 of 6 mutually exclusive initial treatment pathways: (1) Inpatient Detox/Rehabilitation Treatment Center; (2) Behavioral Health Intensive, intensive outpatient or Partial Hospitalization Services; (3) Methadone or Buprenorphine; (4) Naltrexone; (5) Behavioral Health Outpatient Services, or; (6) No Treatment. We assessed total costs of care in the initial 90 day treatment period for each strategy using a differences in differences approach controlling for baseline costs. RESULTS: Within 90 days of diagnosis, 94.8% of individuals received treatment, with the initial treatments being: 15.8% for Inpatient Detox/Rehabilitation Treatment Center, 4.8% for Behavioral Health Intensive, Intensive Outpatient or Partial Hospitalization Services, 12.5% for buprenorphine/methadone, 2.4% for naltrexone, and 59.3% for Behavioral Health Outpatient Services. Average unadjusted costs increased from $3250 per member per month (SD $7846) at baseline to $5047 per member per month (SD $11,856) in the 90 day follow-up period. Compared with no treatment, initial 90 day costs were lower for buprenorphine/methadone [Adjusted Difference in Differences Cost Ratio (ADIDCR) 0.65; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.52-0.80], naltrexone (ADIDCR 0.53; 95% CI, 0.42-0.67), and behavioral health outpatient (ADIDCR 0.54; 95% CI, 0.44-0.66). Costs were higher for inpatient detox (ADIDCR 2.30; 95% CI, 1.88-2.83). CONCLUSION: Improving health system capacity and insurance coverage and incentives for outpatient management of OUD may reduce health care costs.

Access to Office-Based Buprenorphine Treatment in Areas With High Rates of Opioid-Related Mortality: An Audit Study.

Background: Improving access to treatment for opioid use disorder is a national priority, but little is known about the barriers encountered by patients seeking buprenorphine-naloxone ("buprenorphine") treatment. Objective: To assess real-world access to buprenorphine treatment for uninsured or Medicaid-covered patients reporting current heroin use. Design: Audit survey ("secret shopper" study). Setting: 6 U.S. jurisdictions with a high burden of opioid-related mortality (Massachusetts, Maryland, New Hampshire, West Virginia, Ohio, and the District of Columbia). Participants: From July to November 2018, callers contacted 546 publicly listed buprenorphine prescribers twice, posing as uninsured or Medicaid-covered patients seeking buprenorphine treatment. Measurements: Rates of new appointments offered, whether buprenorphine prescription was possible at the first visit, and wait times. Results: Among 1092 contacts with 546 clinicians, schedulers were reached for 849 calls (78% response rate). Clinicians offered new appointments to 54% of Medicaid contacts and 62% of uninsured-self-pay contacts, whereas 27% of Medicaid and 41% of uninsured-self-pay contacts were offered an appointment with the possibility of buprenorphine prescription at the first visit. The median wait time to the first appointment was 6 days (interquartile range [IQR], 2 to 10 days) for Medicaid contacts and 5 days (IQR, 1 to 9 days) for uninsured-self-pay contacts. These wait times were similar regardless of clinician type or payer status. The median wait time from first contact to possible buprenorphine induction was 8 days (IQR, 4 to 15 days) for Medicaid and 7 days (IQR, 3 to 14 days) for uninsured-self-pay contacts. Limitation: The survey sample included only publicly listed buprenorphine prescribers. Conclusion: Many buprenorphine prescribers did not offer new appointments or rapid buprenorphine access to callers reporting active heroin use, particularly those with Medicaid coverage. Nevertheless, wait times were not long, implying that opportunities may exist to increase access by using the existing prescriber workforce. Primary Funding Source: National Institute on Drug Abuse.

The prevalence of unhealthy alcohol and drug use among inpatients in a general hospital.

Background: Unhealthy substance use is a growing public health issue. Intersections with the health care system offer an opportunity for intervention; however, recent estimates of prevalence for unhealthy substance use among all types of hospital inpatients are unknown. Methods: Universal screening for unhealthy alcohol or drug use was implemented across a 999-bed general hospital between January 1 and December 31, 2015. Nurses completed alcohol screening using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test alcohol consumption questions (AUDIT-C) with a cutoff of ≥5 for moderate risk and ≥8 for high risk and drug screening using the single-item screening question with ≥1 episode of use considered positive. Results: Out of 35,288 unique inpatients, screens were completed on 21,519. There were 3,451 positive screens (16% of all completed screens), including 1,291 (6%) moderate risk and 1,111 (5%) high risk screens for alcohol and 1,657 (8%) positive screens for drug use. Among screens that were positive for moderate- or high-risk alcohol use, 221 (17%) and 297 (27%), respectively, were concurrently positive for drug use. The majority (61%) of patients with unhealthy alcohol use was on the medical services. Men, those who were white or Hispanic, middle-aged, single, unemployed, or screened positive for drug use were more likely to screen positive for high-risk alcohol use. Those who were younger, single, worked less than full time, or screened high risk for alcohol were more likely to screen positive for drug use. Discordance between diagnosis coding and screening results was noted: 29% of high-risk alcohol use screens had no alcohol diagnosis coding associated with that admission, and 51% of patients with a DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition) diagnosis code of alcohol dependence had AUDIT-C scores of <8. Conclusions: Across a general hospital, 16% of patients screened positive for unhealthy substance use, with the highest volume on medical floors. Nursing-led screening may offer an opportunity to identify and engage patients with unhealthy substance use during hospitalization.

Stigma as a fundamental hindrance to the United States opioid overdose crisis response.

Alexander Tsai and co-authors discuss the role of stigma in responses to the US opioid crisis.

Effect of Integrating Substance Use Disorder Treatment into Primary Care on Inpatient and Emergency Department Utilization.

BACKGROUND: Components of substance use disorder (SUD) treatment have been shown to reduce inpatient and emergency department (ED) utilization. However, integrated treatment using pharmacotherapy and recovery coaches in primary care has not been studied. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether integrated addiction treatment in primary care reduces inpatient and ED utilization and improves outpatient engagement. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study comparing patients in practices with and without integrated addiction treatment including pharmacotherapy and recovery coaching during a staggered roll-out period. PARTICIPANTS: A propensity score matched sample of 2706 adult primary care patients (1353 matched pairs from intervention and control practices) with a SUD diagnosis code, excluding cannabis or tobacco only, matched on baseline utilization. INTERVENTION: A multi-modal strategy that included forming interdisciplinary teams of local champions, access to addiction pharmacotherapy, counseling, and recovery coaching. Control practices could refer patients to an addiction treatment clinic offering pharmacotherapy and behavioral interventions. MAIN MEASURES: The number of inpatient admissions, hospital bed days, ED visits, and primary care visits. KEY RESULTS: During the follow-up period, there were fewer inpatient days among the intervention group (997 vs. 1096 days with a mean difference of 7.3 days per 100 patients, p = 0.03). The mean number of ED visits was lower for the intervention group (36.2 visits vs. 42.9 per 100 patients, p = 0.005). There was no difference in the mean number of hospitalizations. The mean number of primary care visits was higher for the intervention group (317 visits vs. 270 visits per 100 patients, p < 0.001). Intervention practices had a greater increase in buprenorphine and naltrexone prescribing. CONCLUSIONS: In a non-randomized retrospective cohort study, integrated addiction pharmacotherapy and recovery coaching in primary care resulted in fewer hospital days and ED visits for patients with SUD compared to similarly matched patients receiving care in practices without these services.

Addressing substance use disorder in primary care: The role, integration, and impact of recovery coaches.

BACKGROUND: Only 10% of people with substance use disorder (SUD) receive treatment, partially due to inadequate access to specialty SUD care and limited management within primary care. "Recovery coaches" (RCs), peers sharing the lived experience of addiction and recovery, are increasingly being integrated into primary care to help reach and treat people experiencing SUD, yet little is known about how their role should be defined or about their clinical integration and impact. METHODS: Semistructured interviews with RCs (n = 5) and their patients (n = 16) were used to explore patient and RC perspectives on the RC role. Maximum variation sampling was employed to select patients who displayed diversity across gender, RC, housing status, and number of contacts with an RC. Patients were sampled until no new concepts emerged from additional interviews, and a semistructured interview guide was used for data collection. To analyze interview transcripts, the constant comparative method was used to develop and assign inductively developed codes. Two coders separately coded all transcripts and reconciled code assignments. RESULTS: Four core RC activities were identified: system navigation, supporting behavior change, harm reduction, and relationship building. Across these activities, benefits of the RC role emerged, including accessibility, shared experiences, motivation of behavior change, and links to social services. Challenges of the RC model were also evident: patient discomfort with asking for help, lack of clarity in RC role, and tension within the care team. CONCLUSIONS: These findings shed light on RCs in primary care. Many patients and coaches perceived that RCs play a valuable role within primary care, providing both tangible system navigation and intangible, social support that promote recovery and might not otherwise be available. Enhanced communication between RCs and health center leadership in defining the RC role may help resolve ambiguity and related tensions between RCs and care team members.

Case records of the Massachusetts General Hospital. Case 35-2014: a 31-year-old woman with fevers, chest pain, and a history of HCV infection and substance-use disorder.

A 31-year-old woman with substance-use disorder was admitted to this hospital because of fevers and chest pain. CT of the chest revealed multiple thick-walled nodular opacities throughout both lungs. Diagnostic tests were performed, and management decisions were made.