Cost-effectiveness of extended-release injectable naltrexone among incarcerated persons with opioid use disorder before release from prison versus after release.

INTRODUCTION: Opioid use disorder (OUD) is highly prevalent among incarcerated populations, and the risk of fatal overdose following release from prison is substantial. Despite efficacy, few correctional facilities provide evidence-based addiction treatment. Extended-release injectable naltrexone (XR-NTX) administered prior to release from incarceration may improve health and economic outcomes. METHODS: We conducted an economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial testing the effectiveness of XR-NTX before release from prison (n = 38) vs. XR-NTX referral after release (n = 48) of incarcerated participants with OUD, both groups continuing treatment at a community addiction treatment center. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) assessed the cost-effectiveness of XR-NTX before release compared to referral after release for three stakeholder perspectives at 12- and 24-week periods: state policymaker, health care sector, and societal. Effectiveness measures included quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and abstinent years from opioids. In addition, we categorized resources as OUD-related and non-OUD-related medical care, state transfer payments, and other societal costs (productivity, criminal justice resources, etc.). RESULTS: Results showed an association between XR-NTX and greater OUD-related costs and total costs from the state policymaker perspective. QALYs gained were positive but statistically insignificant between arms; however, results showed XR-NTX had an estimated 15.5 more days of opioid abstinence over 24 weeks and statistically significant at a 95 % confidence level based on the distribution of bootstrapped samples. We found that estimated ICERs to be > $500,000 per QALY for all stakeholder perspectives. For the abstinent-year effectiveness measure, we found XR-NTX before release to be cost-effective at a 95 % confidence level for willingness-to-pay values >$49,000 per abstinent-year, across all perspectives. CONCLUSIONS: XR-NTX administered to persons who are incarcerated with OUD before release may provide value for stakeholders and bridge a well-known treatment gap for this vulnerable population. Lower than expected participant engagement and missing data limit our results, and study outcomes may be sensitive to methods that address missing data if replicated.

Extended release injectable naltrexone before vs. after release: A randomized trial of opioid addicted persons who are in prison.

BACKGROUND: Usual treatment for persons with opioid use disorders who are in prison is detoxification with referral to treatment after release but failure to engage in treatment and relapse is common. Starting medication treatment before release might improve outcomes. OBJECTIVES: Determine if administering extended-release injectable naltrexone (XR-NTX) before release (BR) from prison results in less relapse within the first three months after release than when offered by referral after release (AR). METHODS: The study randomized 1:1 persons who had an OUD, expressed interest in XR-NTX, and met study admission criteria to receive XR-NTX BR or at a local program AR, with continued medication and counseling available at that program. RESULTS: Four-hundred and two persons expressed interest in the study, 222 consented, and the study randomized 146. Uncertainty about release dates resulted in a time lag between randomization and final disposition during which 60 of the randomized patients were sentenced to other facilities, withdrew consent, or became otherwise unavailable for study treatment, leaving 86 for outcome analyses (38, BR; 48 AR). Missed follow-up appointments on the remaining 86 led to development of a phone-based questionnaire to determine presence/absence of relapse. Using it to supplement other data, we were able to confirm relapse or nonrelapse for 63 of the 86 (73%). All BR and a third of the AR patients received their first XR-NTX dose, however dropout was high and nonrelapse by month three was not significantly different between BR (39.5%) and AR (25%) (Chisq (2) = 3.23, p = 0.20). CONCLUSIONS: BR patients were much more likely to receive medication and its extended relapse and overdose protection effects in the first weeks after release. Dropout was high and the study detected no significant difference in relapse by month 3; however, the less-than-planned number of patients and missing data make this finding inconclusive.

Health and economic outcomes of treatment with extended-release naltrexone among pre-release prisoners with opioid use disorder (HOPPER): protocol for an evaluation of two randomized effectiveness trials.

BACKGROUND: Persons with an opioid use disorder (OUD) who were incarcerated face many challenges to remaining abstinent; concomitantly, opioid-overdose is the leading cause of death among this population, with the initial weeks following release proving especially fatal. Extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX) is the most widely-accepted, evidence-based OUD pharmacotherapy in criminal justice settings, and ensures approximately 30 days of protection from opioid overdose. The high cost of XR-NTX serves as a barrier to uptake by many prison/jail systems; however, the cost of the medication should not be viewed in isolation. Prison/jail healthcare budgets are ultimately determined by policymakers, and the benefits/cost-offsets associated with effective OUD treatment will directly and indirectly affect their overall budgets, and society as a whole. METHODS: This protocol describes a study funded by the National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA) to: evaluate changes in healthcare utilization, health-related quality-of-life, and other resources associated with different strategies of XR-NTX delivery to persons with OUD being released from incarceration; and estimate the relative "value" of each strategy. Data from two ongoing, publicly-funded, randomized-controlled trials will be used to evaluate these questions. In Study A, (XR-NTX Before vs. After Reentry), participants are randomized to receive their first XR-NTX dose before release, or at a nearby program post-release. In Study B, (enhanced XR-NTX vs. XR-NTX), both arms receive XR-NTX prior to release; the enhanced arm receives mobile medical (place of residence) XR-NTX treatment post-release, and the XR-NTX arm receives referral to a community treatment program post-release. The economic data collection instruments required to evaluate outcomes of interest were incorporated into both studies from baseline. Moreover, because the same instruments are being used in both trials on comparable populations, we have the opportunity to not only assess differences in outcomes between study arms within each trial, but also to merge the data sets and test for differences across trials. DISCUSSION: Initiating XR-NTX for OUD prior to release from incarceration may improve patient health and well-being, while also producing downstream cost-offsets. This study offers the unique opportunity to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of multiple strategies, according to different stakeholder perspectives.

Antagonists in the medical management of opioid use disorders: Historical and existing treatment strategies.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a chronic condition with potentially severe health and social consequences. Many who develop moderate to severe OUD will repeatedly seek treatment or interact with medical care via emergency department visits or hospitalizations. Thus, there is an urgent need to develop feasible and effective approaches to help persons with OUD achieve and maintain abstinence from opioids. Treatment that includes one of the three FDA-approved medications is an evidence-based strategy to manage OUD. The purpose of this review is to address practices for managing persons with moderate to severe OUD with a focus on opioid withdrawal and naltrexone-based relapse-prevention treatment. METHODS: Literature available on PubMed was used to review the evolution of treatment strategies from the 1960s onward to manage opioid withdrawal and initiate treatment with naltrexone. RESULTS: Emerging practices for extended-release naltrexone induction include the use of agonist tapers and adjuvant medications. Clinical challenges frequently encountered when initiating this therapy include managing withdrawal and ongoing opioid use during treatment. Clinical factors may inform decisions regarding patient selection and length of naltrexone treatment, such as recent opioid use and patient preferences. CONCLUSIONS AND SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE: Treatment strategies to manage opioid withdrawal have evolved, but many patients with OUD do not receive medication for the prevention of relapse. Clinical strategies for induction onto extended-release naltrexone are now available and can be safely and effectively implemented in specialty and select primary care settings. (© 2018 The Authors. The American Journal on Addictions Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of The American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry (AAAP);27:177-187).

Extended-Release Injectable Naltrexone (XR-NTX) With Intensive Psychosocial Therapy for Amphetamine-Dependent Persons Seeking Treatment: A Placebo-Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Explore the efficacy of extended-release injectable naltrexone (XR-NTX) for preventing relapse to amphetamine use. METHOD: Clinical trial of 100 amphetamine-dependent, treatment-seeking patients who were randomized to 6 monthly 380 mg doses of XR-NTX or matching placebo before entering intensive outpatient after varying lengths of inpatient treatment in Reykjavik, Iceland. Weekly urine drug tests, retention, and standardized instruments assessed efficacy. RESULTS: Of 169 approached, 100 were randomized. Although amphetamine dependence was the main reason for seeking treatment, three-quarters or more of participants had 1 or more other substance dependencies. Of 51 randomized to XR-NTX, 20 received 4 or more injections; of 49 assigned to placebo, 26 received 4 or more injections. Of the planned 2400 weekly urine drug tests, 1247 were collected (52%); 4% of these were positive for amphetamine, 8% for benzodiazepine, 7% for marijuana, 1% for cocaine, and 1% for opioid. XR-NTX had no effect on amphetamine-positive tests, retention, or other outcomes. Those providing half or more of their tests attended more weeks of treatment than those providing less than half of their tests (m = 10.76 vs 3.31; t (92) = 5.91, P < 0.0001), and 92 participants provided at least 1 test. CONCLUSIONS: Adding XR-NTX to the usual combination of inpatient and intensive outpatient treatment did not reduce amphetamine use. The low prevalence of substance use among collected urine samples, and the association between collected samples and weeks in treatment, was consistent with other studies showing that staying in treatment is associated with better outcomes.

Advances in the treatment of opioid use disorders.

The development of medications for treating persons with opioid use disorders has expanded the number of evidence-based treatment options, particularly for persons with the most severe disorders. It has also improved outcomes compared to psychosocial treatment alone and expanded treatment availability by increasing the number of physicians involved in treatment and the settings where patients can be treated. The medications include methadone, buprenorphine, buprenorphine/naloxone, and extended-release injectable naltrexone. Studies have shown that they are most effective when used over an extended, but as-yet-unspecified, period of time and with counseling and other services, particularly for the many with psychosocial problems. Though controversial in some cultures, well-designed studies in Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany, and Canada have demonstrated the efficacy of supervised heroin injecting for persons who responded poorly to other treatments, and this treatment option has been approved by Switzerland and a few other E.U. countries. The degree to which medication-assisted therapies are available is dependent on many variables, including national and local regulations, preferences of individual providers and their geographical location, treatment costs, and insurance policies. Greater availability of medication-assisted therapies has become a major focus in the U.S. and Canada, where there has been a marked increase in deaths associated with heroin and prescription opioid use. This paper provides a brief summary of these developments.

Antagonist Models for Relapse Prevention and Reducing HIV Risk.

Naltrexone is an antagonist that binds tightly to µ-opioid receptors and blocks the subjective and analgesic effects of opioids. It does not produce physiologic dependence and precipitates withdrawal if administered to an opioid dependent person, thus starting it must begin with detoxification. It was first available in the mid-1970s as a 50 mg tablet that blocked opioids for 24-36 h if taken daily, or every 2-3 days at higher doses - for example: 100 mg Monday and Wednesday, 150 mg on Friday. From a pharmacological perspective it worked very well and was hoped to be an effective treatment but results were disappointing due to low patient interest and high dropout followed by relapse. Interest in it waned but rose again in the late 1990's when injecting opioid use and the rapid spread of HIV in the Russian Federation converged with an international interest in reducing the spread of HIV. One result was a series of meetings sponsored by the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and Pavlov State Medical University in St. Petersburg, Russian Federation, on ways to reduce the spread of HIV in that country. Addiction treatment was a clear priority and discussions showed that naltrexone could have a role since agonist treatment is against Russian law but naltrexone is approved and the government funds over 25,000 beds for detoxification, which is the first step in starting naltrexone treatment. These meetings were followed by NIDA studies that showed better compliance to oral naltrexone than in prior U.S. studies with the expected reductions in HIV injecting risk for those that stayed in treatment. These events and findings provided a background and identified an infrastructure for the study that led to FDA approval of extended release injectable naltrexone for preventing relapse to opioid dependence. This paper will briefly review findings from these studies and end with comments on the potential role of extended release naltrexone as a meaningful addition to current pharmacotherapies for treating opiod dependence and reducing HIV risk.

Proactive coping and spirituality among patients who left or remained in antiretroviral treatment in St Petersburg, Russian Federation.

Positive Psychology, the study of "positive" factors or strengths and evidence-based interventions to increase them, is a rapidly developing field that is beginning to be applied to HIV care. Proactive coping and spirituality are two positive characteristics that have been examined in multiple chronic serious health conditions. In the present study, lost-to-care (LTCs; did not attend treatment for ≥12 months; n = 120) and engaged-in-care HIV clinic patients (EICs; attended treatment for ≥12 months and adherent with antiretrovirals; n = 120) in Leningrad Oblast, Russian Federation were compared on the Proactive Coping Inventory and View of God Scale. EICs had higher scores in proactive coping [t(229) = 3.69; p = .001] and instrumental [t(232) = 2.17; p = .03] and emotional [t(233) = 2.33; p = .02] support, indicating that they engage in autonomous goal setting and self-regulate their thoughts and behaviors; obtain advice and support from their social network; and cope with emotional distress by turning to others. LTCs had higher scores in avoidance coping [t(236) = -2.31; p = .02]. More EICs were spiritual, religious, or both [ χ(2)(1, N = 239) = 7.49, p = .006]. EICs were more likely to believe in God/Higher Power [χ(2)(1, N = 239 = 8.89, p = .002] and an afterlife [ χ(2)(1, N = 236) = 5.11, p = .024]; have a relationship with God/Higher Power [ χ(2)(1, N = 237) = 12.76, p = .000]; and call on God/Higher Power for help, healing, or protection [ χ(2)(1, N = 239) = 9.61]. EICs had more positive [t(238) = 2.78; p = .006] and less negative [t(236) = -2.38; p = .002] views of God. Similar proportions, but slightly more EICs than LTCs were members of a faith community; members of a12-step group; or attended religious or spiritual services, meetings, or activities. More EICs than LTCs engaged in private spiritual or religious activities, such as prayer or meditation [ χ(2)(1, N = 239) = 9.226, p = .002].

Depression, substance use, viral load, and CD4+ count among patients who continued or left antiretroviral therapy for HIV in St. Petersburg, Russian Federation.

Antiretroviral therapy (ART) became more widely available in the Russian Federation in 2006 when the Global Fund made a contribution to purchase ART with a mandate to increase numbers of patients receiving it. Funds were distributed to AIDS Centers and selected hospitals, and numbers quickly increased. Though ART is highly effective for adherent patients, dropout has been a problem; thus understanding characteristics of patients who remain on ART vs. those who leave treatment may provide information to facilitate engagement. We retrospectively assessed depression, hopelessness, substance use, viral load, and CD4+ counts of 120 patients who dropped out of ART for ≥12 months (Lost-to-Care, LTCs) and 120 who continued for ≥12 months (Engaged-in-Care, EICs). As expected, LTCs had higher viral loads and depression, lower CD4+ counts, more alcohol, heroin, and injection drug use in the past 30 days. A binary logistic regression with Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression score, Beck Hopelessness score, whether drugs/alcohol had ever prevented them from taking ART, and past 30 days' alcohol use [χ(2)(4) = 64.27, p = .0.000] correctly classified 74.5% of participants as LTC or EIC, suggesting that integrated treatment for substance use, psychiatric, and HIV could reduce dropout and improve outcomes.

Opioid addicted buprenorphine injectors: drug use during and after 12-weeks of buprenorphine-naloxone or methadone in the Republic of Georgia.

AIMS: The aim of this study is to assess the prevalence of non-opioid drug use among opioid-addicted, buprenorphine injecting individuals in Georgia, during and after a 12-week course of buprenorphine-naloxone (Suboxone®) or methadone. METHODS: Randomized controlled trial with daily observed Suboxone® or methadone and weekly counseling, urine tests and timeline followback (TLFB) in weeks 0-12 and 20, and the Addiction Severity Index (ASI) at weeks 0, 4, 8, 12, 20. RESULTS: Of the 80 patients (40/group, 4 women), 68 (85%) completed the 12-weeks of study treatment and 66 (82.5%) completed the 20-week follow-up. At baseline, injecting more than one drug in the last 30 days was reported by 68.4% of patients in the methadone and 72.5% in the Suboxone® groups. Drug use was markedly reduced in both treatment conditions but there were significant differences in the prevalence of specific drugs with more opioid (1.5 vs. 0.2%; p=0.03), less amphetamine (0.2 vs. 2.8%; p<0.001) and less marijuana (1.7 vs. 10.2%; p<0.001) positive urine tests in the methadone vs. Suboxone® groups. At the 20-week follow-up, TLFB results on the 34 that continued methadone or the 3 on Suboxone® showed less opioid (5.6 vs. 27.6%; p<0.001), illicit buprenorphine (2.7 vs. 13.8%; p=0.005), benzodiazepine (13.5 vs. 34.5%; p<0.001), and marijuana (2.8 vs. 20.7%; p<0.001) use than the 29 who did not continue opioid substitution therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Despite small but significant differences in opioid and other drug use, both treatments were highly effective in reducing opioid and non-opioid drug use.

Antagonist models for treating persons with substance use disorders.

This paper provides an overview on the status of antagonist models for treating patients with substance use disorders. It begins with an overview describing the ambivalence about stopping or not stopping substance use and how antagonist approaches, combined with psychosocial treatment, are aimed to address it. It then goes on to review data on disulfiram and acamprosate treatment of alcohol dependence and naltrexone treatment of opioid and alcohol dependence. The superior results achieved by extended release formulations are emphasized. The mixed findings on naltrexone treatment for amphetamine dependence are presented and the chapter ends with a brief review of vaccine development for treatment of substance use disorders. Overall conclusions are that the strongest treatment effects are with extended release naltrexone with opioid dependence. Disulfiram treatment of alcohol dependence also has strong effects but is not widely used due to low levels of patient acceptance and concerns about its potential for serious adverse events. Less robust but clinically meaningful effects are seen with naltrexone or acamprosate treatment of alcohol dependence. Vaccines are a very interesting and promising new development but many challenges and hurdles must be overcome before they are ready for clinical use.

HIV risk reduction with buprenorphine-naloxone or methadone: findings from a randomized trial.

OBJECTIVES: Compare HIV injecting and sex risk in patients being treated with methadone (MET) or buprenorphine-naloxone (BUP). METHODS: Secondary analysis from a study of liver enzyme changes in patients randomized to MET or BUP who completed 24 weeks of treatment and had 4 or more blood draws. The initial 1:1 randomization was changed to 2:1 (BUP:MET) after 18 months due to higher dropout in BUP. The Risk Behavior Survey measured HIV risk before 30 days at baseline and weeks 12 and 24. RESULTS: Among 529 patients randomized to MET, 391 (74%) were completers; among 740 randomized to BUP, 340 (46%) were completers; 700 completed the Risk Behavior Survey. There were significant reductions in injecting risk (P < 0.0008) with no differences between groups in mean number of times reported injecting heroin, speedball, other opiates, and number of injections; or percent who shared needles; did not clean shared needles with bleach; shared cookers; or engaged in front/back loading of syringes. The percent having multiple sex partners decreased equally in both groups (P < 0.03). For males on BUP, the sex risk composite increased; for males on MET, the sex risk decreased resulting in significant group differences over time (P < 0.03). For females, there was a significant reduction in sex risk (P < 0.02) with no group differences. CONCLUSIONS: Among MET and BUP patients who remained in treatment, HIV injecting risk was equally and markedly reduced; however, MET retained more patients. Sex risk was equally and significantly reduced among females in both treatment conditions, but it increased for males on BUP and decreased for males on MET.

Progress in addiction treatment: from one-size-fits-all to medications and treatment matching.

This paper briefly reviews the development of treatment for substance use disorders over the last 100 years from the perspective of the author, who has participated in treatment outcome studies since the mid-1970s. It includes some personal events that contributed to the author's involvement in addiction treatment and research, and describes the gradual evolution of an approach that began with a focus on detoxification and psychosocial treatment to one that involves blending psychosocial treatments with use of Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved medications and adding treatments for psychiatric and medical disorders when necessary based on patient assessments. It ends with comments on the gap between what is known and the degree to which existing knowledge is applied, and how the Affordable Care Act holds promise for bridging that gap.

Extended release naltrexone injection is performed in the majority of opioid dependent patients receiving outpatient induction: a very low dose naltrexone and buprenorphine open label trial.

BACKGROUND: The approval of extended release injectable naltrexone (XR-NTX; Vivitrol(®)) has introduced a new option for treating opioid addiction, but studies are needed to identify its place within the spectrum of available therapies. The absence of physiological opioid dependence is a necessary and challenging first step for starting XR-NTX. Outpatient detoxification gives poor results and inpatient detoxification is either unavailable or too brief for the physiological effects of opioids to resolve. Here we present findings from an open label study that tested whether the transition from opioid addiction to XR-NTX can be safely and effectively performed in an outpatient setting using very low dose naltrexone and buprenorphine. METHODS: Twenty treatment seeking opioid addicted individuals were given increasing doses of naltrexone starting at 0.25mg with decreasing doses of buprenorphine starting at 4 mg during a 7-day outpatient XR-NTX induction procedure. Withdrawal discomfort, craving, drug use, and adverse events were assessed daily until the XR-NTX injection, then weekly over the next month. RESULTS: Fourteen of the 20 participants received XR-NTX and 13 completed weekly assessments. Withdrawal, craving, and opioid or other drug use were significantly lower during induction and after XR-NTX administration compared with baseline, and no serious adverse events were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: Outpatient transition to XR-NTX combining upward titration of very low dose naltrexone with downward titration of low dose buprenorphine was safe, well tolerated, and completed by most participants. Further studies with larger numbers of subjects are needed to see if this approach is useful for naltrexone induction.

Pharmacologically assisted treatment of opioid-dependent youth.

Opioid misuse, abuse, and dependence are global problems whose patterns vary across cultures. In the USA, the non-medical use of prescription opioids has become particularly serious because of its association with addiction and overdose death. Agonist and antagonist medications have been shown to be effective for opioid-dependent adults, and there is a growing body of data that they are also effective for youth. Here, we summarize evidence that detoxification alone results in high rates of treatment dropout and relapse but that the limited but growing data on the extended use of medication-assisted treatment for opioid-dependent youth have been positive. The implementation of medication-assisted treatment as a standard practice is feasible, easily integrated with counseling or psychotherapy, and has potential to greatly improve outcomes. Although concerns about safety and efficacy with youth require more research, and we do not advocate indefinite maintenance, we suggest that opioid-dependent youth should be considered as candidates for medication-assisted treatment delivered in a comprehensive, developmentally appropriate context, beginning at the first episode of care, with the strength of the recommendation to use medication increasing with each care episode.