Implementation of buprenorphine services in NYC syringe services programs: a qualitative process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Syringe services programs (SSPs) hold promise for providing buprenorphine treatment access to people with opioid use disorder (OUD) who are reluctant to seek care elsewhere. In 2017, the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) provided funding and technical assistance to nine SSPs to develop "low-threshold" buprenorphine services as part of a multipronged initiative to lower opioid-related overdose rates. The aim of this study was to identify barriers to and facilitators of implementing SSP-based buprenorphine services. METHODS: We conducted 26 semi-structured qualitative interviews from April 2019 to November 2019 at eight SSPs in NYC that received funding and technical assistance from DOHMH. Interviews were conducted with three categories of staff: leadership (i.e., buprenorphine program management or leadership, eight interviews), staff (i.e., buprenorphine coordinators or other staff, eleven interviews), and buprenorphine providers (six interviews). We identified themes related to barriers and facilitators to program implementation using thematic analysis. We make recommendations for implementation based on our findings. RESULTS: Programs differed in their stage of development, location of services provided, and provider type, availability, and practices. Barriers to providing buprenorphine services at SSPs included gaps in staff knowledge and comfort communicating with participants about buprenorphine, difficulty hiring buprenorphine providers, managing tension between harm reduction and traditional OUD treatment philosophies, and financial constraints. Challenges also arose from serving a population with unmet psychosocial needs. Implementation facilitators included technical assistance from DOHMH, designated buprenorphine coordinators, offering other supportive services to participants, and telehealth to bridge gaps in provider availability. Key recommendations include: (1) health departments should provide support for SSPs in training staff, building health service infrastructure and developing policies and procedures, (2) SSPs should designate a buprenorphine coordinator and ensure regular training on buprenorphine for frontline staff, and (3) buprenorphine providers should be selected or supported to use a harm reduction approach to buprenorphine treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Despite encountering challenges, SSPs implemented buprenorphine services outside of conventional OUD treatment settings. Our findings have implications for health departments, SSPs, and other community organizations implementing buprenorphine services. Expansion of low-threshold buprenorphine services is a promising strategy to address the opioid overdose epidemic.

Tele-buprenorphine for emergency department overdose visit follow up and treatment initiation.

INTRODUCTION: An ED visit for opioid overdose may be a person's only contact with the medical and behavioral health care systems and is an important opportunity to reduce risk of subsequent overdose and death. While ED initiatives to engage people with opioid use disorder (OUD) are being increasingly implemented, there are significant gaps in the receipt of services at the time of the ED encounter. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of an outreach pilot project providing real-time telehealth delivered buprenorphine initiation and referral to community harm reduction and addiction treatment services via a follow up telephone call to patients after an ED visit for an opioid overdose. RESULTS: From January 2020 to April 2021 there were 606 patients with an ED visit for an opioid overdose eligible for a callback. Of the 606 eligible patients, 254/645 (42%) patients could be contacted and accepted service and/or treatment referrals. Fifteen patients were connected same-day to a buprenorphine prescriber for a telehealth encounter and, of connected patients, nine received a buprenorphine prescription. CONCLUSION: A post-ED follow up telephone call protocol is an opportunity to improve treatment engagement and access to buprenorphine for patients at high risk for opioid overdose and death.

Pharmacotherapy for opioid addiction in community corrections.

Pharmacotherapy for opioid addiction with methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone has proven efficacy in reducing illicit opioid use. These treatments are under-utilized among opioid-addicted individuals on parole, probation, or in drug courts. This paper examines the peer-reviewed literature on the effectiveness of pharmacotherapy for opioid addiction of adults under community-based criminal justice supervision in the US. Compared to general populations, there are relatively few papers addressing the separate impact of pharmacotherapy on individuals under community supervision. Tentative conclusions can be drawn from the extant literature. Reasonable evidence exists that illicit opioid use and self-reported criminal behaviour decline after treatment entry, and that these outcomes are as favourable among individuals under criminal justice supervision as the general treatment population. Surprisingly, there is no conclusive evidence regarding the extent to which pharmacotherapy impacts the likelihood of arrest and incarceration among individuals under supervision. However, given the proven efficacy of these three medications in reducing illicit opioid use and the evidence that, in the general population, methadone and buprenorphine treatment are associated with reduction in overdose mortality, the use of all three pharmacotherapies among patients under criminal justice supervision should be expanded while more data are collected on their impact on arrest and incarceration.

Opioid substitution treatment and heroin dependent adolescents: reductions in heroin use and treatment retention over twelve months.

BACKGROUND: Opioid dependence is a major health concern across the world and does also occur in adolescents. While opioid substitution treatment (OST) has been thoroughly evaluated in adult populations, very few studies have examined its use in adolescents. There are concerns that OST is underutilised in adolescents with heroin dependence. We sought to measure changes in drug use among adolescents receiving OST and also to examine treatment attrition during the first 12 months of this treatment. METHODS: We included all heroin dependent patients aged under 18.5 years commencing OST at one outpatient multidisciplinary adolescent addiction treatment service in Dublin, Ireland. Psycho-social needs were also addressed during treatment. Drug use was monitored by twice weekly urine drugs screens (UDS). Change in the proportion of UDS negative for heroin was examined using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. Attrition was explored via a Cox Regression multivariate analysis. RESULTS: OST was commenced by 120 patients (51% female and mean age 17.3 years). Among the 39 patients who persisted with OST until month 12, heroin abstinence was 21% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 9-36%) at month three and it was 46% (95% CI = 30-63%) at month 12. Heroin use declined significantly from baseline to month three (p < 0.001) and from month three to month 12 (p = 0.01). Use of other drugs did not change significantly. People using cocaine during month 12 were more likely to be also using heroin (p = 0.02). Unplanned exit occurred in 25% patients by 120 days. The independent predictors of attrition were having children, single parent family of origin, not being in an intimate relationship with another heroin user and evidence of cocaine use just before treatment entry. CONCLUSIONS: We found that heroin dependent adolescent patients achieved significant reductions in heroin use within three months of starting OST and this improved further after a year of treatment, about half being heroin abstinent at that stage. Patient drop out from treatment remains a challenge, as it is in adults. Cocaine use before and during treatment may be a negative prognostic factor.

Buprenorphine Treatment for Probationers and Parolees.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacotherapy studies involving buprenorphine have rarely been conducted with U.S. community corrections populations. This is one of the first reports of buprenorphine treatment outcomes of adult opioid-dependent probationers and parolees. METHODS: This longitudinal study examined the 3-month treatment outcomes for a sample of probation and parole clients (N = 64) who received community-based buprenorphine treatment. RESULTS: Approximately two thirds of the sample (67%) were still in treatment at 3 months post baseline. Furthermore, there was a significant decline in the number of self-reported heroin use days and crime days from baseline to 3 months post baseline. Although there was not a significant reduction in reincarcerations, there was no evidence that they had increased. CONCLUSIONS: Given that buprenorphine is approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a safe, effective treatment for opioid use disorders, individuals on parole or probation should have the opportunity to benefit from it through community-based programs.

Treatment Outcomes of African American Buprenorphine Patients by Parole and Probation Status.

This secondary analysis compared outcomes of African-American adults newly-admitted to buprenorphine treatment who were on parole and probation to patients who were not under criminal justice supervision. Buprenorphine patients (N=300) were randomly assigned to receive either Intensive Outpatient Treatment (IOP) or Standard Outpatient Treatment (OP) treatment and were assessed at baseline, 3- and 6-months. There were no differences between groups in treatment retention. Among probationers/parolees, IOP was associated with lower 3-month treatment retention compared to OP, but among participants not on probation/parole the relationship was reversed (p=.004). Both conditions showed significant declines in heroin and cocaine use, illegal activity, and in meeting DSM-IV criteria for opioid and cocaine dependence. Probationers/parolees reported lower frequency of illegal activities at 3-months compared to non-probationers/parolees (p=.007). Buprenorphine treatment should be made more widely available to individuals on parole/probation as they respond as well to treatment as patients not supervised by the criminal justice system.

Patient Engagement in and Adaptations to Delivery of Outpatient Care for Opioid Use Disorder During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: The authors investigated adaptations to outpatient care delivery and changes in treatment demand and engagement among patients receiving medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) in the months after the declaration of the COVID-19 public health emergency in 2020. METHODS: Data were collected through an online survey (June-November 2020) of outpatient MOUD prescribers. The survey obtained information on outpatient practices' adaptations to MOUD treatment and urine drug screening (UDS) and elicited provider views on the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on patient demand for, and engagement in, treatment. Multivariable regression analyses were used to examine associations among practice characteristics, patient engagement, and service adaptations. RESULTS: Of 516 respondents, 74% reported adaptations to MOUD delivery during the pandemic. Most respondents implemented virtual visits for initial (67%) and follow-up (77%) contacts. Prescribers of buprenorphine were more likely than those who did not prescribe the medication to report MOUD adaptations. Among respondents reporting any MOUD adaptation, 77% made adaptations to their UDS practices. Among 513 respondents who answered COVID-19-related questions, 89% reported that the pandemic had affected the treatment and engagement of their patients. Of these respondents, 30% reported increased difficulty with patient engagement, and 45% reported that their patients preferred virtual visits during this period, whereas 18% endorsed patient preference for in-person visits. CONCLUSIONS: Telehealth and federal regulatory easements in response to the COVID-19 pandemic enabled providers to continue treating patients for opioid use disorder in 2020. The results suggest that care adaptations and changes in patient demand and engagement were common in the practices surveyed.

"I'm on the Right Path": Exploring 1-Month Retention in a Homeless-Tailored Outpatient-Based Opioid Treatment Program.

BACKGROUND: Homeless-tailored office-based opioid treatment (OBOT) programs have been developed to address the ongoing opioid overdose crisis, which disproportionately affects people experiencing homelessness. The objective of this study was to evaluate the facilitators of and barriers to retention in a homeless-tailored OBOT program. METHODS: We performed in-depth qualitative interviews with 24 homeless-experienced adults who newly enrolled in Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program's OBOT program from January 6, 2022 through January 5, 2023. We purposively sampled participants based on whether they were retained at 1 month (n = 12) or not (n = 12). We used an abductive analytic process, applying codes to the interview transcripts from an a priori analytic framework based on the Behavioral Model for Vulnerable Populations and supplementing with emergent codes as needed. We compared themes by participants' 1-month retention status to explore facilitators of and barriers to retention in OBOT care. RESULTS: The average age was 41.9 years, 29.2% were female, 20.8% were Black, 58.3% were White, and 33.0% were Hispanic. Facilitators of retention common to many participants included the clinic experience, low-threshold model, clinic staff, and provision of comprehensive care. Among participants who were retained at 1-month, personal motivation, use of extended-release buprenorphine, and adequate buprenorphine efficacy were additional facilitators. Barriers to retention common to many participants included the clinic's surrounding environment, competing subsistence difficulties, and transportation difficulty. Among participants who were not retained at 1-month, opioid use severity, drug use in social networks, and inadequate buprenorphine efficacy represented additional barriers. CONCLUSIONS: We identified several common determinants of OBOT retention among our homeless-experienced participants as well as some facilitators and barriers that differed by 1-month retention status. These divergent factors represent potential points of intervention to promote retention in homeless-tailored OBOT programs.

Estimated effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of opioid use disorder treatment under proposed U.S. regulatory relaxations: A model-based analysis.

AIM: To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of buprenorphine and methadone treatment in the U.S. if exemptions expanding coverage for substance use disorder services via telehealth and allowing opioid treatment programs to supply a greater number of take-home doses of medications for opioid use disorder (OUD) continue (Notice of Proposed Rule Making, NPRM). DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Model-based analysis of buprenorphine and methadone treatment for a cohort of 100,000 individuals with OUD, varying treatment retention and overdose risk among individuals receiving and not receiving methadone treatment compared to the status quo (no NPRM). INTERVENTION: Buprenorphine and methadone treatment under NPRM. MEASUREMENTS: Fatal and nonfatal overdoses and deaths over five years, discounted lifetime per person QALYs and costs. FINDINGS: For buprenorphine treatment under the status quo, 1.21 QALYs are gained at a cost of $19,200/QALY gained compared to no treatment; with 20% higher treatment retention, 1.28 QALYs are gained at a cost of $17,900/QALY gained compared to no treatment, and the strategy dominates the status quo. For methadone treatment under the status quo, 1.11 QALYs are gained at a cost of $17,900/QALY gained compared to no treatment. In all scenarios, methadone provision cost less than $20,000/QALY gained compared to no treatment, and less than $50,000/QALY gained compared to status quo methadone treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Buprenorphine and methadone OUD treatment under NPRM are likely to be effective and cost-effective. Increases in overdose risk with take-home methadone would reduce health benefits. Clinical and technological strategies could mitigate this risk.

The dynamics of more-than-human care in depot buprenorphine treatment: A new materialist analysis of Australian patients' experiences.

BACKGROUND: Long-acting injectable depot buprenorphine has become an important treatment option for the management of opioid dependence. However, little is known about patients' experiences of depot buprenorphine and its embodied effects. This qualitative study aims to explore patients' experiences of depot buprenorphine treatment, including how it feels within the body, experiences of dosing cycles across time, and how this form of treatment relies on wider ecologies of care beyond the clinical encounter. METHODS: Participants were recruited from sites in Sydney, regional New South Wales, and Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Thirty participants (16 men, 14 women) participated in semi-structured interviews. Participants had histories of both heroin and prescription opioid consumption, and opioid agonist therapy including daily dosing of buprenorphine and methadone. RESULTS: Our analysis illuminates: (1) how patients' expectations and concerns about treatment are linked to past embodied experiences of withdrawal and uncertainty about the effectiveness of depot buprenorphine; (2) the diverse meanings patients attribute to the depot buprenorphine substrate 'under the skin'; and, (3) how depot buprenorphine is embedded within wider ecologies of care, such as counselling and social supports. CONCLUSION: Our analysis destabilises commonplace assumptions about a linear, causal relationship between the pharmacological action of depot buprenorphine and experiences of treatment. Instead, it highlights patients' variable experiences of depot buprenorphine, tracing the everyday practices, embodied feelings, expectations and wider networks of care that shape patient experiences. We conclude with some reflections on the implications of our analysis for alcohol and other drug treatment, specifically how they might inform the design of client education materials and care.

Timing of hepatitis C treatment initiation and retention in office-based opioid treatment with buprenorphine: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: This study examined associations between receipt of hepatitis C (HCV) treatment and retention in office-based opioid treatment (OBOT) care. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of HCV-infected patients who initiated OBOT treatment between December 2015 and March 2021 to characterize HCV treatment and assess associations with OBOT retention. HCV treatment was characterized as no treatment, early treatment (< 100 days since OBOT initiation) or late treatment (≥ 100 days). We evaluated associations between HCV treatment and cumulative days in OBOT. A secondary analysis using Cox Proportional Hazards regression was done to determine the rate of discharge over time when comparing those who did versus did not receive HCV treatment as a time-varying covariate. We also analyzed a subset of patients retained at least 100 days in OBOT care and evaluated whether HCV treatment during that period was associated with OBOT retention beyond 100 days. RESULTS: Of 191 HCV-infected OBOT patients, 30% initiated HCV treatment, of whom 31% received early treatment and 69% received late treatment. Median cumulative duration in OBOT was greater among those who received HCV treatment (any: 398 days, early: 284 days and late: 430 days) when compared to those who did not receive treatment (90 days). Compared to no HCV treatment, there were 83% (95% CI: 33-152%, P < 0.001), 95% (95% CI: 28%-197%, p = 0.002 and 77% (95% CI: 25-153%, p = 0.002) more cumulative days in OBOT for any, early and late HCV treatment, respectively. HCV treatment was associated with a lower relative hazard for discharge/drop-out, although results did not meet statistical significance (aHR = 0.59;95% CI: 0.34-1.00; p = 0.052). Among the subset of 84 patients retained in OBOT at least 100 days, 18 received HCV treatment during that period. Compared to those who did not receive treatment within the first 100 days, those who received treatment had 57% (95% CI: -3%-152%, p = 0.065) more subsequent days in OBOT. CONCLUSIONS: A minority of HCV-infected patients received HCV treatment after initiating OBOT treatment, but those who did had better retention. Further efforts are needed to facilitate rapid HCV treatment and evaluate whether early HCV treatment improves OBOT engagement.

Abuse of Synthetic Cannabinoids and Cathinones in a Patient on Buprenorphine-Naloxone Treatment: A Case Report.

The rise of novel synthetic drugs, such as cathinones in "bath salts" and synthetic cannabinoids, poses serious health risks due to their severe side effects and unpredictable interactions with other substances, and their evasion of routine drug screenings poses additional challenges in managing opioid agonist treatments. We present a case of an Indian male in his thirties with a history of opiate dependence who was treated with buprenorphine/naloxone. Six months into the treatment, he presented with symptoms of sedation, agitation, and paranoia. Initial toxicological screenings using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) failed to detect synthetic substances, but subsequent analysis with gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) identified the presence of synthetic cannabinoids and cathinones. The patient admitted to using a K2 blend, unaware of its harmful constituents. This case underscores the crucial significance of meticulous monitoring in the treatment of addiction, taking into account potential interactions with synthetic substances such as K2/spice and bath salts. It highlights the necessity for individualized patient education and enhanced access to specialized toxicology testing, advocating for comprehensive strategies in addiction clinics to better identify and mitigate the risks associated with designer drugs.

Preliminary Evidence of the Association between Time on Buprenorphine and Cognitive Performance among Individuals with Opioid Use Disorder Maintained on Buprenorphine: A Pilot Study.

People on buprenorphine maintenance treatment (BMT) commonly present cognitive deficits that have been associated with illicit drug use and dropout from buprenorphine treatment. This study has compared cognitive responses to the Stroop Task and the Continuous Performance Task (CPT) among individuals on BMT, with recent drug use, and healthy controls and explored the associations between cognitive responses and drug use, craving, and buprenorphine use among participants on BMT. The participants were 16 individuals on BMT and 23 healthy controls. All participants completed a 60 min laboratory session in which they completed the Stroop Task and the CPT, a saliva drug test, a brief clinical history that collected substance-use- and treatment-related information, and the Opioid Craving Scale. The results showed that the BMT participants presented more commission errors (MBMT participants = 2.49; Mhealthy controls = 1.38; p = 0.048) and longer reaction times (MBMT participants = 798.09; Mhealthy controls = 699.09; p = 0.047) in the Stroop Task than did the healthy controls. More days on buprenorphine were negatively associated with reaction time in the CPT (-0.52) and the number of commission errors (-0.53), simple reaction time (-0.54), and reaction time correct (-0.57) in the Stroop Task. Neither drug use nor craving was significantly associated with the results for the cognitive tasks. Relative to the control participants, the BMT individuals performed worse in terms of longer reaction times and more commission errors in the Stroop Task. Within the BMT participants, longer times on buprenorphine were associated with better cognitive results in terms of faster reaction times for both tasks and lower commission errors for the Stroop Task.

Cost-effectiveness of office-based buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder.

AIM: To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of office-based buprenorphine treatment (OBBT) in the U.S. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We performed a model-based analysis of buprenorphine treatment provided in a primary care setting for the U.S. population with OUD. INTERVENTION: Buprenorphine treatment provided in a primary care setting. MEASUREMENTS: Fatal and nonfatal overdoses and deaths over five years, discounted lifetime quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs. FINDINGS: For a cohort of 100,000 untreated individuals who enter OBBT, approximately 9350 overdoses would be averted over five years; of these, approximately 900 would have been fatal. OBBT compared to no treatment would yield 1.07 incremental lifetime QALYs per person at an incremental cost of $17,000 per QALY gained when using a healthcare perspective. If OBBT is half as effective and twice as expensive as assumed in the base case, the incremental cost when using a healthcare perspective is $25,500 per QALY gained. Using a limited societal perspective that additionally includes patient costs and criminal justice costs, OBBT is cost-saving compared to no treatment even under pessimistic assumptions about efficacy and cost. CONCLUSIONS: Expansion of OBBT would be highly cost-effective compared to no treatment when considered from a healthcare perspective, and cost-saving when reduced criminal justice costs are included. Given the continuing opioid crisis in the U.S., expansion of this care option should be a high priority.

Kamini, a little recognised source of illicit opioid: A case series of 12 patients.

INTRODUCTION: This case series describes 12 patients who developed opioid use disorder after ingesting a prohibited, imported herbal product, Kamini, which contains Papaver somniferum. They appeared unaware of the risk of dependence from Kamini and most had struggled to manage their use for many months before presenting for treatment. METHODS: After two cases were presented at a clinical meeting, a chart review was conducted of cases across four public opioid treatment clinics in south-east Queensland with about 1500 patients registered, identifying 10 further cases. RESULTS: Twelve patients presented with features of opioid withdrawal, seeking treatment after use of Kamini for periods between 6 months and 8 years. Eleven patients were born in India. Nine patients stabilised on buprenorphine maintenance treatment, three of whom commenced long-acting injectable buprenorphine. One patient left after 1 day and subsequently began methadone treatment with a private prescriber. Two patients on smaller doses and shorter-term use undertook withdrawal with prescribed (off-label) trans-dermal buprenorphine. One patient, initially lost to follow-up, later stabilised on long-acting injectable buprenorphine. Reasons for presenting included supply shortages and financial distress during the COVID-19 pandemic. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Kamini represents an illicit source of non-prescription opioid in Australia. Although classified as an illegal import by the Therapeutic Goods Administration, patients confirm that it is readily available in Brisbane. Targeted efforts are needed to prevent further patients developing opioid dependence from use of Kamini and also to highlight treatment options for those seeking to stop Kamini use.

Characteristics and correlates of fentanyl preferences among people with opioid use disorder.

OBJECTIVES: Fentanyl has come to dominate the U.S. illicit opioid supply. We aimed to characterize and examine correlates of preferences for fentanyl vs. other opioids among individuals starting OUD treatment. METHODS: We interviewed 250 adults initiating buprenorphine treatment with positive fentanyl toxicology at intake. We characterized opioid preferences and examined bivariate associations between opioid preference (preference for heroin, fentanyl, heroin-fentanyl mix, or other opioid) and sociodemographic characteristics, psychosocial factors, and substance use behaviors. We then used multinomial logistic regression to examine factors independently associated with fentanyl preferences. RESULTS: Over half (52.0 %) of participants preferred fentanyl (21.2 % fentanyl alone, 30.8 % heroin-fentanyl mix). In bivariate comparisons, participants who preferred fentanyl were a higher acuity group with respect to risks and problems in general. In the multinomial logistic regression, people who preferred fentanyl, either alone or mixed with heroin, used non-prescribed buprenorphine less in the 30 days preceding treatment entry compared to people who preferred heroin or other opioids (RRRalone= 0.88 [0.78, 0.99]; P = 0.037 and RRRmixed= 0.91 [0.84, 0.99]; P = 0.046). People who preferred fentanyl alone were also younger (RRR= 0.93 [0.90, 0.97]; P < 0.001) and more likely to have severe mental illness (RRR= 2.5 [1.1, 5.6]; P = 0.027) than people who prefer heroin or other opioids. CONCLUSIONS: Many people with OUD report preferring fentanyl. People who express preference for fentanyl differ substantively from those with other opioid preferences, and may be at elevated risk for poor health outcomes. Understanding preferences surrounding fentanyl could inform treatment and harm reduction interventions.

Medicaid participation among practitioners authorized to prescribe buprenorphine.

INTRODUCTION: This study examines Medicaid participation among buprenorphine waivered providers in Virginia in 2019, with a particular focus on the prescribing differences between different physician specialties, nurse practitioners and physicians assistants (NP and PA). METHODS: Secondary data sources include the 2019 DEA list of buprenorphine waivered prescribers, Virginia Medicaid claims for buprenorphine, physician characteristics from the Virginia Department of Health Professions, SAMHSA Behavioral Treatment Services Locator, and area level characteristics. This cross-sectional study is based on a linkage of Medicaid claims data to a list of Virginia practitioners authorized to prescribe buprenorphine in 2019. Using a two-part logistic regression, we assess prescriber license type and local area factors that are associated with: (1) the probability of prescribing buprenorphine to any Medicaid patients in 2019; (2) the number of Medicaid patients treated by each prescriber in 2019. RESULTS: Adjusted odds ratios show that nurse practitioners with buprenorphine waivers are more likely to treat any Medicaid patients compared to physicians (odds ratio (OR), 2.016; p = 0.000). Among prescribers who treated any Medicaid patients, the probability of treating a large number of Medicaid patients was higher among nurse practitioners relative to physicians (OR, 2.869, p = 0.002). Medicaid participation was much higher among prescribers with patient limits of 100 and 275 compared to prescribers with patient limits of 30 (OR, 6.66, p = 0.000 and 29.40, p = 0.000, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: State Medicaid programs have been at the forefront of addressing their state's opioid epidemic, including expanding access to buprenorphine treatment. This study provides evidence that targeted outreach efforts should include NP license types as well as physicians, and is consistent with prior studies showing that NP are especially important in filling treatment gaps for underserved areas and populations.

Cognitive functioning in patients maintained on buprenorphine at peak and trough buprenorphine levels: An experimental study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the cognitive functions in participants maintained on buprenorphine for opioid dependence at peak and trough buprenorphine levels. METHODS: This was a double-blind, randomized, experimental study. Sixty participants maintained on buprenorphine were matched for age and education and randomly allocated to "peak" group or "trough" group. The "peak" group received buprenorphine two hours before assessment, whereas the trough group received placebo. The cognitive domains of attention, learning and memory, and executive function including fluency, working memory, response inhibition and set shifting were tested. RESULTS: The two groups were comparable on socio-demographic, substance use profile and opioid agonist treatment-related characteristics. Significant differences in performance of peak and trough group were observed on Wisconsin Card Sorting Test parameters of number of correct responses (U = 289.00, p = 0.03), number of errors (t = 02.26, df = 58, p = 0.03), and perseverative errors (U = 301.50, p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The time since buprenorphine dose has significant relation on specific cognitive tasks in patients maintained on buprenorphine for opioid dependence.

Does incarceration influence patients' goals for opioid use disorder treatment? A qualitative study of buprenorphine treatment in jail.

BACKGROUND: Correctional facilities increasingly offer medications for opioid use disorder (OUD), including buprenorphine. Nevertheless, retention in treatment post-incarceration is suboptimal and overdose mortality remains high. Our objectives were to understand how incarcerated patients viewed buprenorphine treatment and identify modifiable factors that influenced treatment continuation post-release. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 22 men receiving buprenorphine treatment in an urban jail. Interviews were audio recorded, professionally transcribed, and analyzed using a grounded-theory approach. Team members constructed preliminary case memos from transcripts, and then interactively discussed themes within respective memos. We established participant 'typologies' by consensus. RESULTS: Distinct typologies emerged based on participants' post-release treatment goals: (1) those who viewed buprenorphine treatment as a cure for OUD; (2) those who thought buprenorphine would help manage opioid-related problems; and (3) those who did not desire OUD treatment. Participants also described common social structural barriers to treatment continuation and community re-integration. Participants reported that post-release housing instability, unemployment, and negative interactions with parole contributed to opioid use relapse and re-incarceration. CONCLUSION: Participants had different goals for post-release buprenorphine treatment continuation, but their prior experiences suggested that social structural issues would complicate these plans. Incarceration can intensify marginalization, which when combined with heightened legal supervision, reinforced cycles of release, relapse, and re-incarceration. Participants valued buprenorphine treatment, but other structural and policy changes will be necessary to reduce incarceration-related inequities in opioid overdose mortality.

Behavioral counseling and abstinence-contingent take-home buprenorphine in general practitioners' offices in Malaysia: a randomized, open-label clinical trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: To address the widespread severe problems with opioid use disorder, buprenorphine-naloxone treatment provided by primary care physicians has greatly expanded treatment access; however, treatment is often provided with minimal or no behavioral interventions. Whether or which behavioral interventions are feasible to implement in various settings and improve treatment outcomes has not been established. This study aimed to evaluate two behavioral interventions to improve buprenorphine-naloxone treatment. DESIGN: A 2 × 2 factorial, repeated-measures, open-label, randomized clinical trial. SETTINGS: General medical practice offices in Muar, Malaysia. PARTICIPANTS: Opioid-dependent individuals (n = 234). INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly assigned to one of four treatment conditions and received study interventions for 24 weeks: (1) physician management with or without behavioral counseling and (2) physician management with or without abstinence-contingent buprenorphine-naloxone (ACB) take-home doses. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcomes were proportions of opioid-negative urine tests and HIV risk behaviors [assessed by audio computer-assisted AIDS risk inventory (ACASI-ARI)]. FINDINGS: The rates of opioid-negative urine tests over 24 weeks of treatment were significantly higher with [68.2%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 65-71] than without behavioral counseling (59.2%, 95% CI = 56-62, P < 0.001) and with (71.0%, 95% CI = 68-74) than without ACB (56.4%, 95% CI = 53-59, P < 0.001); interaction effects between and among behavioral interventions and time were not statistically significant. Scores on ACASI-ARI decreased significantly from baseline across all treatment groups (P < 0.001) and did not differ significantly with or without behavioral counseling (P = 0.099) or with or without ACB (P = 0.339). CONCLUSIONS: Providing opioid-dependent patients in Muar, Malaysia with buprenorphine-naloxone and physician management plus behavioral counseling or abstinence-contingent buprenorphine-naloxone (ACB) resulted in greater reductions of opioid use compared with providing buprenorphine-naloxone and physician management without behavioral counseling or ACB.