Comparative Analysis of Instrumental Variables on the Assignment of Buprenorphine/Naloxone or Methadone for the Treatment of Opioid Use Disorder.

BACKGROUND: Instrumental variable (IV) analysis provides an alternative set of identification assumptions in the presence of uncontrolled confounding when attempting to estimate causal effects. Our objective was to evaluate the suitability of measures of prescriber preference and calendar time as potential IVs to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of buprenorphine/naloxone versus methadone for treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD). METHODS: Using linked population-level health administrative data, we constructed five IVs: prescribing preference at the individual, facility, and region levels (continuous and categorical variables), calendar time, and a binary prescriber's preference IV in analyzing the treatment assignment-treatment discontinuation association using both incident-user and prevalent-new-user designs. Using published guidelines, we assessed and compared each IV according to the four assumptions for IVs, employing both empirical assessment and content expertise. We evaluated the robustness of results using sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The study sample included 35,904 incident users (43.3% on buprenorphine/naloxone) initiated on opioid agonist treatment by 1585 prescribers during the study period. While all candidate IVs were strong (A1) according to conventional criteria, by expert opinion, we found no evidence against assumptions of exclusion (A2), independence (A3), monotonicity (A4a), and homogeneity (A4b) for prescribing preference-based IV. Some criteria were violated for the calendar time-based IV. We determined that preference in provider-level prescribing, measured on a continuous scale, was the most suitable IV for comparative effectiveness of buprenorphine/naloxone and methadone for the treatment of OUD. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that prescriber's preference measures are suitable IVs in comparative effectiveness studies of treatment for OUD.

The Association Between Self-Reported Anxiety and Retention in Opioid Agonist Therapy: Findings From a Canadian Pragmatic Trial.

BACKGROUND: Prescription-type opioid use disorder (POUD) is often accompanied by comorbid anxiety, yet the impact of anxiety on retention in opioid agonist therapy (OAT) is unclear. Therefore, this study investigated whether baseline anxiety severity affects retention in OAT and whether this effect differs by OAT type (methadone maintenance therapy (MMT) vs. buprenorphine/naloxone (BNX)). METHODS: This secondary analysis used data from a pan-Canadian randomized trial comparing flexible take-home dosing BNX and standard supervised MMT for 24 weeks. The study included 268 adults with POUD. Baseline anxiety was assessed using the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI), with BAI ≥ 16 indicating moderate-to-severe anxiety. The primary outcomes were retention in assigned and any OAT at week 24. In addition, the impact of anxiety severity on retention was examined, and assigned OAT was considered an effect modifier. RESULTS: Of the participants, 176 (65%) reported moderate-to-severe baseline anxiety. In adjusted analyses, there was no significant difference in retention between those with BAI ≥ 16 and those with BAI < 16 assigned (29% vs. 28%; odds ratio (OR) = 2.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.94-4.40; P = 0.07) or any OAT (35% vs. 34%; OR = 1.57, 95% CI = 0.77-3.21; P = 0.21). In addition, there was no significant effect modification by OAT type for retention in assigned (P = 0.41) or any OAT (P = 0.71). In adjusted analyses, greater retention in treatment was associated with BNX (vs. MMT), male gender identity (vs. female, transgender, or other), enrolment in the Quebec study site (vs. other sites), and absence of a positive urine drug screen for stimulants at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline anxiety severity did not significantly impact retention in OAT for adults with POUD, and there was no significant effect modification by OAT type. However, the overall retention rates were low, highlighting the need to develop new strategies to minimize the risk of attrition from treatment. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03033732).

Opioid agonist treatment outcomes among individuals with a history of nonfatal overdose: Findings from a pragmatic, pan-Canadian, randomized control trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: History of nonfatal overdose (NFO) is common among people who use opioids, but little is known about opioid agonist treatment (OAT) outcomes for this high-risk subpopulation. The objective of this study was to investigate the relative effectiveness of buprenorphine/naloxone and methadone on retention and suppression of opioid use among individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) and history of NFO. METHODS: Secondary analysis of a pan-Canadian pragmatic trial comparing flexible take-home buprenorphine/naloxone and supervised methadone for people with OUD and history of NFO. Logistic regression was used to examine the impact of OAT on retention in the assigned or in any OAT at 24 weeks and analysis of covariance was used to examine the mean difference in opioid use between treatment arms. RESULTS: Of the 272 randomized participants, 155 (57%) reported at least one NFO at baseline. Retention rates in the assigned treatment were 17.7% in the buprenorphine/naloxone group and 18.4% in the methadone group (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.17-1.54). Rates of retention in any OAT were 28% and 20% in the buprenorphine/naloxone and methadone arms, respectively (AOR = 1.55, 95% CI: 0.65-3.78). There was an 11.9% adjusted mean difference in opioid-free urine drug tests, favoring the buprenorphine/naloxone arm (95% CI: 3.5-20.3; p = .0057). CONCLUSIONS AND SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE: Among adults with OUD and a history of overdose, overall retention rates were low but improved when retention in any treatment was considered. These findings highlight the importance of flexibility and patient-centered care to improve retention and other treatment outcomes in this population.

Does This Patient Have Alcohol Use Disorder?: The Rational Clinical Examination Systematic Review.

Importance: The accuracy of screening tests for alcohol use disorder (defined as a problematic pattern of alcohol use leading to clinically significant impairment or distress) requires reassessment to align with the latest definition in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth Edition) (DSM-5). Objective: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of screening tools in identifying individuals with alcohol use disorder as defined in the DSM-5. Data Sources and Study Selection: The databases of MEDLINE and Embase were searched (January 2013-February 2023) for original studies on the diagnostic accuracy of brief screening tools to identify alcohol use disorder according to the DSM-5 definition. Because diagnosis of alcohol use disorder does not include excessive alcohol use as a criterion, studies of screening tools that identify excessive or high-risk drinking among younger (aged 9-18 years), older (aged ≥65 years), and pregnant persons also were retained. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios (LRs) were calculated. When appropriate, a meta-analysis was performed to calculate a summary LR. Results: Of 4303 identified studies, 35 were retained (N = 79 633). There were 11 691 individuals with alcohol use disorder or a history of excessive drinking. Across all age categories, a score of 8 or greater on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) increased the likelihood of alcohol use disorder (LR, 6.5 [95% CI, 3.9-11]). A positive screening result using AUDIT identified alcohol use disorder better among females (LR, 6.9 [95% CI, 3.9-12]) than among males (LR, 3.8 [95% CI, 2.6-5.5]) (P = .003). An AUDIT score of less than 8 reduced the likelihood of alcohol use disorder similarly for both males and females (LR, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.20-0.52]). The abbreviated AUDIT-Consumption (AUDIT-C) has sex-specific cutoff scores of 4 or greater for males and 3 or greater for females, but was less useful for identifying alcohol use disorder (males: LR, 1.8 [95% CI, 1.5-2.2]; females: LR, 2.0 [95% CI, 1.8-2.3]). The AUDIT-C appeared useful for identifying measures of excessive alcohol use in younger people (aged 9-18 years) and in those older than 60 years of age. For those younger than 18 years of age, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism age-specific drinking thresholds were helpful for assessing the likelihood of alcohol use disorder at the lowest risk threshold (LR, 0.15 [95% CI, 0.11-0.21]), at the moderate risk threshold (LR, 3.4 [95% CI, 2.8-4.1]), and at the highest risk threshold (LR, 15 [95% CI, 12-19]). Among persons who were pregnant and screened within 48 hours after delivery, an AUDIT score of 4 or greater identified those more likely to have alcohol use disorder (LR, 6.4 [95% CI, 5.1-8.0]), whereas scores of less than 2 for the Tolerance, Worried, Eye-Opener, Amnesia and Cut-Down screening tool and the Tolerance, Annoyed, Cut-Down and Eye-Opener screening tool identified alcohol use disorder similarly (LR, 0.05 [95% CI, 0.01-0.20]). Conclusions and Relevance: The AUDIT screening tool is useful to identify alcohol use disorder in adults and in individuals within 48 hours postpartum. The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism youth screening tool is helpful to identify children and adolescents with alcohol use disorder. The AUDIT-C appears useful for identifying various measures of excessive alcohol use in young people and in older adults.

Amphetamine-Related Emergency Department Visits in Ontario, Canada, 2003-2020.

OBJECTIVES: Despite unregulated amphetamine use increasing, there are limited data on related emergency department (ED) visits in Canada. Our primary objective was to examine trends in amphetamine-related ED visits over time in Ontario, including by age and sex. Secondary objectives were to examine whether patient characteristics were associated with ED revisit within 6 months. METHODS: Using administrative claims and census data, we calculated annual patient- and encounter-based rates of amphetamine-related ED visits from 2003 to 2020 among individuals 18+ years of age. We also performed a retrospective cohort study of individuals with amphetamine-related ED visits between 2019 and 2020 to determine whether select factors were associated with ED revisit within 6 months. Multivariable logistic regression modelling was used to measure associations. RESULTS: The population-based rate of amphetamine-related ED visits increased nearly 15-fold between 2003 (1.9/100,000 Ontarians) and 2020 (27.9/100,000 Ontarians). Seventy-five percent of individuals returned to the ED for any reason within 6 months. Psychosis and use of other substances were both independently associated with ED revisit for any reason within 6 months (psychosis: AOR = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.30-1.83; other substances: AOR = 1.84, 95% CI = 1.57-2.15), whereas having a primary care physician was negatively associated with ED revisit (AOR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.60-0.98). CONCLUSIONS: Increasing rates of amphetamine-related ED visits in Ontario are cause for concern. Diagnoses of psychosis and the use of other substances may serve to identify individuals who are most likely to benefit from both primary and substance-specific care.

Comparison of Treatment Options for Refractory Opioid Use Disorder in the United States and Canada: a Narrative Review.

Amidst the opioid overdose crisis, there are increased efforts to expand access to medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD). Hospitalization for the complications of substance use in the United States (US) provides an opportunity to initiate methadone, buprenorphine, and extended release naltrexone and link high-risk, not otherwise engaged, patients into outpatient care. However, treatment options for patients are quickly exhausted when these medications are not desired, tolerated, or beneficial. As an example, we discuss the case of a man who was hospitalized 27 times over 2 years for complications related to his opioid use disorder (OUD), including recurring methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus vertebral osteomyelitis, increasing antimicrobial resistance, new infections, and multiple overdoses in and out of the hospital. The patient suffered these complications despite efforts to treat his OUD with methadone and buprenorphine while hospitalized, and repeated attempts to link him to outpatient care. We use this case to review evidence-based treatments for refractory OUD, which are not approved in the US, but are available in Canada. If hospitalized in Vancouver, Canada, this patient could have been offered slow-release oral morphine and injectable opioid agonist therapy, as well as access to sterile syringes and injection equipment at an in-hospital supervised injection facility. Each of these approaches is supported by evidence and has been implemented successfully in Canada, yet none are available in the US. In order to combat the multiple harms from opioids, it is critical that we consider every evidence-based tool.