Towards an International Consensus on the Prevention, Treatment, and Management of High-Risk Substance Use and Overdose among Youth.

Background and Objectives: Now more than ever, there is an obvious need to reduce the overall burden of disease and risk of premature mortality that are associated with mental health and substance use disorders among young people. However, the current state of research and evidence-based clinical care for high-risk substance use among youth is fragmented and scarce. The objective of the study is to establish consensus for the prevention, treatment, and management of high-risk substance use and overdose among youth (10 to 24 years old). Materials and Methods: A modified Delphi technique was used based on the combination of scientific evidence and clinical experience of a group of 31 experts representing 10 countries. A semi-structured questionnaire with five domains (clinical risks, target populations, intervention goals, intervention strategies, and settings/expertise) was shared with the panelists. Based on their responses, statements were developed, which were subsequently revised and finalized through three iterations of feedback. Results: Among the five major domains, 60 statements reached consensus. Importantly, experts agreed that screening in primary care and other clinical settings is recommended for all youth, and that the objectives of treating youth with high-risk substance use are to reduce harm and mortality while promoting resilience and healthy development. For all substance use disorders, evidence-based interventions should be available and should be used according to the needs and preferences of the patient. Involuntary admission was the only topic that did not reach consensus, mainly due to its ethical implications and resulting lack of comparable evidence. Conclusions: High-risk substance use and overdoses among youth have become a major challenge. The system's response has been insufficient and needs substantial change. Internationally devised consensus statements provide a first step in system improvement and reform.

Extended-release naltrexone for youth with opioid use disorder.

BACKGROUND: Few published research studies have examined the effectiveness of extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX) for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) among adolescents and young adults. METHODS: This two-group randomized controlled trial recruited 288 youth, ages 15-21, with moderate/severe OUD from a residential addiction treatment program in Baltimore, Maryland. The study randomized the youth within the first week of treatment entry to receive either XR-NTX or treatment-as-usual (TAU; either buprenorphine maintenance treatment or treatment without OUD medication following medically managed withdrawal) prior to discharge, with continued treatment in the community for 6 months. However, due to various reasons spanning patients' and caregivers' preferences and constraints, considerable participant nonadherence to randomized condition occurred (i.e., only 30% of the participants randomized to XR-NTX received an initial injection, while 27% of participants randomized to TAU received an XR-NTX injection at treatment discharge, instead of their assigned treatment). The study used generalized linear mixed modeling (GLiMM) to examine self-reported 90-day opioid, cocaine, marijuana, and alcohol use as well as DSM-5 OUD criteria on "intention-to-treat" (as randomized), "as-received" (XR-NTX vs. not XR-NTX), and "as-medicated" (XR-NTX vs. buprenorphine vs. no medication) bases. RESULTS: The condition x time interactions in the intention-to-treat analyses failed to reach significance for past-90-day self-reported use of illicit opioids, cocaine, marijuana, or alcohol, or in meeting DSM-5 OUD criteria at 3 or 6 months [all ps > 0.05]. However, these findings are of limited interpretive value due to participant nonadherence to their randomized condition. When the study analyzed results by the treatment received at discharge, the "as-received" group x time interaction for illicit opioid use was significant [p = .003], with the XR-NTX group reporting less opioid use in the past 90 days at 3 and 6 months. Participants who received their first XR-NTX dose at inpatient discharge (n = 82) received, on average, 1.3 subsequent injections in the community over the 6-month study follow-up period. Only 2 of the 82 study participants received XR-NTX continuously through the 6-month postdischarge follow-up period. Twelve serious adverse events (SAEs) occurred during the study, but the study determined that only 1 was possibly study related (hepatitis C/elevated liver function test results). CONCLUSION: None of the condition x time interactions in the intention-to-treat analyses reached significance. Participants' nonadherence may have contributed to the failure to reject the null hypothesis. Irrespective of randomized condition, participants who received XR-NTX for OUD demonstrated low retention in treatment, receiving an average of only 1.3 subsequent injections, yet reported less opioid use at follow-up than participants who did not received XR-NTX. Treatment programs should consider XR-NTX as a treatment option for youth motivated to receive it. Future research should focus on building developmentally informed strategies to improve uptake of and adherence to relapse prevention medication in this population.

Examination of Correlates of OUD Outcomes in Young Adults: Secondary Analysis From the XBOT Trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment outcomes are poorer for young adults than older adults. Developmental differences are broadly implicated, but particular vulnerability factor interactions are poorly understood. This study sought to identify moderators of OUD relapse between age groups. METHODS: This secondary analysis compared young adults (18-25) to older adults (26+) from a comparative effectiveness trial ("XBOT") that randomized (N = 570) participants to extended-release naltrexone or sublingual buprenorphine-naloxone. We explored the relationship between 25 prespecified patient baseline characteristics and relapse to regular opioid use by age group and treatment condition, using logistic regression. RESULTS: Young adults (n = 111) had higher rates of 24-week relapse than older adults (n = 459) (70.3% vs 58.8%) and differed on a number of specific characteristics, including more smokers, more intravenous opioid use, and more cannabis use. No significant moderators predicted relapse, in either three-way or two-way interactions. CONCLUSIONS AND SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE: No baseline factors were identified as moderating the relationship between age group and opioid relapse, nor any interactions between baseline characteristics, age group, and treatment condition to predict opioid relapse. Poorer treatment outcomes for young adults are likely associated with multiple developmental vulnerabilities rather than any single predominant factor. Although not reaching significance, several characteristics (using heroin, smoking tobacco, high levels of depression/anxiety, or treatment because of family/friends) showed higher odds ratio point estimates for relapse in young adults than older adults. This is the first study to explore moderators of worse OUD treatment outcomes in young adults, highlighting the need to identify predictor variables that could inform treatment enhancements. (Am J Addict 2021;00:1-12).

Consequences to patients, clinicians, and manufacturers when very serious adverse drug reactions are identified (1997-2019): A qualitative analysis from the Southern Network on Adverse Reactions (SONAR).

BACKGROUND: Adverse drug/device reactions (ADRs) can result in severe patient harm. We define very serious ADRs as being associated with severe toxicity, as measured on the Common Toxicity Criteria Adverse Events (CTCAE)) scale, following use of drugs or devices with large sales, large financial settlements, and large numbers of injured persons. We report on impacts on patients, clinicians, and manufacturers following very serious ADR reporting. METHODS: We reviewed clinician identified very serious ADRs published between 1997 and 2019. Drugs and devices associated with reports of very serious ADRs were identified. Included drugs or devices had market removal discussed at Food and Drug Advisory (FDA) Advisory Committee meetings, were published by clinicians, had sales > $1 billion, were associated with CTCAE Grade 4 or 5 toxicity effects, and had either >$1 billion in settlements or >1,000 injured patients. Data sources included journals, Congressional transcripts, and news reports. We reviewed data on: 1) timing of ADR reports, Boxed warnings, and product withdrawals, and 2) patient, clinician, and manufacturer impacts. Binomial analysis was used to compare sales pre- and post-FDA Advisory Committee meetings. FINDINGS: Twenty very serious ADRs involved fifteen drugs and one device. Legal settlements totaled $38.4 billion for 753,900 injured persons. Eleven of 18 clinicians (61%) reported harms, including verbal threats from manufacturer (five) and loss of a faculty position (one). Annual sales decreased 94% from $29.1 billion pre-FDA meeting to $4.9 billion afterwards (p<0.0018). Manufacturers of four drugs paid $1.7 billion total in criminal fines for failing to inform the FDA and physicians about very serious ADRs. Following FDA approval, the median time to ADR reporting was 7.5 years (Interquartile range 3,13 years). Twelve drugs received Box warnings and one drug received a warning (median, 7.5 years following ADR reporting (IQR 5,11 years). Six drugs and 1 device were withdrawn from marketing (median, 5 years after ADR reporting (IQR 4,6 years)). INTERPRETATION: Because very serious ADRs impacts are so large, policy makers should consider developing independently funded pharmacovigilance centers of excellence to assist with clinician investigations. FUNDING: This work received support from the National Cancer Institute (1R01 CA102713 (CLB), https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/what-we-do/nih-almanac/national-cancer-institute-nci; and two Pilot Project grants from the American Cancer Society's Institutional Grant Award to the University of South Carolina (IRG-13-043-01) https://www.cancer.org/ (SH; BS).

The First 2 Years of Biosimilar Epoetin for Cancer and Chemotherapy-Induced Anemia in the U.S.: A Review from the Southern Network on Adverse Reactions.

Biosimilars are biologic drug products that are highly similar to reference products in analytic features, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity, safety, and efficacy. Biosimilar epoetin received Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in 2018. The manufacturer received an FDA nonapproval letter in 2017, despite receiving a favorable review by FDA's Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) and an FDA nonapproval letter in 2015 for an earlier formulation. We discuss the 2018 FDA approval, the 2017 FDA ODAC Committee review, and the FDA complete response letters in 2015 and 2017; review concepts of litigation, naming, labeling, substitution, interchangeability, and pharmacovigilance; review European and U.S. oncology experiences with biosimilar epoetin; and review the safety of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents. In 2020, policy statements from AETNA, United Health Care, and Humana indicated that new epoetin oncology starts must be for biosimilar epoetin unless medical need for other epoetins is documented. Empirical studies report that as of 2012, reference epoetin use decreased from 40%-60% of all patients with cancer with chemotherapy-induced anemia to <5% of such patients because of safety concerns. Between 2018 and 2020, biosimilar epoetin use varied, increasing to 81% among one private insurer's patients covered by Medicare whose cancer care is administered with Oncology Analytics and to 41% with the same private insurer's patients with cancer covered by commercial health insurance and administered by the private insurer, to 0% in several Veterans Administration Hospitals, increasing to 100% in one large county hospital in California, and with yet-to-be-reported data from most oncology settings. We conclude that biosimilar epoetin appears to have overcome some barriers since 2015, although current uptake in the U.S. is variable. Pricing and safety considerations for all erythropoiesis-stimulating agents are primary determinants of biosimilar epoetin oncology uptake. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Few oncologists understand substitution and interchangeability of biosimilars with reference drugs. Epoetin biosimilar is new to the market, and physician and patient understanding is limited. The development of epoetin biosimilar is not familiar to oncologists.

NIDA Clinical Trials Network CTN-0051, Extended-Release Naltrexone vs. Buprenorphine for Opioid Treatment (X:BOT): Study design and rationale.

INTRODUCTION: For opioid-dependent patients in the US and elsewhere, detoxification and counseling-only aftercare are treatment mainstays. Long-term abstinence is rarely achieved; many patients relapse and overdose after detoxification. Methadone, buprenorphine-naloxone (BUP-NX) and extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX) can prevent opioid relapse but are underutilized. This study is intended to develop an evidence-base to help patients and providers make informed choices and to foster wider adoption of relapse-prevention pharmacotherapies. METHODS: The National Institute on Drug Abuse's Clinical Trials Network (CTN) study CTN-0051, X:BOT, is a comparative effectiveness study of treatment for 24weeks with XR-NTX, an opioid antagonist, versus BUP-NX, a high affinity partial opioid agonist, for opioid dependent patients initiating treatment at 8 short-term residential (detoxification) units and continuing care as outpatients. Up to 600 participants are randomized (1:1) to XR-NTX or BUP-NX. RESULTS: The primary outcome is time to opioid relapse (i.e., loss of persistent abstinence) across the 24-week treatment phase. Differences between arms in the distribution of time-to-relapse will be compared (construction of the asymptotic 95% CI for the hazard ratio of the difference between arms). Secondary outcomes include proportions retained in treatment, rates of opioid abstinence, adverse events, cigarette, alcohol, and other drug use, and HIV risk behaviors; opioid cravings, quality of life, cognitive function, genetic moderators, and cost effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: XR-NTX and BUP-NX differ considerably in their characteristics and clinical management; no studies to date have compared XR-NTX with buprenorphine maintenance. Study design choices and compromises inherent to a comparative effectiveness trial of distinct treatment regimens are reviewed. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02032433.

Guideline-Based Peer-to-Peer Consultation Optimizes Pegfilgrastim Use With No Adverse Clinical Consequences.

PURPOSE: Practice guidelines do not recommend the routine use of colony-stimulating factors when there is a low risk (< 10%) of febrile neutropenia (FN). We prospectively determined whether expert peer-to-peer consultation with prescribing oncologists would improve adherence to guidelines and whether there would be any adverse events associated with that adherence. METHODS: Commencing in March 2010, we reviewed requests for pegfilgrastim from 22 community oncology practices comprising 78 physicians providing service to approximately 97,000 Medicare members. Paid claims data on all chemotherapy and supportive care medications were reviewed from fourth quarter (Q4) 2009 through third quarter (Q3) 2010. In total, 82 patients received pegfilgrastim. If the prescribed chemotherapy was associated with a low risk (< 10%) for FN, then a peer review was initiated. The treating physician made the final decision to use, or not use, pegfilgrastim, and no denials were issued. RESULTS: A total of 245 units (1 unit = 6 mg) of pegfilgrastim were administered during the four quarters analyzed. Use in the low-risk category decreased from 52 units in Q4 2009 to 15 units in Q3 2010. The per-member per-month (PMPM) cost of pegfilgrastim decreased across quarters, with an average cost of $1.07 PMPM for Q4 2009 and $0.57 PMPM for Q3 2010. No studied patient was admitted for neutropenic fever. CONCLUSION: Active expert peer-to-peer consultation with prescribing oncologists can promote adherence to guidelines and potentially lead to significant cost reductions without significant risk of neutropenic fever, with or without hospitalization, for patients with cancer.

Guideline-based peer-to-peer consultation optimizes pegfilgrastim use with no adverse clinical consequences.

OBJECTIVES: Practice guidelines do not recommend the routine use of colony-stimulating factors when there is a low risk (<10%) of febrile neutropenia (FN). We prospectively determined whether expert peer-to-peer consultation with prescribing oncologists would improve adherence to guidelines and whether there would be any adverse events associated with that adherence. METHODS: Commencing in March 2010, we reviewed requests for pegfilgrastim from 22 community oncology practices comprising 78 physicians providing service to approximately 97,000 Medicare members. Paid claims data on all chemotherapy and supportive care medications were reviewed from fourth quarter (Q4) 2009 through third quarter (Q3) 2010. In total, 82 patients received pegfilgrastim. If the prescribed chemotherapy was associated with a low risk (<10%) for FN, then a peer review was initiated. The treating physician made the final decision to use, or not use, pegfilgrastim, and no denials were issued. RESULTS: A total of 245 units (1 unit = 6 mg) of pegfilgrastim were administered during the 4 quarters analyzed. Use in the low-risk category decreased from 52 units in Q4 2009 to 15 units in Q3 2010. The per member per month (PMPM) cost of pegfilgrastim decreased across quarters, with an average cost of $1.07 PMPM for Q4 2009 and $0.57 PMPM for Q3 2010. No studied patient was admitted for neutropenic fever. CONCLUSIONS: Active expert peer-to-peer consultation with prescribing oncologists can promote adherence to guidelines and potentially lead to significant cost reductions without significant risk of neutropenic fever, with or without hospitalization, for patients with cancer.

Countering the Misincentivization of Cancer Medicine by Real-Time Personal Professional Education.

PURPOSE: In the United States, public and private payer misincentivization of medical care and the invisibility of costs to the consumers of that care have conspired to create unsustainable growth in health care expenditure that undermines our economy, diminishes our productivity, and limits our international competitiveness. Cancer medicine provides a small yet salient example. On average, Medicare reimburses oncologists 6% above the average acquisition price for essential anticancer agents and supportive therapies. The costs of these agents vary across a stunning five orders of magnitude, from a few dollars to more than $400,000 per course of treatment. The profitability to providers varies across approximately four orders of magnitude, from cents to thousands of dollars per treatment. National guidelines (National Comprehensive Cancer Network [NCCN], American Society of Clinical Oncology [ASCO]) help providers select the most effective therapies without regard for cost. METHODS: We created an oncologist-to-oncologist professional education program to help cancer physicians optimally use expensive long-acting white blood cell growth factors, in accordance with these national guidelines. We then compared their use across a population of approximately 97,000 Medicare members before and after our intervention. Baseline use was recorded over two consecutive quarters (2009 to 2010). In March 2010, our oncologists initiated real-time discussions with the oncologists of 22 separate groups if these agents were ordered for use with regimens that placed patients at less than 10% risk of febrile neutropenia, according to NCCN guidelines. Neither NCCN nor ASCO recommend the routine use of these agents in this low-risk group. The care of 82 such patients was thoroughly discussed in the following 6 months. RESULTS: The monthly costs for these agents decreased by more than 50% by the final month of our intervention, although savings began immediately, reducing costs by more than $150,000 per quarter. No episode of febrile neutropenia was recorded in any patient in the intervention group. These savings generalize to the entire Medicare population at $30 million each month. CONCLUSION: We conclude that personal, oncologist-to-oncologist, real-time professional education will favorably modify oncologic prescribing behavior and can do so with significant immediate savings at no risk to patients with cancer.

Precipitated withdrawal during maintenance opioid blockade with extended release naltrexone.

Background There has been increasing interest in the use of extended release injectable naltrexone for the treatment of opioid dependence. Case description We report a case of precipitated withdrawal in a 17-year-old adolescent female receiving extended release naltrexone (Vivitrol) for opioid dependence, following her third serial monthly dose of the medication, several days after using oxycodone with mild intoxication. Conclusions This case suggests that, in some circumstances, the opioid blockade may be overcome when naltrexone levels drop towards the end of the dosing interval, producing vulnerability to subsequent naltrexone-induced withdrawal. This may provide cautionary guidance for clinical management and dosing strategies.

Clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes of adolescent heroin users.

Heroin use among adolescents is a major social and health problem, and has been increasing over the past decade, but has not been extensively studied. This study compared characteristics of adolescent heroin users (n = 56) to adolescent non heroin users (n = 93) at entry to short-term residential treatment through 12 months posttreatment. The heroin group was comprised of more females, older adolescents, and more Caucasians. At baseline, heroin users reported more days of drug use, days high, days not meeting responsibilities, and had more substance abuse and dependence symptoms. Heroin users also showed greater severity on multiple indicators of functional impairment and psychological distress. Although adolescent heroin users appear to represent a distinct subpopulation with multiple indicators of heightened severity, they respond to treatment with significant reductions in drug use, psychological symptoms, illegal activities, and overall psychosocial impairment. Furthermore, adolescent heroin users respond to treatment in the same remitting/relapsing pattern as non heroin users, yet their higher severity persists over a 12 month follow-up period. Further research is needed to generalize these findings to other settings, and to guide the development and evaluation of treatment options for adolescent heroin users.