Superiority and cost-effectiveness of monthly extended-release buprenorphine versus daily standard of care medication: a pragmatic, parallel-group, open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

Background: Daily methadone maintenance or buprenorphine treatment is the standard-of-care (SoC) medication for opioid use disorder (OUD). Subcutaneously injected, extended-release buprenorphine (BUP-XR) may be more effective-but there has been no superiority evaluation. Methods: This pragmatic, parallel-group, open-label, multi-centre, effectiveness superiority randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial was conducted at five National Health Service community-based treatment clinics in England and Scotland. Participants (adults aged ≥ 18 years; all meeting DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for moderate or severe OUD at admission to their current maintenance treatment episode) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive continued daily SoC (liquid methadone (usual dose range: 60-120 mg) or sublingual/transmucosal buprenorphine (usual dose range: 8-24 mg) for 24 weeks; or monthly BUP-XR (Sublocade;® two injections of 300 mg, then four maintenance injections of 100 mg or 300 mg, with maintenance dose selected by response and preference) for 24 weeks. In the intent-to-treat population (senior statistician blinded to blinded to treatment group allocation), and with a seven-day grace period after randomisation, the primary endpoint was the count of days abstinent from non-medical opioids between days 8-168 (i.e., weeks 2-24; range: 0-161 days). Safety was reported for the intention-to- treat population. Adopting a broad societal perspective inclusive of criminal justice, NHS and personal social service costs, a trial-based cost-utility analysis estimated the Incremental Cost-effectiveness Ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of BUP-XR versus SoC at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold. The study was registered EudraCT (2018-004460-63) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05164549), and is completed. Findings: Between Aug 9, 2019 and Nov 2, 2021, 314 participants were randomly allocated to receive SoC (n = 156) or BUP-XR (n = 158). Participants were abstinent from opioids for an adjusted mean of 104.37 days (standard error [SE] 9.89; range: 0-161 days) in the SoC group and an adjusted mean of 123.43 days (SE 4.76; range: 24-161 days) in the BUP-XR group (adjusted incident rate ratio [IRR] 1.18, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-1.33; p-value 0.004). The incidence of any adverse event was higher in the BUP-XR group than the SoC group (128 [81.0%] of 158 participants versus 67 [42.9%] of 156 participants, respectively-most commonly rapidly-resolving (mild-moderate range) pain from drug administration in the BUP-XR group (121 [26.9%] of 450 adverse events). There were 11 serious adverse events (7.0%) in the 158 participants in the BUP-XR group, and 18 serious adverse events (11.5%) in the 156 participants in the SoC group-none judged to be related to study treatment. The BUP-XR treatment group had a mean incremental cost of £1033 (95% central range [CR] -1189 to 3225) and was associated with a mean incremental QALY of 0.02 (95% CR 0.00-0.05), and an ICER of £47,540 (0.37 probability of being cost-effective at the £30,000/QALY gained willingness-to-pay threshold). However, BUP-XR dominated the SoC among participants who were rated more severe at study baseline, and among participants in maintenance treatment for more that 28 days at study enrolment. Interpretation: Evaluated against the daily oral SoC, monthly BUP-XR is clinically superior, delivering greater abstinence from opioids, and with a comparable safety profile. BUP-XR was not cost-effective in a base case cost-utility analysis using the societal perspective, but it was more effective and less costly (dominant) among participants with more severe OUD, or those whose current treatment episode was longer than 28 days. Further trials are needed to evaluate if BUP-XR is associated with better clinical and health economic outcomes over the longer term. Funding: Indivior.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Financial Incentives to Achieve Heroin Abstinence in Individuals With Heroin Use Disorder Starting New Treatment Episodes: A Cluster Randomized Trial-Based Economic Evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: Cost-effectiveness analysis of two 12-week contingency management (CM) schedules targeting heroin abstinence or attendance at weekly keyworker appointments for opioid agonist treatment compared with treatment as usual (TAU). METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted alongside a cluster randomized trial of 552 patients from 34 clusters (drug treatment clinics) randomly allocated 1:1:1 to opioid agonist treatment plus weekly keyworker appointments with (1) CM targeted at heroin abstinence (CM abstinence), (2) CM targeted at on-time attendance at weekly appointments (CM attendance), or (3) no CM (TAU). The primary cost-effectiveness analysis at 24 weeks after randomization took a societal cost perspective with effects measured in heroin-negative urine samples. RESULTS: At 24 weeks, mean differences in weekly heroin-negative urine results compared with TAU were 0.252 (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.397 to 0.901) for CM abstinence and 0.089 (95% CI -0.223 to 0.402) for CM attendance. Mean differences in costs were £2562 (95% CI £32-£5092) for CM abstinence and £317 (95% CI -£882 to £1518) for CM attendance. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were £10 167 per additional heroin-free urine for CM abstinence and £3562 for CM attendance with low probabilities of cost-effectiveness of 3.5% and 36%, respectively. Results were sensitive to timing of follow-up for CM attendance, which dominated TAU (better outcomes, lower costs) at 12 weeks, with an 88.4% probability of being cost-effective. Probability of cost-effectiveness remained low for CM abstinence (8.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Financial incentives targeted toward heroin abstinence and treatment attendance were not cost-effective over the 24-week follow-up. Nevertheless, CM attendance was cost-effective over the treatment period (12 weeks), when participants were receiving keyworker appointments and incentives.

Extended-release pharmacotherapy for opioid use disorder (EXPO): protocol for an open-label randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of injectable buprenorphine versus sublingual tablet buprenorphine and oral liquid methadone.

BACKGROUND: Sublingual tablet buprenorphine (BUP-SL) and oral liquid methadone (MET) are the daily, standard-of-care (SOC) opioid agonist treatment medications for opioid use disorder (OUD). A sizable proportion of the OUD treatment population is not exposed to sufficient treatment to attain the desired clinical benefit. Two promising therapeutic technologies address this deficit: long-acting injectable buprenorphine and personalised psychosocial interventions (PSI). This study will determine (A) the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness - monthly injectable, extended-release (BUP-XR) in a head-to-head comparison with BUP-SL and MET, and (B) the effectiveness of BUP-XR with adjunctive PSI versus BUP-SL and MET with PSI. Safety, retention, craving, substance use, quality-adjusted life years, social functioning, and subjective recovery from OUD will be also evaluated. METHODS: This is a pragmatic, multi-centre, open-label, parallel-group, superiority RCT, with a qualitative (mixed-methods) evaluation. The study population is adults. The setting is five National Health Service community treatment centres in England and Scotland. At each centre, participants will be randomly allocated (1:1) to BUP-XR or SOC. At the London study co-ordinating centre, there will also be allocation of participants to BUP-XR with PSI or SOC with PSI. With 24 weeks of study treatment, the primary outcome is days of abstinence from non-medical opioids during study weeks 2-24 combined with up to 12 urine drug screen tests for opioids. For 90% power (alpha, 5%; 15% inflation for attrition), 304 participants are needed for the BUP-XR versus SOC comparison. With the same planning parameters, 300 participants are needed for the BUP-XR and PSI versus SOC and PSI comparison. Statistical and health economic analysis plans will be published before data-lock on the Open Science Framework. Findings will be reported in accordance with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards. DISCUSSION: This pragmatic randomised controlled trial is the first evaluation of injectable BUP-XR versus the SOC medications BUP-SL and MET, with personalised PSI. If there is evidence for the superiority of BUP-XR over SOC medication, study findings will have substantial implications for OUD clinical practice and treatment policy in the UK and elsewhere. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EU Clinical Trials register 2018-004460-63.

Using a pragmatically adapted, low-cost contingency management intervention to promote heroin abstinence in individuals undergoing treatment for heroin use disorder in UK drug services (PRAISE): a cluster randomised trial.

INTRODUCTION: Most individuals treated for heroin use disorder receive opioid agonist treatment (OAT)(methadone or buprenorphine). However, OAT is associated with high attrition and persistent, occasional heroin use. There is some evidence for the effectiveness of contingency management (CM), a behavioural intervention involving modest financial incentives, in encouraging drug abstinence when applied adjunctively with OAT. UK drug services have a minimal track record of applying CM and limited resources to implement it. We assessed a CM intervention pragmatically adapted for ease of implementation in UK drug services to promote heroin abstinence among individuals receiving OAT. DESIGN: Cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: 552 adults with heroin use disorder (target 660) enrolled from 34 clusters (drug treatment clinics) in England between November 2012 and October 2015. INTERVENTIONS: Clusters were randomly allocated 1:1:1 to OAT plus 12× weekly appointments with: (1) CM targeted at opiate abstinence at appointments (CM Abstinence); (2) CM targeted at on-time attendance at appointments (CM Attendance); or (3) no CM (treatment as usual; TAU). Modifications included monitoring behaviour weekly and fixed incentives schedule. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcome: heroin abstinence measured by heroin-free urines (weeks 9-12). SECONDARY OUTCOMES: heroin abstinence 12 weeks after discontinuation of CM (weeks 21-24); attendance; self-reported drug use, physical and mental health. RESULTS: CM Attendance was superior to TAU in encouraging heroin abstinence. Odds of a heroin-negative urine in weeks 9-12 was statistically significantly greater in CM Attendance compared with TAU (OR=2.1; 95% CI 1.1 to 3.9; p=0.030). CM Abstinence was not superior to TAU (OR=1.6; 95% CI 0.9 to 3.0; p=0.146) or CM Attendance (OR=1.3; 95% CI 0.7 to 2.4; p=0.438) (not statistically significant differences). Reductions in heroin use were not sustained at 21-24 weeks. No differences between groups in self-reported heroin use. CONCLUSIONS: A pragmatically adapted CM intervention for routine use in UK drug services was moderately effective in encouraging heroin abstinence compared with no CM only when targeted at attendance. CM targeted at abstinence was not effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN 01591254.

Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of an adjunctive personalised psychosocial intervention in treatment-resistant maintenance opioid agonist therapy: a pragmatic, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Opioid use disorder is a chronic, debilitating, and costly disorder that has increased in prevalence in many countries, with an associated sharp rise in mortality. Maintenance opioid agonist therapy is the first-line treatment, but many patients do not stop using illicit or non-prescribed drugs concomitantly. We aimed to test the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a personalised psychosocial intervention implemented with a toolkit of behaviour-change techniques as an adjunct to opioid agonist therapy. METHODS: We did a pragmatic, open-label, randomised controlled trial at a specialist UK National Health Service community addictions clinic in London, UK. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, met criteria for opioid or cocaine dependence, or both, in the past 12 months, and voluntarily sought continued oral maintenance opioid agonist therapy, which they had been prescribed for at least 6 weeks. All participants were treatment resistant (ie, had used illicit or non-prescribed opioids or cocaine on one or more days in the past 28 days at study screening, which was verified by positive urine drug screen). Participants were allocated (1:1) by a web-accessed randomisation sequence (stratified by opioid agonist medication, current cocaine use, and current rug use) to receive a personalised psychosocial intervention (comprising a flexible toolkit of psychological-change methods, including contingency management to reinforce abstinence, recovery activities, and clinic attendance) in addition to treatment as usual, or treatment as usual only (control group). The primary outcome was treatment response at 18 weeks, which was defined as abstinence from illicit and non-prescribed opioids and cocaine in the past 28 days, as measured with treatment outcomes profiles and urine drug screening. Taking a societal cost perspective, we did an evaluation of cost-effectiveness with a wide range of willingness-to-pay values for a unit improvement in the probability of treatment response. We also calculated quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Efficacy was analysed in a modified-intention-to-treat population, including all participants who were randomly allocated but excluding those who had previously completed the intervention. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN69313751. The trial is completed. FINDINGS: Between June 7, 2013, and Dec 21, 2015, we randomly allocated 136 participants to the psychosocial intervention group and 137 to the control group. The trial database was locked on April 19, 2017. Three patients (one in the psychosocial intervention group and two in the control group) who were re-randomised in error were excluded from the analysis. 22 (16%) of 135 patients in the psychosocial intervention group had a treatment response, compared with nine (7%) of 135 in the control group (adjusted log odds 1·20 [95% CI 0·01-2·37]; p=0·048). The psychosocial intervention had a higher probability of being cost-effective than treatment as usual. There was a probability range of 47-87% for willingness-to-pay thresholds of £0-1000 for a unit improvement in the probability of treatment response. QALYs were higher in the psychosocial intervention group than in the control group (mean difference 0·048 [95% CI 0·016-0·080]; p=0·004) in adjusted analyses, with 60% and 67% probabilities of cost-effectiveness at the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's willingness-to-pay thresholds of £20 000 and £30 000 per QALY, respectively. The number of adverse events was similar between groups, and no severe adverse events in either group were judged to be treatment related. One participant in the control group was hospitalised with drug-injection-related sepsis and died. INTERPRETATION: In maintenance opioid agonist therapy, an adjunctive personalised psychosocial intervention in addition to standard therapy was efficacious and cost-effective compared with standard therapy alone at helping treatment-resistant patients abstain from using illicit and non-prescribed opioids and cocaine. FUNDING: Indivior.

Development of the Addiction Dimensions for Assessment and Personalised Treatment (ADAPT).

BACKGROUND: Convergent research reveals heterogeneity in substance use disorders (SUD). The Addiction Dimensions for Assessment and Personalised Treatment (ADAPT) is designed to help clinicians tailor therapies. METHODS: Multicentre study in 21 SUD clinics in London, Birmingham (England) and Adelaide (Australia). 132 clinicians rated their caseload on a beta version with 16 ordinal indicators of addiction severity, health and social problem complexity, and recovery strengths constructs. In Birmingham, two in-treatment outcomes were recorded after 15-months: 28-day drug use (Treatment Outcome Profile; n=703) and Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF; DSM-IV Axis V; n=695). Following item-level screening (inter-rater reliability [IRR]; n=388), exploratory structural equation models (ESEM), latent profile analysis (LPA), and mixed-effects regression evaluated construct, concurrent and predictive validity characteristics, respectively. RESULTS: 2467 patients rated (majority opioid or stimulant dependent, enrolled in opioid medication assisted or psychological treatment). IRR-screening removed two items and ESEM models identified and recalibrated remaining indicators (root mean square error of approximation 0.066 [90% confidence interval 0.055-0.064]). Following minor re-specification and satisfactory measurement invariance evaluation, ADAPT factor scores discriminated patients by sample, addiction therapy and drug use. LPA identified three patient sub-types: Class 1 (moderate severity, moderate complexity, high strengths profile; 46.9%); Class 2 (low severity, low complexity, high strengths; 25.4%) and Class 3 (high severity, high complexity, low strengths; 27.7%). Class 2 had higher GAF (z=4.30). Class 3 predicted follow-up drug use (z=2.02) and lower GAF (z=3.51). CONCLUSION: The ADAPT is a valid instrument for SUD treatment planning, clinical review and outcome evaluation. Scoring and application are discussed.

Sexual health risk among dance drug users: cross-sectional comparisons with nationally representative data.

AIMS: To describe the sexual behaviour and related risk of a sample of dance drug users and compare this with data from the UK National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles 2000 survey. METHODS: Cross-sectional purposive sampling using both self-completion postal and web-based questionnaires. FINDINGS: This sample of dance drug users are more sexually active and have more concurrent partners than the general population. Rates of anal or vaginal sex within the last year without condom use are high and of concern (men 80 per cent; women 90 per cent). These dance drug users appear also to have higher lifetime prevalence of sexually transmitted infections than the general population and are also more likely to have ever attended a sexual health clinic. CONCLUSIONS: Clubbing and dance drug use, as part of a socially active lifestyle, is associated with elevated and pronounced sexual health risk. Future epidemiological studies of sexual health risk should incorporate investigation of both clubbing and recreational drug use in order to confirm the representativeness of these observations. Clubbers should be considered a target for dedicated sexual health promotion interventions, which may also be combined with interventions targeting drug and alcohol use.