Nurse Care Management for Opioid Use Disorder Treatment: The PROUD Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Few primary care (PC) practices treat patients with medications for opioid use disorder (OUD) despite availability of effective treatments. Objective: To assess whether implementation of the Massachusetts model of nurse care management for OUD in PC increases OUD treatment with buprenorphine or extended-release injectable naltrexone and secondarily decreases acute care utilization. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Primary Care Opioid Use Disorders Treatment (PROUD) trial was a mixed-methods, implementation-effectiveness cluster randomized clinical trial conducted in 6 diverse health systems across 5 US states (New York, Florida, Michigan, Texas, and Washington). Two PC clinics in each system were randomized to intervention or usual care (UC) stratified by system (5 systems were notified on February 28, 2018, and 1 system with delayed data use agreement on August 31, 2018). Data were obtained from electronic health records and insurance claims. An implementation monitoring team collected qualitative data. Primary care patients were included if they were 16 to 90 years old and visited a participating clinic from up to 3 years before a system's randomization date through 2 years after. Intervention: The PROUD intervention included 3 components: (1) salary for a full-time OUD nurse care manager; (2) training and technical assistance for nurse care managers; and (3) 3 or more PC clinicians agreeing to prescribe buprenorphine. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a clinic-level measure of patient-years of OUD treatment (buprenorphine or extended-release injectable naltrexone) per 10 000 PC patients during the 2 years postrandomization (follow-up). The secondary outcome, among patients with OUD prerandomization, was a patient-level measure of the number of days of acute care utilization during follow-up. Results: During the baseline period, a total of 130 623 patients were seen in intervention clinics (mean [SD] age, 48.6 [17.7] years; 59.7% female), and 159 459 patients were seen in UC clinics (mean [SD] age, 47.2 [17.5] years; 63.0% female). Intervention clinics provided 8.2 (95% CI, 5.4-∞) more patient-years of OUD treatment per 10 000 PC patients compared with UC clinics (P = .002). Most of the benefit accrued in 2 health systems and in patients new to clinics (5.8 [95% CI, 1.3-∞] more patient-years) or newly treated for OUD postrandomization (8.3 [95% CI, 4.3-∞] more patient-years). Qualitative data indicated that keys to successful implementation included broad commitment to treat OUD in PC from system leaders and PC teams, full financial coverage for OUD treatment, and straightforward pathways for patients to access nurse care managers. Acute care utilization did not differ between intervention and UC clinics (relative rate, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.47-2.92; P = .70). Conclusions and Relevance: The PROUD cluster randomized clinical trial intervention meaningfully increased PC OUD treatment, albeit unevenly across health systems; however, it did not decrease acute care utilization among patients with OUD. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03407638.

PRimary Care Opioid Use Disorders treatment (PROUD) trial protocol: a pragmatic, cluster-randomized implementation trial in primary care for opioid use disorder treatment.

BACKGROUND: Most people with opioid use disorder (OUD) never receive treatment. Medication treatment of OUD in primary care is recommended as an approach to increase access to care. The PRimary Care Opioid Use Disorders treatment (PROUD) trial tests whether implementation of a collaborative care model (Massachusetts Model) using a nurse care manager (NCM) to support medication treatment of OUD in primary care increases OUD treatment and improves outcomes. Specifically, it tests whether implementation of collaborative care, compared to usual primary care, increases the number of days of medication for OUD (implementation objective) and reduces acute health care utilization (effectiveness objective). The protocol for the PROUD trial is presented here. METHODS: PROUD is a hybrid type III cluster-randomized implementation trial in six health care systems. The intervention consists of three implementation strategies: salary for a full-time NCM, training and technical assistance for the NCM, and requiring that three primary care providers have DEA waivers to prescribe buprenorphine. Within each health system, two primary care clinics are randomized: one to the intervention and one to Usual Primary Care. The sample includes all patients age 16-90 who visited the randomized primary care clinics from 3 years before to 2 years after randomization (anticipated to be > 170,000). Quantitative data are derived from existing health system administrative data, electronic medical records, and/or health insurance claims ("electronic health records," [EHRs]). Anonymous staff surveys, stakeholder debriefs, and observations from site visits, trainings and technical assistance provide qualitative data to assess barriers and facilitators to implementation. The outcome for the implementation objective (primary outcome) is a clinic-level measure of the number of patient days of medication treatment of OUD over the 2 years post-randomization. The patient-level outcome for the effectiveness objective (secondary outcome) is days of acute care utilization [e.g. urgent care, emergency department (ED) and/or hospitalizations] over 2 years post-randomization among patients with documented OUD prior to randomization. DISCUSSION: The PROUD trial provides information for clinical leaders and policy makers regarding potential benefits for patients and health systems of a collaborative care model for management of OUD in primary care, tested in real-world diverse primary care settings. Trial registration # NCT03407638 (February 28, 2018); CTN-0074 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03407638?term=CTN-0074&draw=2&rank=1.

Patient Advisory Committee for a Chronic Opioid Therapy Risk Reduction Evaluation: Engaging Diverse Patients.

BACKGROUND: Active patient engagement in research is critically important, but can be difficult in controversial areas where patients have conflicting perspectives. OBJECTIVES: In this Lesson's Learned report, we describe engagement of patients with divergent views in guiding a controlled interrupted time series evaluation of chronic opioid therapy risk reduction initiatives implemented by a large health plan. METHODS: A nine-person Patient Advisory Committee (PAC) advised the scientific team on the evaluation and reporting of results on diverse outcomes important to patients, including pain and function, opioid use disorder, overdose, motor vehicle accidents, and medically attended injuries. Patients were selected with varied perspectives on opioid prescribing for chronic pain. Multiple strategies facilitated PAC engagement: making room for personal experience; investing upfront in setting the stage for working together including an initial face to face meeting; clarifying shared values; and including individuals skilled in group process and collaboration. PAC meetings were organized separately from regular meetings of the scientific team. RESULTS: Shared values identified to guide the research were: Safety, respect, autonomy, compassion, knowledge and teamwork. PAC guidance altered key scientific decisions regarding assessment of patient outcomes, doctor-patient collaboration, and analytic approaches. CONCLUSIONS: Separate meetings of the PAC and scientific team enhanced opportunities for patients to influence the study design, analyses and interpretation of evaluation results. Convening a large group of patients with diverse perspectives and experiences was productive and influential in guiding the evaluation. Patient selection and building rapport allowed PAC members with divergent perspectives to work together effectively.

Use of single IRBs for multi-site studies: A case report and commentary from a National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network study.

Recent NIH policy stipulates that multi-site studies must use a single or IRB (Institutional Review Board) in order to streamline the review process while maintaining standards for human subjects protection. The Western States Node of the Clinical Trials Network (CTN) used a single IRB for protocol CTN-0067, a clinical trial testing the use of an opioid antagonist (extended-release naltrexone) versus opioid agonists (buprenorphine or methadone) for opioid use disorders among individuals living with HIV. This case study discusses the processes and challenges associated with use of a single IRB. These lessons are also informed by other single IRB experiences within the CTN. The intention of the NIH single IRB policy is to facilitate efficient IRB processes. Advanced planning and transparent communication, however, are critical to avoid stalling IRB approval and protocol implementation. Research teams need to account for local IRB willingness to cede to a single IRB and understand the variations in interpretations of abbreviated reviews. In order to facilitate the effective use of single IRBs, recommendations include assigning staff at each study site for IRB submission coordination and interaction with the lead site IRB staff, training investigators and key regulatory staff on expectations for working with single IRBs, dedicating a regulatory specialist at the lead site to manage the process, developing a communication plan, and supporting the development of strong working relationships with local regulatory staff and the single IRB. The CTN experiences with single IRBs may provide insights for other investigators.