Post-hospitalization Care Transition Strategies for Patients with Substance Use Disorders: A Narrative Review and Taxonomy.

Hospitalizations represent important opportunities to engage individuals with substance use disorders (SUD) in treatment. For those who engage with SUD treatment in the hospital setting, tailored supports during post-discharge transitions to longitudinal care settings may improve care linkages, retention, and treatment outcomes. We updated a recent systematic review search on post-hospitalization SUD care transitions through a structured review of published literature from January 2020 through June 2023. We then added novel sources including a gray literature search and key informant interviews to develop a taxonomy of post-hospitalization care transition models for patients with SUD. Our updated literature search generated 956 abstracts not included in the original systematic review. We selected and reviewed 89 full-text articles, which yielded six new references added to 26 relevant articles from the original review. Our search of five gray literature sources yielded four additional references. Using a thematic analysis approach, we extracted themes from semi-structured interviews with 10 key informants. From these results, we constructed a taxonomy consisting of 10 unique SUD care transition models in three overarching domains (inpatient-focused, transitional, outpatient-focused). These models include (1) training and protocol implementation; (2) screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment; (3) hospital-based interdisciplinary consult team; (4) continuity-enhanced interdisciplinary consult team; (5) peer navigation; (6) transitional care management; (7) outpatient in-reach; (8) post-discharge outreach; (9) incentivizing follow-up; and (10) bridge clinic. For each model, we describe design, scope, approach, and implementation strategies. Our taxonomy highlights emerging models of post-hospitalization care transitions for patients with SUD. An established taxonomy provides a framework for future research, implementation efforts, and policy in this understudied, but critically important, aspect of SUD care.

Integrating Buprenorphine for Opioid Use Disorder into Rural, Primary Care Settings.

BACKGROUND: Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) including buprenorphine are effective, but underutilized. Rural patients experience pronounced disparities in access. To reach rural patients, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has sought to expand buprenorphine prescribing beyond specialty settings and into primary care. OBJECTIVE: Although challenges remain, some rural VA health care systems have begun offering opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment with buprenorphine in primary care. We conducted interviews with clinicians, leaders, and staff within these systems to understand how this outcome had been achieved. DESIGN: Using administrative data from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW), we identified rural VA health care systems that had improved their rate of primary care-based buprenorphine prescribing over the period 2015-2020. We conducted qualitative interviews (n = 30) with staff involved in implementing or prescribing buprenorphine in these systems to understand the processes that had facilitated implementation. PARTICIPANTS: Clinicians, staff, and leaders embedded within rural VA health care systems located in the Northwest, West, Midwest (2), South, and Northeast. APPROACH: Qualitative interviews were analyzed using a mixed inductive/deductive approach. KEY RESULTS: Interviews revealed the processes through which buprenorphine was integrated into primary care, as well as processes insufficient to enact change. Implementation was often initially catalyzed through a targeted hire. Champions then engaged clinicians and leaders one-on-one to "pitch" the case, describe concordance between buprenorphine prescribing and existing goals, and delineate the supportive role that they could provide. Sites were prepared for implementation by developing new clinical teams and redesigning clinical processes. Each of these processes was made possible with the active, instrumental support of leadership. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that rural systems seeking to improve buprenorphine accessibility in primary care may need to alter primary care structures to accommodate buprenorphine prescribing, whether through new hires, team development, or clinical redesign.

Internal Medicine Resident Addiction Training at the Veteran's Health Administration: A Qualitative Evaluation of Site Directors' Response to the 2022 ACGME Requirements.

BACKGROUND: Substance use disorders (SUDs) are prevalent in the USA yet remain dramatically undertreated. To address this care gap, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) approved revisions to the Program Requirements for Graduate Medical Education (GME) in Internal Medicine, effective July 1, 2022, requiring addiction medicine training for all internal medicine (IM) residents. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is a clinical training site for many academic institutions that sponsor IM residencies. This focus group project evaluated VHA IM residency site directors' perspectives about providing addiction medical education within VHA IM training sites. OBJECTIVE: To better understand the current state, barriers to, and facilitators of IM resident addiction medicine training at VHA sites. DESIGN: This was a qualitative evaluation based on semi-structured video-based focus groups. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were VHA IM site directors based at a VHA hospital or clinic throughout the USA. APPROACH: Focus groups were conducted using a semi-structured group interview guide. Two investigators coded each focus group independently, then met to create a final adjudicated coding scheme. Thematic analysis was used to identify key themes. KEY RESULTS: Forty-three participants from 38 VHA sites participated in four focus groups (average size: 11 participants). Six themes were identified within four pre-defined categories. Current state of training: most VHA sites offered no formal training in addiction medicine for IM residents. Barriers: addiction experts are often located outside of IM settings, and ACGME requirements were non-specific. Facilitators: clinical champions help support addiction training. Desired next steps: participants desired incentives to train or hire local champions and a pre-packaged didactic curriculum. CONCLUSIONS: Developing competent clinical champions and leveraging VHA addiction specialists from non-IM settings would create more addiction training opportunities for IM trainees at VHA sites. These insights can likely be applied to IM training at non-VHA sites.

Exercise as Medicine for People with a Substance Use Disorder: An ACSM Call to Action Statement.

ABSTRACT: Over 20 million Americans are living with a substance use disorder (SUD) and nearly 100,000 die annually from drug overdoses, with a majority involving an opioid. Many people with SUD have co-occurring chronic pain and/or a mental health disorder. Exercise is a frontline treatment for chronic pain and is an effective strategy for reducing depression and anxiety and improving overall mental health. Several studies have shown that exercise improves SUD-related outcomes including abstinence; however, there is limited large-scale randomized clinical trial evidence to inform integration of exercise into practice. In this Call to Action, we aim to raise awareness of the specific issues that should be addressed to advance exercise as medicine in people with SUD including the challenges of co-occurring chronic pain, mental illness, and cardiopulmonary health conditions. In addition, specialized training for exercise professionals and other support staff should be provided on these issues, as well as on the multiple dimensions of stigma that can impair engagement in treatment and overall recovery in people with SUD.

Prevalence of Testing for Human Immunodeficiency Virus, Hepatitis B Virus, and Hepatitis C Virus Among Medicaid Enrollees Treated With Medications for Opioid Use Disorder in 11 States, 2016-2019.

BACKGROUND: Limited information exists about testing for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis B virus (HBV), and hepatitis C virus (HCV) among Medicaid enrollees after starting medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD), despite guidelines recommending such testing. Our objectives were to estimate testing prevalence and trends for HIV, HBV, and HCV among Medicaid enrollees initiating MOUD and examine enrollee characteristics associated with testing. METHODS: We conducted a serial cross-sectional study of 505 440 initiations of MOUD from 2016 to 2019 among 361 537 Medicaid enrollees in 11 states. Measures of MOUD initiation; HIV, HBV, and HCV testing; comorbidities; and demographics were based on enrollment and claims data. Each state used Poisson regression to estimate associations between enrollee characteristics and testing prevalence within 90 days of MOUD initiation. We pooled state-level estimates to generate global estimates using random effects meta-analyses. RESULTS: From 2016 to 2019, testing increased from 20% to 25% for HIV, from 22% to 25% for HBV, from 24% to 27% for HCV, and from 15% to 19% for all 3 conditions. Adjusted rates of testing for all 3 conditions were lower among enrollees who were male (vs nonpregnant females), living in a rural area (vs urban area), and initiating methadone or naltrexone (vs buprenorphine). Associations between enrollee characteristics and testing varied across states. CONCLUSIONS: Among Medicaid enrollees in 11 US states who initiated medications for opioid use disorder, testing for human immunodeficiency virus, hepatitis B virus, hepatitis C virus, and all 3 conditions increased between 2016 and 2019 but the majority were not tested.

Trends in Health Service Utilization After Enrollment in an Interdisciplinary Primary Care Clinic for Veterans with Addiction, Social Determinants of Health, or Other Vulnerabilities.

BACKGROUND: Models of interdisciplinary primary care (IPC) may improve upon traditional primary care approaches in addressing addiction and social determinants of health. OBJECTIVE: To compare the trends in health care utilization in the year before and after enrollment in an IPC clinic model, and explore the variations in temporal patterns for patients with histories of high emergency department (ED) use, homelessness, and/or substance use disorders (SUDs). DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Interrupted time series study of utilization among IPC patients. MAIN MEASURES: Quarterly ED, inpatient, primary care, and behavioral health visits were abstracted from administrative data before and after IPC enrollment. Negative binomial segmented regressions estimated changes in health care utilization over time. We used interactions to test for statistical differences in temporal patterns for IPC subgroups. RESULTS: Among IPC patients (n=994), enrollment was associated with overall reductions in ED, inpatient, and behavioral health visits (p's<0.001) and increases in primary care (p's<0.001). Temporal patterns of ED visits, hospitalizations, and behavioral health differed across IPC subgroups (interaction p's<0.001). For those with histories of high ED use (n=265), ED, inpatient, and behavioral health visits decreased after enrollment (level change incidence rate ratios [IRRs]=0.57-0.69) and continued to decline over time (post-enrollment IRRs=0.80-0.88). Among other patients with homeless experiences (n=123), there were initial declines in hospitalizations (IRR=0.33) and overall declines in behavioral health visits (level change and post-enrollment IRRs=0.46-0.94). Other patients with SUDs had initial declines in hospitalizations (IRR=0.46), and post-enrollment declines in rates of specialty SUD visits (IRR=0.92). For all patients, primary care visits initially increased (level change IIRs=2.47-1.34) then gradually declined (post-enrollment IRRs=0.92-0.92). CONCLUSIONS: An IPC model of care reduces acute care and behavioral health service use, particularly for patients with historically high ED use. IPC models may improve patient and system outcomes of vulnerable patient populations with social, clinical, and addiction morbidities.

Quality of Depression Care for Veterans Affairs Primary Care Patients with Experiences of Homelessness.

BACKGROUND: Persons who experience homelessness (PEH) have high rates of depression and incur challenges accessing high-quality health care. Some Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities offer homeless-tailored primary care clinics, although such tailoring is not required, within or outside VA. Whether services tailoring enhances care for depression is unstudied. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether PEH in homeless-tailored primary care settings receive higher quality of depression care, compared to PEH in usual VA primary care. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of depression treatment among a regional cohort of VA primary care patients (2016-2019). PARTICIPANTS: PEH diagnosed or treated for a depressive disorder. MAIN MEASURES: The quality measures were timely follow-up care (3 + completed visits with a primary care or mental health specialist provider, or 3 + psychotherapy sessions) within 84 days of a positive PHQ-2 screen result, timely follow-up care within 180 days, and minimally appropriate treatment (4 + mental health visits, 3 + psychotherapy visits, 60 + days antidepressant) within 365 days. We applied multivariable mixed-effect logistic regressions to model differences in care quality for PEH in homeless-tailored versus usual primary care settings. KEY RESULTS: Thirteen percent of PEH with depressive disorders received homeless-tailored primary care (n = 374), compared to usual VA primary care (n = 2469). Tailored clinics served more PEH who were Black, who were non-married, and who had low income, serious mental illness, and substance use disorders. Among all PEH, 48% received timely follow-up care within 84 days of depression screening, 67% within 180 days, and 83% received minimally appropriate treatment. Quality metric attainment was higher for PEH in homeless-tailored clinics, compared to PEH in usual VA primary care: follow-up within 84 days (63% versus 46%; adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.61, p = .001), follow-up within 180 days (78% versus 66%; AOR = 1.51, p = .003), and minimally appropriate treatment (89% versus 82%; AOR = 1.58, p = .004). CONCLUSIONS: Homeless-tailored primary care approaches may improve depression care for PEH.

Buprenorphine Treatment Episodes During the First Year of COVID: a Retrospective Examination of Treatment Initiation and Retention.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID pandemic, overall buprenorphine treatment appeared to remain relatively stable, despite some studies suggesting a decrease in patients starting buprenorphine. There is a paucity of empirical information regarding patterns of buprenorphine treatment during the pandemic. OBJECTIVE: To better understand the patterns of buprenorphine episodes during the pandemic and how those patterns compared to pre-pandemic patterns. DESIGN: Pharmacy claims representing approximately 92% of all prescriptions filled at retail pharmacies in all 50 US states and the District of Columbia. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals filling buprenorphine prescriptions indicated for treatment of opioid use disorder. MAIN MEASURES: The number of active, starting, and ending buprenorphine treatment episodes March 13 to December 1, 2020, and the expected number of such episodes in 2020 based on the growth in treatment episodes from March 13 to December 1, 2019. KEY RESULTS: The observed number of active buprenorphine episodes in December 2020 was comparable to the expected number, but new treatment episodes starting between March 13 and December 1, 2020, were 17.2% fewer than expected based on the 2019 experience. Similarly, the number of episodes that ended between March 13 and December 1, 2020, was 16.0% fewer than expected. Decreases from expected episode starts and ends occurred throughout the period but were greatest in the 2 months after the declaration of the public health emergency. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Beneath the apparent stability of buprenorphine patient numbers during the pandemic, the flow of individuals receiving buprenorphine treatment changed substantially. Our findings shed light on how policy changes meant to support buprenorphine prescribing influenced prescribing dynamics during that period, suggesting that while policy efforts may have been successful in maintaining existing patients in treatment, that success did not extend to individuals not yet in treatment.

Increasing Access to Buprenorphine for Opioid Use Disorder in Primary Care: an Assessment of Provider Incentives.

BACKGROUND: Primary care providers (PCPs) are essential to increasing access to office-based buprenorphine medication treatment for opioid use disorder (B-MOUD). Barriers to B-MOUD prescribing are well-documented, but there is little information regarding incentives to overcome these barriers. OBJECTIVE: To identify optimal incentives for PCPs to promote B-MOUD prescribing and compare incentive preferences across provider and practice characteristics. DESIGN: We surveyed PCPs using best-worst scaling (BWS) to prioritize seven potential incentives for B-MOUD prescribing (monetary compensation, paid vacation, protected time, professional development, reduced workload, service recognition, clinical resources). We then used a direct elicitation approach to determine preferred incentive levels (e.g., monetary thresholds) and types (e.g., specific clinical resources). PARTICIPANTS: Primary care physicians and advanced practice providers (APPs) at a large Department of Veterans Affairs healthcare system. MAIN MEASURES: B-MOUD prescribing incentive preferences and relative preference levels using descriptive statistics and conditional logistic regression with relative importance scale transformation (coefficients sum to 100, higher coefficient=greater importance). KEY RESULTS: Fifty-three PCPs responded (73% response), including 47% APPs and 36% from community-based clinics. Reduced workload (relative importance score=26.8), protected time (18.7), and clinical resources (16.8) were significantly more preferred (Ps < 0.001) than professional development (10.5), paid vacation (10.3), or service recognition (1.5). Relative importance of monetary compensation varied between physicians (12.6) and APPs (17.5) and between PCPs located at a medical center (11.4) versus community clinic (22.3). APPs were more responsive than physicians to compensation increases of $5000 and $12,000 but less responsive to $25,000; trends were similar for medical center versus community clinic PCPs. The most frequently requested clinical resource was on-demand consult access to an addiction specialist. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions promoting workload reductions, protected time, and clinical resources could increase access to B-MOUD in primary care. Monetary incentives may be additionally needed to improve B-MOUD prescribing among APPs and within community clinics.

What Contributes to Sustainability? Examining Access to Medications for Opioid Use Disorder in Low-Adopting VHA Facilities.

BACKGROUND: Successful implementation can increase the availability of evidence-based treatments but continued patient access can be threatened if there is not deliberate focus on sustainment. Real-world examples are needed to elucidate contributors to sustainability. OBJECTIVE: We examined sustainability of outcomes of a study which tested a 12-month external facilitation intervention. The study evaluated change in access to medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) in Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities in the lowest quartile of MOUD prescribing. DESIGN: Convergent mixed-methods design. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-nine providers and leaders from eight VHA facilities. APPROACH: Thirty-minute post-implementation telephone interviews explored whether barriers identified pre-implementation were successfully addressed, the presence of any new challenges, helpfulness of external facilitation, and plans for sustaining MOUD access. Interviews were analyzed using a rapid turn-around approach. VHA administrative data were used to characterize the facilities and assess their ratio of patients with an OUD diagnosis receiving MOUD (MOUD/OUD ratio) at the end of a 9-month sustainability period. KEY RESULTS: Commonly reported contributors to sustained MOUD access included national attention on the opioid epidemic, accountability created by study participation, culture shift in MOUD acceptability, leadership support, and plans to build on initial progress. Frequently reported barriers included staffing issues and lack of MOUD-devoted time; the need to overhaul existing policies, practices, and/or processes; and fear and anxiety about MOUD prescribing. All facilities either maintained MOUD/OUD ratio improvement (n = 2) or further improved (n = 6) at the end of sustainability. Facilities with the highest and lowest ratio at the end of sustainability used a team-based approach to MOUD delivery; however, organizational setting differences may have impacted overall MOUD access. CONCLUSIONS: Ensuring stable and consistent staff, and sufficient time dedicated to MOUD are critical to sustaining access to evidence-based treatment in low-adopting facilities. This study highlights the importance of investing in local, system-level changes to improve and sustain access to effective treatments.

Access to Medications for Opioid Use Disorder in Rural Versus Urban Veterans Health Administration Facilities.

BACKGROUND: For patients with opioid use disorder (OUD), medications for OUD (MOUD) reduce morbidity, mortality, and return to use. Nevertheless, a minority of patients receive MOUD, and underutilization is pronounced among rural patients. OBJECTIVE: While Veterans Health Administration (VHA) initiatives have improved MOUD access overall, it is unknown whether access has improved in rural VA health systems specifically. How "Community Care," healthcare paid for by VHA but received from non-VA providers, has affected rural access is also unknown. DESIGN: Data for this observational study were drawn from the VHA Corporate Data Warehouse. Facility rurality was defined by rural-urban commuting area code of the primary medical center. International Classification of Diseases codes identified patients with OUD within each year, 2015-2020. We included MOUD (buprenorphine, methadone, extended-release naltrexone) received from VHA or paid for by VHA but received at non-VA facilities through Community Care. We calculated average yearly MOUD receipt; linear regression of outcomes on study years identified trends; an interaction between year and rural status evaluated trend differences over time. PARTICIPANTS: All 129 VHA Health Systems, a designation that encompasses one or more medical centers and their affiliated community-based outpatient clinics MAIN MEASURES: The average proportion of patients diagnosed with OUD that receive MOUD within rural versus urban VHA health care systems. KEY RESULTS: From 2015 to 2020, MOUD access increased substantially: the average proportion of patients receiving MOUD increased from 34.6 to 48.9%, with a similar proportion of patients treated with MOUD in rural and urban systems in all years. Overall, a small proportion (1.8%) of MOUD was provided via Community Care, and Community Care did not disproportionately benefit rural health systems. CONCLUSIONS: Strategies utilized by VHA could inform other health care systems seeking to ensure that, regardless of geographic location, all patients are able to access MOUD.

Urine drug testing in the context of opioid analgesic prescribing for chronic pain: a content analysis of U.S. state laws in 2022.

BACKGROUND: In response to the opioid crisis, U.S. states have passed laws requiring urine drug testing (UDT) when opioid analgesics are prescribed for chronic pain. We sought to identify state law UDT requirements. METHODS: We searched NexisUni legal database using terms related to UDT, chronic pain, and opioids. We included laws effective during spring 2022 that required UDT when opioids were prescribed for chronic pain. We performed deductive content analysis, coding laws for mandated UDT frequency, type of clinician and type of payer to whom the law applied, and circumstances under which UDT was mandated. RESULTS: We found 32 laws across 13 states that met our inclusion criteria. UDT requirements varied substantially by state, including with regard to the type of clinician to whom the law applied, the mandated frequency of UDT (eg, at initiation/assessment, at least annually, more than once per year), and the circumstances in which UDT was mandated (eg, patient had substance use disorder; dosage/day threshold). DISCUSSION: Relatively few states have UDT mandates associated with prescribing opioids as chronic pain treatment. When developing policy indicators for empirical studies, researchers evaluating how UDT policy affects health outcomes must consider the complexity and lack of uniformity of UDT requirements. In addition, even if states mandate UDT, it is unclear whether clinicians understand the best way to use the test results.

The Management of Substance Use Disorders: Synopsis of the 2021 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and U.S. Department of Defense Clinical Practice Guideline.

DESCRIPTION: In August 2021, leadership within the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) approved a joint clinical practice guideline (CPG) for the management of substance use disorders (SUDs). This synopsis summarizes key recommendations. METHODS: In March 2020, the VA/DoD Evidence-Based Practice Work Group assembled a team to update the 2015 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Substance Use Disorders that included clinical stakeholders and conformed to the National Academy of Medicine's tenets for trustworthy CPGs. The guideline panel developed key questions, systematically searched and evaluated the literature, created two 1-page algorithms, and distilled 35 recommendations for care using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system. This synopsis presents the recommendations that were believed to be the most clinically impactful. RECOMMENDATIONS: The scope of the CPG is broad; however, this synopsis focuses on key recommendations for the management of alcohol use disorder, use of buprenorphine in opioid use disorder, contingency management, and use of technology and telehealth to manage patients remotely.

Will the End of the X-Waiver Expand Access to Buprenorphine Treatment? Achieving the Full Potential of the 2023 Consolidated Appropriations Act.

The 2023 Consolidated Appropriations Act repealed the special waiver for prescribing buprenorphine to patients with opioid use disorder, a bipartisan goal long sought by advocates. The change has symbolic importance in recognizing that buprenorphine is a mainstream medical treatment. We argue that the maximum potential of the law can be achieved by addressing three bottlenecks. First, it is important that new training requirements for all controlled substances prescribers be grounded in scientific principles of addiction treatment and are robustly evaluated to ensure they meet quality standards. Second, even with the elimination of the waiver, there are potential constraints from state law such as state-specific requirements that practitioners require counseling or obtain a separate credential, and many states also have limiting scope of practice regulations. We recommend that these requirements are eased wherever possible to improve treatment access. Third, it is critical to build onramps to treatment in settings such as primary care, hospitals, and correctional facilities. While we anticipate that buprenorphine prescribing will primarily occur in high-volume practices, there is the potential to activate a broader workforce to serve as entry points to care. We conclude that the stage is set for significant increases in lifesaving treatment but the difficult task ahead is ensuring that the resources and training are available to build strong capacity.

National Trends in Buprenorphine Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder From 2007 to 2018.

BACKGROUND: Buprenorphine is a key medication to treat opioid use disorder (OUD). Since its approval in 2002, buprenorphine access has grown markedly, spurred by major federal and state policy changes. This study characterizes buprenorphine treatment episodes during 2007 to 2018 with respect to payer, provider specialty, and patient demographics. METHODS: In this observational cohort study, IQVIA Real World pharmacy claims data were used to characterize trends in buprenorphine treatment episodes across four time periods: 2007-2009, 2010-2012, 2013-2015, and 2016-2018. RESULTS: In total, we identified more than 4.1 million buprenorphine treatment episodes among 2 540 710 unique individuals. The number of episodes doubled from 652 994 in 2007-2009 to 1 331 980 in 2016-2018. Our findings indicate that the payer landscape changed dramatically, with the most pronounced growth observed for Medicaid (increased from 17% of episodes in 2007-2009 to 37% of episodes in 2016-2018), accompanied by relative declines for both commercial insurance (declined from 35 to 21%) and self-pay (declined from 27 to 11%). Adult primary care providers (PCPs) were the dominant prescribers throughout the study period. The number of episodes among adults older than 55 increased more than 3-fold from 2007-2009 to 2016-2018. In contrast, youth under age 18 experienced an absolute decline in buprenorphine treatment episodes. Buprenorphine episodes increased in length from 2007-2018, particularly among adults over age 45. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate that the U.S. experienced clear growth in buprenorphine treatment-particularly for older adults and Medicaid beneficiaries-reflecting some key health policy and implementation success stories. Yet, since the prevalence of OUD and fatal overdose rate have also approximately doubled during this period, the observed growth in buprenorphine treatment did not demonstrably impact the pronounced treatment gap. To date, only a minority of individuals with OUD currently receive treatment, indicating continued need for systemic efforts to equitably improve treatment uptake.

Co-use of Opioid Medications and Alcohol Prevention Study (COAPS).

While there is limited research in the field regarding the various dimensions of co-use of alcohol and opioid medication, particularly related to co-use and levels of severity, our research has shown 20% to 30% of community pharmacy patients receiving opioid pain medications are engaged in co-use. Co-use of alcohol and opioid medications is a significant risk factor for opioid-related overdose. Community pharmacy is a valuable yet underutilized resource and setting for addressing the US opioid epidemic, with an untapped potential for identification of and intervention for risks associated with co-use of alcohol and opioids. This commentary describing the "Co-use of Opioid Medications and Alcohol Prevention Study (COAPS)" offers an innovative and promising approach to mitigating serious risks associated with co-use of alcohol (risk and non-risk use) and opioids in community pharmacy. COAPS aim 1involves adapting an existing opioid misuse intervention to target co-use of alcohol and opioid mediations. COAPS aim 2 involves testing the adapted intervention within a small-scale pilot randomized controlled trial (N = 40) to examine feasibility, acceptability and preliminary efficacy of the intervention versus standard care. COAPS aim 3 involves conducting key informant interviews related to future implementation of larger scale studies or service delivery in community pharmacy settings.

Exploring the Association of State Policies and the Trajectories of Buprenorphine Prescriber Patient Caseloads.

BACKGROUND: Increasing buprenorphine access is critical to facilitating effective opioid use disorder treatment. Buprenorphine prescriber numbers have increased substantially, but most clinicians who start prescribing buprenorphine stop within a year, and most active prescribers treat very few individuals. Little research has examined state policies' association with the evolution of buprenorphine prescribing clinicians' patient caseloads. METHODS: Our retrospective cohort study design derived from 2006 to 2018 national pharmacy claims identifying buprenorphine prescribers and the number of patients treated monthly. We defined persistent prescribers based on results from a k-clustering approach and were characterized by clinicians who did not quickly stop prescribing and had average monthly caseloads greater than 5 patients for much of the first 6 years after their first dispensed prescription. We examined the association between persistent prescribers (dependent variable) and Medicaid coverage of buprenorphine, prior authorization requirements, and mandated counseling policies (key predictors) that were active within the first 2 years after a prescriber's first observed dispensed buprenorphine prescription. We used multivariable logistic regression analyses and entropy balancing weights to ensure better comparability of prescribers in states that did and did not implement policies. RESULTS: Medicaid coverage of buprenorphine was associated with a smaller percentage of new prescribers becoming persistent prescribers (OR = 0.72; 95% CI = 0.53, 0.97). There was no evidence that either mandatory counseling or prior authorization was associated with the odds of a clinician being a persistent prescriber with estimated ORs equal to 0.85 (95% CI = 0.63, 1.16) and 1.13 (95% CI = 0.83, 1.55), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to states without coverage, states with Medicaid coverage for buprenorphine had a smaller percentage of new prescribers become persistent prescribers; there was no evidence that the other state policies were associated with changes in the rate of clinicians becoming persistent prescribers. Because buprenorphine treatment is highly concentrated among a small group of clinicians, it is imperative to increase the pool of clinicians providing care to larger numbers of patients for longer periods. Greater efforts are needed to identify and support factors associated with successful persistent prescribing.

Perioperative Management of Extended-Release Buprenorphine: A Narrative Review and Case Series.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative management of formulations of buprenorphine used for the treatment of opioid use disorder and/or pain are common clinical challenges. Care strategies are increasingly recommending continuation of buprenorphine while administering multimodal analgesia including full agonist opioids. While this "simultaneous strategy" is relatively simple for the shorter-acting sublingual buprenorphine formulation, best practices are needed for the increasingly prescribed extended-release buprenorphine (ER-buprenorphine). To our knowledge there are no prospective data to guide perioperative management of patients on ER-buprenorphine. Herein we provide a narrative review, report on the perioperative experiences of a series of patients maintained on ER-buprenorphine, and propose recommendations for perioperative ER-buprenorphine management based on best evidence, clinical experience, and our judgments. CASES: Here we present clinical data describing the perioperative experiences of patients maintained on extended-release buprenorphine who recently underwent a variety of surgeries ranging from outpatient inguinal hernia repair to multiple inpatient surgeries for source control in sepsis, at different medical centers throughout the United States. These patients were identified via an email solicitation to substance use disorder treatment providers throughout a nationwide healthcare system, requesting cases of patients maintained on extended-release buprenorphine who had recently undergone surgery. We report here on all of the cases received. DISCUSSION: Extrapolating from these and recently published case reports, we describe an approach to perioperative management of extended-release buprenorphine.

Care Practices of Mental Health Clinical Pharmacist Practitioners Within an Interdisciplinary Primary Care Model for Patients With Substance Use Disorders.

BACKGROUND: Clinical pharmacist practitioners (CPPs) play an increasingly important role in interdisciplinary care for patients with substance use disorders (SUDs). However, CPPs' scope of practice varies substantially across clinics and settings. OBJECTIVES: We sought to describe CPP practices and activities within an interdisciplinary, team-based primary care clinic dedicated to treat Veterans with histories of substance use disorders, experience of homelessness, high medical complexity, and other vulnerabilities. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of CPP activities using Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) administrative data in 2019. RESULTS: CPPs provided care for 228 patients, including 766 in-clinic visits, 341 telephone visits, and 626 chart reviews, with an average of 2.5 hours spent per patient per year. Patients seen by CPPs frequently experience mental health conditions and SUDs, including depression (66%), post-traumatic stress disorder (52%), opioid use disorder (OUD) (45%), and alcohol use disorder (44%). CPPs managed buprenorphine medications for OUD or chronic pain in 76 patients (33%). Most CPP interventions (3330 total) were for SUDs (33%), mental health conditions (24%), and pain management (24%), with SUD interventions including medication initiation, dose changes, discontinuations and monitoring. As part of opioid risk mitigation efforts, CPPs queried the state's prescription drug monitoring program 769 times and ordered 59 naloxone kits and 661 lab panels for empaneled patients. CONCLUSION: CPPs managed a high volume of vulnerable patients and provided complex care within an interdisciplinary primary care team. Similar CPP roles could be implemented in other primary care settings to increase access to SUD treatment.

"I'm Clean and Sober, But Not Necessarily Free": Perceptions of Buprenorphine Among Patients in Long-Term Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Patients receiving buprenorphine for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) experience a roughly 50% reduction in mortality risk relative to those not receiving medication. Longer periods of treatment are also associated with improved clinical outcomes. Despite this, patients often express desires to discontinue treatment and some view taper as treatment success. Little is known about the beliefs and medication perspectives of patients engaged in long-term buprenorphine treatment that may underlie motivations to discontinue. METHODS: This study was conducted at the VA Portland Health Care System (2019-2020). Qualitative interviews were conducted with participants prescribed buprenorphine for ≥2 years. Coding and analysis were guided by directed qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Fourteen patients engaged in office-based buprenorphine treatment completed interviews. While patients expressed strong enthusiasm for buprenorphine as a medication, the majority expressed the desire to discontinue, including patients actively tapering. Motivations to discontinue fell into 4 categories. First, patients were troubled by perceived side effects of the medication, including effects on sleep, emotion, and memory. Second, patients expressed unhappiness with being "dependent" on buprenorphine, framed in opposition to personal strength/independence. Third, patients expressed stigmatized beliefs about buprenorphine, describing it as "illicit," and associated with past drug use. Finally, patients expressed fears about buprenorphine unknowns, including potential long-term health effects and interactions with medications required for surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Despite recognizing benefits, many patients engaged in long-term buprenorphine treatment express a desire to discontinue. Findings from this study may help clinicians anticipate patient concerns and can be used to inform shared decision-making conversations regarding buprenorphine treatment duration.