State alignment with federal regulations in 2022 to relax buprenorphine 30-patient waiver requirements.

Background: In 2021, the Department of Health and Human Services released guidelines allowing waiver-eligible providers seeking to treat up to 30 patients to be exempt from waiver training (WT) and the counseling and other ancillary services (CAS) attestation. This study evaluates if states and the District of Columbia had more restrictive policies preventing adoption of the 2021 federal guidelines. Methods: First, the Westlaw database was searched for buprenorphine regulations. Second, state medical, osteopathic, physician assistant, nursing boards, and single state agencies (SSA) were surveyed to assess for the WT and CAS requirements and if they were discussing the 2021 guidelines. Results were recorded and compared by state and waiver-eligible provider types. Results: The Westlaw search revealed seven states with regulations requiring the WT and ten states requiring CAS. Survey results showed ten state boards/SSAs required WT for at least one waiver-eligible practitioner type and eleven state boards/SSAs required CAS. In some states, the WT and CAS requirements only applied in special circumstances. Eleven states had discrepancies between the Westlaw and survey results among three waiver-eligible provider types. Conclusions: Despite the 2021 federal change intended to increase access to buprenorphine, several states had regulations and/or provider boards and SSAs that were not supportive. Now, the Mainstreaming Addiction Treatment (MAT) Act of 2022 eliminated the federal x-waiver requirement to prescribe buprenorphine. However, these states may continue to have barriers to treatment access despite the MAT Act. Strategies to engage states with these restrictive policies are needed to improve buprenorphine treatment capacity.

Integrated outpatient treatment of opioid use disorder and injection-related infections: A description of a new care model.

Persons with opioid use disorder (OUD) hospitalized with severe, injection-related infections (SIRI) are frequently hospitalized for the duration of IV antibiotic treatment due to concerns regarding their eligibility for outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT), which is the standard of care for prolonged IV antibiotic courses for patients without drug use. As part of a pilot study, a novel, integrated care model was developed where patients with OUD and SIRI receive addiction consultation and buprenorphine induction while hospitalized, followed by ongoing management in an outpatient clinic that combines office-based opioid treatment with buprenorphine pharmacotherapy and counseling services with OPAT. Through three illustrative case vignettes the outpatient model is described along with challenges, lessons learned and future directions.

A randomized placebo-controlled trial of N-acetylcysteine for cannabis use disorder in adults.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis use disorder (CUD) is a prevalent and impairing condition, and established psychosocial treatments convey limited efficacy. In light of recent findings supporting the efficacy of N-acetylcysteine (NAC) for CUD in adolescents, the objective of this trial was to evaluate its efficacy in adults. METHODS: In a 12-week double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial, treatment-seeking adults ages 18-50 with CUD (N=302), enrolled across six National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network-affiliated clinical sites, were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to a 12-week course of NAC 1200mg (n=153) or placebo (n=149) twice daily. All participants received contingency management (CM) and medical management. The primary efficacy measure was the odds of negative urine cannabinoid tests during treatment, compared between NAC and placebo participants. RESULTS: There was not statistically significant evidence that the NAC and placebo groups differed in cannabis abstinence (odds ratio=1.00, 95% confidence interval 0.63-1.59, p=0.984). Overall, 22.3% of urine cannabinoid tests in the NAC group were negative, compared with 22.4% in the placebo group. Many participants were medication non-adherent; exploratory analysis within medication-adherent subgroups revealed no significant differential abstinence outcomes by treatment group. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast with prior findings in adolescents, there is no evidence that NAC 1200mg twice daily plus CM is differentially efficacious for CUD in adults when compared to placebo plus CM. This discrepant finding between adolescents and adults with CUD may have been influenced by differences in development, cannabis use profiles, responses to embedded behavioral treatment, medication adherence, and other factors.

Comparing adult cannabis treatment-seekers enrolled in a clinical trial with national samples of cannabis users in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis use rates are increasing among adults in the United States (US) while the perception of harm is declining. This may result in an increased prevalence of cannabis use disorder and the need for more clinical trials to evaluate efficacious treatment strategies. Clinical trials are the gold standard for evaluating treatment, yet study samples are rarely representative of the target population. This finding has not yet been established for cannabis treatment trials. This study compared demographic and cannabis use characteristics of a cannabis cessation clinical trial sample (run through National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network) with three nationally representative datasets from the US; 1) National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2) National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions-III, and 3) Treatment: Episodes Data Set - Admissions. METHODS: Comparisons were made between the clinical trial sample and appropriate cannabis using sub-samples from the national datasets, and propensity scores were calculated to determine the degree of similarity between samples. RESULTS: showed that the clinical trial sample was significantly different from all three national datasets, with the clinical trial sample having greater representation among older adults, African Americans, Hispanic/Latinos, adults with more education, non-tobacco users, and daily and almost daily cannabis users. CONCLUSIONS: These results are consistent with previous studies of other substance use disorder populations and extend sample representation issues to a cannabis use disorder population. This illustrates the need to ensure representative samples within cannabis treatment clinical trials to improve the generalizability of promising findings.

Opioid withdrawal suppression efficacy of oral dronabinol in opioid dependent humans.

BACKGROUND: The cannabinoid (CB) system is a rational novel target for treating opioid dependence, a significant public health problem around the world. This proof-of-concept study examined the potential efficacy of a CB1 receptor partial agonist, dronabinol, in relieving signs and symptoms of opioid withdrawal. METHODS: Twelve opioid dependent adults participated in this 5-week, inpatient, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study. Volunteers were maintained on double-blind oxycodone (30mg oral, four times/day) and participated in a training session followed by 7 experimental sessions, each testing a single oral test dose (placebo, oxycodone 30 and 60mg, dronabinol 5, 10, 20, and 30mg [decreased from 40mg]). Placebo was substituted for oxycodone maintenance doses for 21h before each session in order to produce measurable opioid withdrawal. Outcomes included observer- and participant-ratings of opioid agonist, opioid withdrawal and psychomotor/cognitive performance. RESULTS: Oxycodone produced prototypic opioid agonist effects (i.e. suppressing withdrawal and increasing subjective effects indicative of abuse liability). Dronabinol 5 and 10mg produced effects most similar to placebo, while the 20 and 30mg doses produced modest signals of withdrawal suppression that were accompanied by dose-related increases in high, sedation, bad effects, feelings of heart racing, and tachycardia. Dronabinol was not liked more than placebo, showed some impairment in cognitive performance, and was identified as marijuana with increasing dose. CONCLUSION: CB1 receptor activation is a reasonable strategy to pursue for the treatment of opioid withdrawal; however, dronabinol is not a likely candidate given its modest withdrawal suppression effects of limited duration and previously reported tachycardia during opioid withdrawal.