Critical care for patients with substance use disorders.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To examine the impact of substance use disorders (SUDs) on critical illness and the role of critical care providers in treating SUDs. We discuss emerging evidence supporting hospital-based addiction treatment and highlight the clinical and research innovations needed to elevate the standards of care for patients with SUDs in the intensive care unit (ICU) amidst staggering individual and public health consequences. RECENT FINDINGS: Despite the rapid increase of SUDs in recent years, with growing implications for critical care, dedicated studies focused on ICU patients with SUDs remain scant. Available data demonstrate SUDs are major risk factors for the development and severity of critical illness and are associated with poor outcomes. ICU patients with SUDs experience mutually reinforcing effects of substance withdrawal and pain, which amplify risks and consequences of delirium, and complicate management of comorbid conditions. Hospital-based addiction treatment can dramatically improve the health outcomes of hospitalized patients with SUDs and should begin in the ICU. SUMMARY: SUDs have a significant impact on critical illness and post-ICU outcomes. High-quality cohort and treatment studies designed specifically for ICU patients with SUDs are needed to define best practices and improve health outcomes in this vulnerable population.

Substance Use and Mental Health Comorbidities and Receipt of Specialty Care Among Patients Enrolled in a Low-Barrier HIV Clinic.

Low-barrier care is one model of a differentiated service delivery approach for people with HIV (PWH) who are not engaged in conventionally-organized HIV care. Although psychiatric and substance use disorders are common among patients in low-barrier clinics, approaches to behavioral health service delivery within this context have not been well-described. We conducted a descriptive analysis using retrospective review of medical records to evaluate substance use and psychiatric comorbidities and receipt of behavioral health services among patients in the Max Clinic in Seattle, Washington. Among 227 patients enrolled from 2015 to mid-2020, most had a history of hazardous substance use (85%), a psychiatric diagnosis (69%) or unstable housing (69%) documented in the medical record. Less than half of patients referred for depression treatment (33%) or for opioid use disorder treatment (40%) completed even one specialty care visit. More effective approaches are needed to engage patients in behavioral health services within the context of low-barrier HIV care.

Post-traumatic stress disorder and risky opioid use among persons living with HIV and chronic pain.

Persons with HIV (PWH) experience chronic pain and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) at higher rates than the general population, and more often receive opioid medications to treat chronic pain. A known association exists between PTSD and substance use disorders, but less is known about the relationship between PTSD and risky opioid use among PWH taking prescribed opioid medications. In this observational study of PWH on long-term opioid medications for pain we examined associations between PTSD symptom severity based on the Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5, response range 0-80) and the following outcomes: 1) risk for opioid misuse (COMM score ≥13); 2) risky alcohol use (AUDIT score ≥8); 3) concurrent benzodiazepine prescription; and 4) morphine equivalent dose. Among 166 patients, 38 (23%) had a PCL-5 score over 38, indicating high PTSD symptom burden. Higher PCL-5 score (per 10 point difference) was associated with increased odds of opioid misuse (aOR 1.55; 95%CI: 1.31-1.83) and risky drinking (aOR: 1.28;1.07-1.52). No significant association was observed between PCL-5 score and benzodiazepine prescriptions or morphine equivalent dose. These findings suggest that when addressing alcohol and opioid use in PWH on long term opioid therapy, attention to PTSD symptoms is especially important given the higher risk for risky alcohol and opioid use among patients with this common comorbid condition.

Buprenorphine adherence and illicit opioid use among patients in treatment for opioid use disorder.

Background: Buprenorphine is a partial mu opioid agonist medication that has been shown to decrease non-prescribed opioid use, cravings, and opioid related morbidity and mortality. There is an assumption that full adherence is needed to achieve ideal treatment outcomes, and that non-adherence is associated with ongoing opioid use. However, literature documenting the strength of that assertion is lacking.Objectives: Evaluate the association between daily buprenorphine adherence and illicit opioid use.Methods: Secondary analysis of a 12-week randomized controlled trial of adults with opioid use disorder who recently initiated buprenorphine. Weekly study visits included self-report of daily buprenorphine adherence over the past 7 days (Timeline Follow Back method) and urine drug tests (UDT). A log-linear regression model accounting for clustering by participant was used to assess the association between buprenorphine adherence and illicit opioid use. Buprenorphine adherence was measured as a continuous variable (0-7 days).Results: Among 78 participants (56 men, 20 women, 2 nonbinary) with 737 visits, full 7-day adherence was reported at 70% of visits. The predominant form of non-adherence was missed doses (92% of cases). Each additional day of adherence was associated with an 8% higher rate of negative UDT for illicit opioids (RR = 1.08; 95% CI:1.03-1.13, p = .0002).Conclusion: In this sample of participants starting buprenorphine, missed doses were not uncommon. Fewer missed days was significantly associated with a lower risk of illicit opioid use. These findings suggest that efforts to minimize the number of missed days of buprenorphine are beneficial for treatment outcomes.

Qualitative inquiry into perceptions of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis among people who inject drugs living with hepatitis C in Seattle, WA, USA.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of HIV among persons who inject drugs (PWID) in the USA has been increasing since 2014, signaling the need to identify effective ways to engage PWID in HIV prevention services, namely pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). Yet, the uptake of PrEP in this population is minimal compared to other populations at risk of HIV acquisition. In this work, we sought to explore knowledge, attitudes, and perspectives of PrEP acceptability among PWID. METHODS: In the context of a pilot study to explore the acceptability of pharmacy-based hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment, we conducted semi-structured interviews (n = 24) and focus groups (n = 4, 16 participants) with people who were living with HCV and reported active injection drug use (≤ 90 days since last use). Participants were asked open-ended questions about their familiarity with and motivation to use PrEP. As part of a sub-analysis focused on PrEP, qualitative data were analyzed using a Rapid Assessment Process, where three coders used structured templates to summarize qualitative data and iteratively reviewed coded templates to identify themes. Participants also completed short quantitative questionnaires regarding drug use history and attitudes toward health concerns. RESULTS: Forty-seven percent of participants expressed having little or no concern regarding HIV acquisition. Targeted analyses focused on HIV prevention identified three themes, which help characterize behavioral determinants of nonadoption. First, knowledge of PrEP was limited among PWID and influenced by infrequent open community discussions around HIV risk. Second, PWID perceived sexual behaviors-but not injection drug use-as a motivator for HIV risk prevention. Finally, PWID identified many individual and environmental barriers that hinder PrEP uptake. CONCLUSION: Among PWID, PrEP is rarely discussed and concerns about the feasibility of using daily PrEP are common. Taken with the prevalent perception that drug use is not a high risk for HIV acquisition, our findings point to opportunities for public health work to target PrEP education to PWID and to leverage other successful interventions for PWID as an opportunity to provide PrEP to this vulnerable population.

Peer providers and linkage with buprenorphine care after hospitalization: A retrospective cohort study.

Background: People with opioid use disorder (OUD) are increasingly started on buprenorphine in the hospital, yet many patients do not attend outpatient buprenorphine care after discharge. Peer providers, people in recovery themselves, are a growing part of addiction care. We examine whether patients who received a low-intensity, peer-delivered intervention during hospitalization had a greater rate of linking with outpatient buprenorphine care relative to those not seen by a peer. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of adults with OUD who were started on buprenorphine during hospitalization. The primary outcome was receipt of a buprenorphine prescription within 30 days of discharge. Secondary outcomes included attendance at a follow-up visit with a buprenorphine provider within 30 days and hospital readmission within 90 days. Modified Poisson regression analyses tested for differences in the rate ratios (RR) of each binary outcome for patients who were versus were not seen by a peer provider. Peer notes in the electronic health record were reviewed to characterize peer activities. Results: 111 patients met the study inclusion criteria, 31.5% of whom saw a peer provider. 55.0% received a buprenorphine prescription within 30 days of hospital discharge. Patients with versus without peer provider encounters did not significantly differ in the rates of receiving a buprenorphine prescription (RR = 1.06, 95% CI: 0.74-1.51), hospital readmission (RR = 1.45, 95% CI: 0.80-2.64), or attendance at a buprenorphine follow-up visit (RR = 1.03, 95% CI: 0.68-1.57). Peers most often listened to or shared experiences with patients (68.6% of encounters) and helped facilitate medical care (60.0% of encounters). Conclusions: There were no differences in multiple measures of buprenorphine follow-up between patients who received this low-intensity peer intervention and those who did not. There is need to investigate what elements of peer provider programs contribute to patient outcomes and what outcomes should be assessed when evaluating peer programs.

Identification and Management of Opioid Use Disorder in Primary Care: an Update.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The rising prevalence of opioid use disorder (OUD) and related complications in North America coupled with limited numbers of specialists in addiction medicine has led to large gaps in treatment. Primary care providers (PCPs) are ideally suited to diagnose and care for people with OUD and are increasingly being called upon to improve access to care. This review will highlight the recent literature pertaining to the care of patients with OUD by PCPs. RECENT FINDINGS: The prevalence of patients with OUD in primary care practice is increasing, and models of office-based opioid treatment (OBOT) are evolving to meet local needs of both ambulatory practices and patients. OBOT has been shown to increase access to care and demonstrates comparable outcomes when compared to more specialty-driven care. OBOT is an effective means of increasing access to care for patients with OUD. The ideal structure of OBOT depends on local factors. Future research must explore ways to increase the identification and diagnosis of patients with OUD, improve treatment retention rates, reduce stigma, and promote interdisciplinary approaches to care.

Peer support for patients with opioid use disorder in the emergency department: A narrative review.

Faced with a growing opioid overdose crisis, emergency departments (EDs) are increasingly hiring peers-people with lived experiences of addiction and recovery-to work with patients in the ED who have opioid use disorders (OUDs) or who have experienced an opioid overdose. Despite a clear need for more support for patients with OUD and rapid expansion in grant funding for peer programs, there are limited data on how these programs affect clinical outcomes and how they are best implemented within the ED. In this narrative review, we synthesize the existing evidence on how to develop and implement peer programs for OUD in the ED setting. We describe the key activities peers can undertake in the ED, outline requirements of the peer role and best practices for peer supervision and hiring, detail how ED administrators have built financial and political support for peer programs, and summarize the limited evidence on clinical and care linkage outcomes of peer programs. We highlight key resources that ED clinicians and administrators can use to develop peer programs and key areas where additional research is needed.

"Sign Me Up": a qualitative study of video observed therapy (VOT) for patients receiving expedited methadone take-homes during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Federal and state regulations require frequent direct observation of methadone ingestion at an Opioid Treatment Program (OTP)-a requirement that creates barriers to patient access. Video observed therapy (VOT) may help to address public health and safety concerns of providing take-home medications while simultaneously reducing barriers to treatment access and long-term retention. Evaluating user experiences with VOT is important for understanding the acceptability of this strategy. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative evaluation of a clinical pilot program of VOT via smartphone that was rapidly implemented between April and August 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic within three opioid treatment programs. In the program, selected patients submitted video recordings of themselves ingesting methadone take-home doses, which were asynchronously reviewed by their counselor. We recruited participating patients and counselors for semi-structured, individual interviews to explore their VOT experiences after program completion. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis to identify key factors influencing acceptability and the effect of VOT on the treatment experience. RESULTS: We interviewed 12 of the 60 patients who participated in the clinical pilot and 3 of the 5 counselors. Overall, patients were enthusiastic about VOT, noting multiple benefits over traditional treatment experiences, including avoiding frequent travel to the clinic. Some noted how this allowed them to better meet recovery goals by avoiding a potentially triggering environment. Most appreciated having increased time to devote to other life priorities, including maintaining consistent employment. Participants described how VOT increased their autonomy, allowed them to keep treatment private, and normalized treatment to align with other medications that do not require in-person dosing. Participants did not describe major usability issues or privacy concerns with submitting videos. Some participants reported feeling disconnected from counselors while others felt more connected. Counselors felt some discomfort in their new role confirming medication ingestion but saw VOT as a useful tool for select patients. CONCLUSIONS: VOT may be an acceptable tool to achieve equipoise between lowering barriers to treatment with methadone and protecting the health and safety of patients and their communities.

Barriers and facilitators to implementing a Pharmacist, Physician, and Patient Navigator-Collaborative Care Model (PPP-CCM) to treat hepatitis C among people who inject drugs.

BACKGROUND: Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) offer an unprecedented opportunity to eliminate hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, yet barriers among people who inject drugs (PWID) remain. Having pharmacists provide care through collaborative drug therapy agreements (CDTAs) offers a promising solution. We developed and piloted a Pharmacist, Physician, and Patient Navigator-Collaborative Care Model (PPP-CCM) which utilized pharmacists to directly deliver HCV care at community organizations serving PWID. We conducted formative evaluation of the PPP-CCM pilot to characterize implementation experiences. METHODS: The PPP-CCM was implemented from November of 2020 through July of 2022. Formative evaluation team members observed implementation-related meetings and conducted multiple site visits, taking detailed fieldnotes. Fieldnotes were iteratively reviewed to identify barriers and facilitators to implementation and used to inform 7 key informant interviews conducted with programmatic staff at the end of the pilot. All data were analyzed using a Rapid Assessment Process (RAP) guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). The formative evaluation team shared results with program stakeholders (pharmacists, physicians, and other site staff) to verify and expand on learnings. RESULTS: Evaluation of PPP-CCM revealed 5 themes, encompassing all CFIR domains: 1) PPP-CCM was feasible but challenging to deliver efficiently; 2) the pharmacist role and characteristics (e.g., being flexible, available, and patient-centered) were key to PPP-CCM successes; 3) the PPP-CCM team met challenges engaging patients over time, but some team-based strategies helped; 4) community site characteristics (e.g., existing trusting relationships with PWID and physical space that enabled program visibility) were important contributors; and 5) financial barriers may limit PPP-CCM scale-up and sustainability. CONCLUSION: PPP-CCM is a novel and promising approach to HCV care delivery for PWID who may previously lack engagement in traditional care models, but careful attention needs to be paid to financial barriers to ensure scalability and sustainability.

Mortality in an Opioid Treatment Program.

This retrospective study examined mortality in an Opioid Treatment Program (OTP) with policies designed to admit and retain patients with as few barriers as possible. Methadone provided in the context of an OTP is known to decrease mortality and morbidity. Historically, patients have been discharged or turned away because of continued substance use. We examined patient deaths over three years in an OTP serving approximately 2400 patients daily. Demographics and causes of death were gathered from electronic health records and medical examiner reports. Pairwise comparisons were used to compare drug poisoning versus non-drug poisoning deaths. There were 155 deaths during the study period. The average age was 54, and half of the participants had positive results on their most recent drug screen. Forty one (26%) died from "drug poisoning." Drug poisoning deaths were more common among patients who: 1) had recent positive drug test results; 2) had documented alprazolam use; 3) were younger; 4) had shorter treatment durations; 5) were female. The majority of deaths were among long-term patients over 50 and were not caused by drug poisoning. These results support keeping patients in treatment despite ongoing drug use, and linking them to appropriate primary care.

Low Dose Buprenorphine Induction With Full Agonist Overlap in Hospitalized Patients With Opioid Use Disorder: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the outcomes of buprenorphine/naloxone low dose induction with overlap of full opioid agonists among hospitalized patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) as an alternative to standard induction strategies. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of patients with OUD who were admitted to the hospital over a 1-year period and initiated ono buprenorphine using initial doses of 0.5 mg and gradually increased while the patient remained on full agonists. Descriptive variables included basic demographics, reason for switching to buprenorphine, baseline opioid and morphine equivalent dose. The primary outcome was a successful transition defined by the patient leaving the hospital with a buprenorphine prescription. Bivariate analysis identified factors associated with unsuccessful medication transitions. Secondary outcomes included reported withdrawal symptoms and 30 day follow up to an outpatient buprenorphine program. RESULTS: Sixty two patients underwent low dose with overlap induction during the study period. Fourteen patients were on methadone for OUD before hospital admission. Fifty one patients (82%) successfully left the hospital with a prescription for buprenorphine. Factors associated with lower likelihood of success included older age, transitioning due to discharge placement needs and presence of withdrawal symptoms during the transition. Overall, 66% (N = 23) of patients referred within the same health care system followed up within 30 days. CONCLUSIONS: Low dose inductions with overlap of full opioid agonists were largely successful in transitioning hospitalized patients from full agonist opioids to buprenorphine. However, there were several factors associated with lower likelihood of success. Future work could focus on treatment of withdrawal symptoms and system-level changes ensuring patient-centered medication decisions.

Evaluation of Bundled Interventions for Patients With Opioid Use Disorder Experiencing Homelessness Receiving Extended Antibiotics for Severe Infection.

Hospitalizations for serious infections in patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) experiencing homelessness are common. Patients receiving 4 interventions (infectious disease consultation, addiction consultation, case management, and medications for OUD [MOUD]) had higher odds of clinical cure (unadjusted odds ratio [OR], 3.15; P = .03; adjusted OR, 3.03; P = .049) and successful retention in addiction care at 30 days (unadjusted OR, 5.46; P = .01; adjusted OR, 6.36; P = .003).

Increased utilization of buprenorphine and methadone in 2018 compared to 2015 among Seattle-area persons who inject drugs.

OBJECTIVE: To describe utilization patterns of methadone and buprenorphine among persons who inject drugs (PWID) in the Seattle area in 2018, compared to 2015. METHODS: Data from the 2018 National HIV Behavioral Surveillance (NHBS) system were used to compare the proportions of PWID reporting treatment with buprenorphine or methadone to survey responses in 2015. Temporal trends were assessed by calculating adjusted prevalence ratios (aPR) using Poisson regression. RESULTS: The sample included 498 PWID, of whom 39.2% (95% CI: 34.8-43.6%) reported past-year treatment with methadone and 21.9% (95% CI: 18.3-25.8%) reported buprenorphine. Participants in 2018 were significantly more likely to report past year receipt of buprenorphine (aPR = 4.43, 95% CI: 2.81-7.01) or methadone (aPR = 1.38, 95% CI: 1.02-1.87) compared to 2015. Most buprenorphine treated participants (67.6%) reported that they had received buprenorphine through low-barrier, community, or nonprofit programs. CONCLUSIONS: Among PWID who use opioids in the Seattle area, methadone use increased 38%, and buprenorphine use more than quadrupled from 2015 to 2018. Approximately half of surveyed PWID who use opioids still reported no treatment with either medication, highlighting remaining treatment gaps.

Successful engagement in buprenorphine treatment among hospitalized patients with opioid use disorder and trauma.

BACKGROUND: The opioid epidemic continues to cause significant morbidity and mortality. Although there are effective medications for opioid use disorder (OUD), a minority of patients receive these treatments. OUD is common among patients hospitalized for traumatic injury and hospitalization could be an opportunity to initiate medications and link to ongoing buprenorphine care. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study based on electronic health record review included patients who were: (1) hospitalized between January 1, 2018 and June 30, 2019, (2) age ≥18 years, (3) seen by an Addiction Medicine Consult Service, and (4) initiated on buprenorphine with plans for continuation post-discharge. Descriptive statistics identified differences between trauma and non-trauma groups and regression analysis identified predictors of 30 day buprenorphine follow up. RESULTS: Of 197 eligible patients, 60 (30.5 %) were hospitalized for traumatic injuries. Compared to non-trauma patients, trauma patients were younger, more likely to be employed, more likely to report using cannabis and tobacco, less likely to have recently injected drugs, and hospitalized longer. Among patients with follow-up data available (n = 147), 63.2 % of trauma patients were seen within 30 days, compared to 48.2 % of non-trauma patients (p = 0.16). There were no significant differences between the two groups with regards to urine drug test results or acute care utilization in the follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: Among hospitalized patients with OUD who initiate buprenorphine, those who were hospitalized for trauma were at least as likely to link to out-patient treatment. Trauma admissions represent an important opportunity for diagnosing and linking patients with OUD to buprenorphine treatment.

Public sector low threshold office-based buprenorphine treatment: outcomes at year 7.

BACKGROUND: Buprenorphine maintenance for opioid dependence remains of limited availability among underserved populations, despite increases in US opioid misuse and overdose deaths. Low threshold primary care treatment models including the use of unobserved, "home," buprenorphine induction may simplify initiation of care and improve access. Unobserved induction and long-term treatment outcomes have not been reported recently among large, naturalistic cohorts treated in low threshold safety net primary care settings. METHODS: This prospective clinical registry cohort design estimated rates of induction-related adverse events, treatment retention, and urine opioid results for opioid dependent adults offered buprenorphine maintenance in a New York City public hospital primary care office-based practice from 2006 to 2013. This clinic relied on typical ambulatory care individual provider-patient visits, prescribed unobserved induction exclusively, saw patients no more than weekly, and did not require additional psychosocial treatment. Unobserved induction consisted of an in-person screening and diagnostic visit followed by a 1-week buprenorphine written prescription, with pamphlet, and telephone support. Primary outcomes analyzed were rates of induction-related adverse events (AE), week 1 drop-out, and long-term treatment retention. Factors associated with treatment retention were examined using a Cox proportional hazard model among inductions and all patients. Secondary outcomes included overall clinic retention, buprenorphine dosages, and urine sample results. RESULTS: Of the 485 total patients in our registry, 306 were inducted, and 179 were transfers already on buprenorphine. Post-induction (n = 306), week 1 drop-out was 17%. Rates of any induction-related AE were 12%; serious adverse events, 0%; precipitated withdrawal, 3%; prolonged withdrawal, 4%. Treatment retention was a median 38 weeks (range 0-320) for inductions, compared to 110 (0-354) weeks for transfers and 57 for the entire clinic population. Older age, later years of first clinic visit (vs. 2006-2007), and baseline heroin abstinence were associated with increased treatment retention overall. CONCLUSIONS: Unobserved "home" buprenorphine induction in a public sector primary care setting appeared a feasible and safe clinical practice. Post-induction treatment retention of a median 38 weeks was in line with previous naturalistic studies of real-world office-based opioid treatment. Low threshold treatment protocols, as compared to national guidelines, may compliment recently increased prescriber patient limits and expand access to buprenorphine among public sector opioid use disorder patients.