Same-day vs. delayed buprenorphine prescribing and patient retention in an office-based buprenorphine treatment program.

BACKGROUND: Buprenorphine is a safe and effective treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD), yet a small fraction of people with OUD receive it, and rates of retention in treatment are suboptimal. Dropout most commonly occurs within 30 days of treatment initiation. Therefore, research needs to investigate modifiable factors contributing to early dropout. Requiring multiple visits for evaluation prior to providing an initial buprenorphine prescription (delayed prescription) may lead to more early dropout when compared with prescribing at the first medical visit (same-day prescription). Our objective was to determine whether same-day (vs. delayed) buprenorphine prescription was associated with 30-day retention in treatment. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 237 patients who initiated buprenorphine treatment at an urban federally qualified community health center (FQHC) between June 1, 2015, and December 31, 2017. We measured prescription delays by determining the time between patients' first request for buprenorphine treatment (by calling, presenting to the FQHC in-person, or requesting treatment during a visit) and when providers wrote buprenorphine prescriptions. We included only patients with prescription delays less than or equal to 30 days in the analysis. We defined same-day prescription as the patient experiencing no delays in starting treatment and receiving a prescription during the first medical visit. We examined whether patients who received same-day prescriptions had different sociodemographic and clinical characteristics than patients who received delayed prescriptions. We also evaluated whether there was an association between the initial provider who made the decision about same-day vs. delayed buprenorphine prescribing and same-day prescription. We built a multivariable logistic regression model to evaluate the independent association between same-day vs. delayed prescription receipt and odds of 30-day retention in treatment. RESULTS: Of the 237 patients who initiated buprenorphine treatment from June 1, 2015, to December 31, 2017, 222 had delays less than or equal to 30 days and we included them in the analysis. Of the 222 patients, the mean age was 46 (SD 10.4), the majority were Hispanic (n = 160, 72%), male (n = 175, 79%), and publicly insured (n = 165, 74%). The majority of patients experienced delayed buprenorphine prescription receipt (n = 133, 60%). The median time to buprenorphine prescription was 5 days (IQR 0-11). Of those who experienced a delay (n = 133), the median delay time was 8 days (IQR 5-20). Compared to those with same-day prescription receipt, more patients with delayed prescription receipt were non-Hispanic white (11% vs. 2%, p = 0.01), had a history of alcohol use (43% vs. 21%, p < 0.01) or benzodiazepine use (22% vs. 9%, p = 0.01), and had the buprenorphine coordinator as their initial provider (57 vs. 13%, p < 0.01). Same-day prescription receipt was not significantly associated with 30-day treatment retention in the adjusted analysis (AOR 1.92, 95% CI 0.81-4.56). CONCLUSION: Patients who received buprenorphine prescriptions on the same day as their initial evaluation differed from those who received delayed prescriptions. After adjustment for these differences, same-day prescription was not significantly associated with higher 30-day treatment retention. Providers may be delaying treatment when there is concern about alcohol and/or benzodiazepine use; however, providers could institute enhanced monitoring based on clinical concern for sedation or overdose risk without delaying buprenorphine prescription. Prospective studies of same-day vs. delayed buprenorphine receipt would elucidate the association between delays and retention more definitively.

A buprenorphine education and training program for primary care residents: implementation and evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Although substance use disorders are highly prevalent, resident preparation to care for patients with these disorders is frequently insufficient. With increasing rates of opioid abuse and dependence, and the availability of medication-assisted treatment, one strategy to improve resident skills is to incorporate buprenorphine treatment into training settings. METHODS: In this study, esidency faculty delivered the BupEd education and training program to 71 primary care residents. BupEd included (1) a didactic session on buprenorphine, (2) an interactive motivational interviewing session, (3) monthly case conferences, and (4) supervised clinical experience providing buprenorphine treatment. To evaluate BupEd, the authors assessed (1) residents' provision of buprenorphine treatment during residency, (2) residents' provision of buprenorphine treatment after residency, and (3) treatment retention among patients treated by resident versus attending physicians. RESULTS: Of 71 residents, most served as a covering or primary provider to at least 1 buprenorphine-treated patient (84.5 and 66.2%, respectively). Of 40 graduates, 27.5% obtained a buprenorphine waiver and 17.5% prescribed buprenorphine. Treatment retention was similar between patients cared for by resident PCPs versus attending PCPs (90-day retention: 63.6% [n = 35] vs. 67.9% [n = 152]; P = .55). CONCLUSION: These results show that BupEd is feasible, provides residents with supervised clinical experience in treating opioid-dependent patients, and can serve as a model to prepare primary care physicians to care for patients with opioid dependence.

Buprenorphine treatment outcomes among opioid-dependent cocaine users and non-users.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: National treatment guidelines state that polysubstance users, including cocaine users, may not be appropriate candidates for office-based buprenorphine treatment. However, data to support this recommendation are sparse and conflicting, and the implications of this recommendation may include limiting the usefulness of buprenorphine treatment, as cocaine use is common among opioid-dependent individuals seeking buprenorphine treatment. We compared buprenorphine treatment outcomes (6-month treatment retention and self-reported opioid use over 6 months) in opioid-dependent cocaine users versus non-users who initiated buprenorphine treatment at an urban community health center. METHODS: We followed 87 participants over 6 months, collecting interview and medical record data. We used logistic regression models to test whether baseline cocaine use was associated with treatment retention and mixed effects nonlinear models to test whether baseline cocaine use was associated with self-reported opioid use. RESULTS: At baseline, 39.1% reported cocaine use. In all participants, self-reported opioid use decreased from 89.7% to 27.4% over 6 months, and 6-month treatment retention was 54.5%. We found no significant difference in 6-month treatment retention (AOR = 1.56, 95% CI: .58-4.17, p = .38) or self-reported opioid use (AOR = .89, 95% CI: .26-3.07, p = .85) between cocaine users and non-users. CONCLUSIONS AND SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE: This study demonstrates that buprenorphine treatment retention is not worse in cocaine users than non-users, with clinically meaningful improvements in self-reported opioid use. These findings suggest that opioid-dependent cocaine users attain considerable benefits from office-based buprenorphine treatment and argue for the inclusion of these patients in office-based buprenorphine treatment programs.

Prior buprenorphine experience is associated with office-based buprenorphine treatment outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: As buprenorphine treatment and illicit buprenorphine use increase, many patients seeking buprenorphine treatment will have had prior experience with buprenorphine. Little evidence is available to guide optimal treatment strategies for patients with prior buprenorphine experience. We examined whether prior buprenorphine experience was associated with treatment retention and opioid use. We also explored whether type of prior buprenorphine use (prescribed or illicit use) was associated with these treatment outcomes. METHODS: We analyzed interview and medical record data from a longitudinal cohort study of 87 individuals who initiated office-based buprenorphine treatment. We examined associations between prior buprenorphine experience and 6-month treatment retention using logistic regression models, and prior buprenorphine experience and any self-reported opioid use at 1, 3, and 6 months using nonlinear mixed models. RESULTS: Most (57.4%) participants reported prior buprenorphine experience; of these, 40% used prescribed buprenorphine and 60% illicit buprenorphine only. Compared with buprenorphine-naïve participants, those with prior buprenorphine experience had better treatment retention (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 2.65, 95% CI = 1.05-6.70). Similar associations that did not reach significance were found when exploring prescribed and illicit buprenorphine use. There was no difference in opioid use when comparing participants with prior buprenorphine experience with those who were buprenorphine-naive (AOR = 1.33, 95% CI = 0.38-4.65). Although not significant, qualitatively different results were found when exploring opioid use by type of prior buprenorphine use (prescribed buprenorphine vs buprenorphine-naïve, AOR = 2.20, 95% CI = 0.58-8.26; illicit buprenorphine vs buprenorphine-naïve, AOR = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.07-3.46). CONCLUSIONS: Prior buprenorphine experience was common and associated with better retention. Understanding how prior buprenorphine experience affects treatment outcomes has important clinical and public health implications.

Pain is not associated with worse office-based buprenorphine treatment outcomes.

Physical pain is common among individuals seeking treatment for opioid dependence. Pain may negatively impact addiction treatment. The authors prospectively studied opioid-dependent individuals initiating office-based buprenorphine treatment, comparing buprenorphine treatment outcomes (treatment retention and opioid use) among participants with and without pain (baseline pain or persistent pain). Among 82 participants, 60% reported baseline pain and 38% reported persistent pain. Overall, treatment retention was 56% and opioid use decreased from 89% to 26% over 6 months. In multivariable analyses, the authors found no association between pain and buprenorphine treatment outcomes. Opioid-dependent individuals with and without pain can achieve similar success with buprenorphine treatment.

A comparison of buprenorphine induction strategies: patient-centered home-based inductions versus standard-of-care office-based inductions.

Although novel buprenorphine induction strategies are emerging, they have been inadequately studied. To examine our newly developed patient-centered home-based inductions, we conducted a subgroup analysis of 79 opioid-dependent individuals who had buprenorphine inductions at an urban community health center. Participants chose their induction strategy. Standard-of-care office-based inductions were physician driven, with multiple assessments, and observed, and the patient-centered home-based inductions emphasized patient self-management and included a "kit" for induction at home. We conducted interviews and extracted medical records. Using mixed nonlinear models, we examined associations between induction strategy and opioid use and any drug use. Compared with those with standard-of-care office-based inductions, participants with patient-centered home-based inductions had no significant differences in opioid use (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 0.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.13-2.97) but greater reductions in any drug use (AOR = 0.05, 95% CI = 0.01-0.37). Taking into account the limitations of our observational cohort study design, we conclude that participants with patient-centered home-based inductions had similar reductions in opioid use and greater reductions in any drug use than those with standard-of-care office-based inductions. It is essential that new induction strategies be based on existing models or theories and be well studied.

Factors associated with complicated buprenorphine inductions.

Despite data supporting its efficacy, barriers to implementation of buprenorphine for office-based treatment are present. Complications can occur during buprenorphine inductions, yet few published studies have examined this phase of treatment. To examine factors associated with complications during buprenorphine induction, we conducted a retrospective chart review of the first 107 patients receiving buprenorphine treatment in an urban community health center. The primary outcome, defined as complicated induction (precipitated or protracted withdrawal), was observed in 18 (16.8%) patients. Complicated inductions were associated with poorer treatment retention (than routine inductions) and decreased over time. Factors independently associated with complicated inductions included recent use of prescribed methadone, recent benzodiazepine use, no prior experience with buprenorphine, and a low initial dose of buprenorphine/naloxone. Findings from this study and further investigation of patient characteristics and treatment characteristics associated with complicated inductions can help guide buprenorphine treatment strategies.

Home- versus office-based buprenorphine inductions for opioid-dependent patients.

Recent legislation permits the treatment of opioid-dependent patients with buprenorphine in the primary care setting, opening doors for the development of new treatment models for opioid dependence. We modified national buprenorphine treatment guidelines to emphasize patient self-management by giving patients the opportunity to choose to have buprenorphine inductions at home or the physician's office. We examined whether patients who had home-based inductions achieved greater 30-day retention than patients who had traditional office-based inductions in a study of 115 opioid-dependent patients treated in an inner-city health center. Retention was similar in both groups: 50 (78.1%) in office-based group versus 40 (78.4%) in home-based group, p = .97. Several patient characteristics were associated with choosing office- versus home-based inductions, which likely influenced these results. We conclude that opioid dependence can be successfully managed in the primary care setting. Approaches that encourage patient involvement in treatment for opioid dependence can be beneficial.

Inquiries about and initiation of buprenorphine treatment in an inner-city clinic.

Despite increases in opioid dependence, availability of buprenorphine treatment remains limited. Reasons may include health center concerns about becoming overwhelmed or attracting patients who differ from the local community. This study documents inquiries about and initiation of buprenorphine treatment in an inner-city health center. From 2006-2008, we collected demographic information and subsequent treatment data for everyone who inquired about treatment. Of the 324 people who inquired, 55.6% initiated treatment. The number of inquiries increased gradually over time, and most came from local community residents (80.4%). These results may allay health center concerns, and can help planning for buprenorphine treatment.

Buprenorphine treatment in an urban community health center: what to expect.

BACKGROUND: Despite new opportunities to expand buprenorphine treatment for opioid dependence, use of this treatment modality has been limited. Physicians may question their ability to successfully treat opioid-dependent patients with buprenorphine in a primary care setting. We describe a buprenorphine treatment program and treatment outcomes in an urban community health center. METHODS: We conducted retrospective chart reviews on the first 41 opioid-dependent patients treated with buprenorphine/naloxone. The primary outcome was 90-day retention in treatment. RESULTS: Patients' mean age was 46 years, 70.7% were male, 58.8% Hispanic, 31.7% black, 57.5% unemployed, and 70.0% used heroin prior to treatment. Twenty-nine (70.7%) patients were retained in treatment at day 90. Compared to those not retained, patients retained in treatment were more likely to have used street methadone (0% versus 37.9%) and less likely to have used opioid analgesics (54.6% versus 20.7%) and alcohol (50.0% versus 13.8%) prior to treatment. Of the 25 patients with urine toxicology tests, 24% tested positive for opioids. CONCLUSIONS: Buprenorphine treatment for opioid dependence in an urban community health center resulted in a 90-day retention rate of 70.7%. Type of substance use prior to treatment appeared to be associated with retention. These findings can help guide program development.

Effects of didanosine formulations on the pharmacokinetics of amprenavir.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of concurrent, single doses of didanosine (both buffered and encapsulated enteric-coated bead formulations) on amprenavir steady-state pharmacokinetics, and to determine the effect of staggered dosing of the buffered formulation. DESIGN: Two-period, single-sequence, prospective, open-label drug interaction study with a 10-day washout interval. SETTING: Clinical research unit. SUBJECTS: Sixteen healthy volunteers without human immunodeficiency virus infection. INTERVENTION: Amprenavir 600 mg twice/day was given for the first 4 days of each treatment period, with 12-hour pharmacokinetic evaluations conducted on the last 2 days of each period. Amprenavir was administered according to the following sequential treatments (all fasting): amprenavir alone, concurrent with buffered didanosine, 1 hour before buffered didanosine, and concurrent with the encapsulated enteric-coated bead formulation of didanosine. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Plasma was collected 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 12 hours after dosing and assayed for amprenavir by using high-performance liquid chromatography. Noncompartmental pharmacokinetic parameters were determined. Geometric mean ratios for each treatment relative to amprenavir alone were determined and reported with 90% confidence intervals (CIs). No significant trends were noted in predose concentrations measured during either period. Area under the concentration-time curve during one 12-hour dosing interval (AUC12) was found to be bioequivalent for all treatments. Peak drug concentration (Cmax) was reduced by 15% on average with concurrent administration of buffered didanosine, and bioequivalence was not demonstrated for this parameter. For concurrent enteric-coated didanosine, geometric mean ratios for Cmax and AUC12 were 0.93 and 0.94, respectively. For buffered didanosine given 1 hour after amprenavir, geometric mean ratios were 1.06 and 1.10 for the same parameters, respectively. No differences were observed in 12-hour concentration (C12) with concurrent administration of buffered or enteric-coated didanosine. CONCLUSION: Amprenavir AUC12 and C12 are not significantly affected by concurrent administration of the buffered or enteric-coated formulations of didanosine. Therefore, amprenavir may be administered concurrently with either the buffered or the encapsulated enteric-coated bead formulation of didanosine in the fasting state.