Opioid Use Disorder Treatments: An Evidence Map.

BACKGROUND: Evidence maps are emerging data visualization of a systematic review. There are no published evidence maps summarizing opioid use disorder (OUD) interventions. AIM: Our aim was to publish an interactive summary of all peer-reviewed interventional and observational trials assessing the treatment of OUD and common clinical outcomes. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, PsycInfo, Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials, and Web of Science were queried using multiple OUD-related MESH terms, without date limitations, for English-language publications. Inclusions were human subjects, treatment of OUD, OUD patient or community-level outcomes, and systematic reviews of OUD interventions. Exclusions were laboratory studies, reviews, and case reports. Two reviewers independently scanned abstracts for inclusion before coding eligible full-text articles by pre-specified filters: research design, study population, study setting, intervention, outcomes, sample size, study duration, geographical region, and funding sources. RESULTS: The OUD Evidence Map (https://med.nyu.edu/research/lee-lab/research/opioid-use-disorder-treatment-evidence-map) identified and assessed 12,933 relevant abstracts through 2020. We excluded 9455 abstracts and full text reviewed 2839 manuscripts; 888 were excluded, 1591 were included in the final evidence map. The most studied OUD interventions were methadone (n = 754 studies), buprenorphine (n = 499), and naltrexone (n = 134). The most common outcomes were heroin/opioid use (n = 708), treatment retention (n = 557), and non-opioid drug use (n = 368). Clear gaps included a wider array of opioid agonists for treatment, digital behavioral interventions, studies of OUD treatments in criminal justice settings, and overdose as a clinical outcome. CONCLUSION: This OUD Evidence Map highlights the importance of pharmacologic interventions for OUD and reductions in opioid use. Future iterations will update results annually and scan policy-level interventions.

Perceptions and experiences toward extended-release buprenorphine among persons leaving jail with opioid use disorders before and during COVID-19: an in-depth qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Extended-release buprenorphine (XRB) offers a novel approach to sustained monthly treatment for people who use opioids in criminal justice settings (CJS). This study explores the experiences of adults receiving XRB as a jail-to-community treatment. METHODS AND FINDINGS: In-depth qualitative interviews were conducted among adult participants with opioid use disorder (OUD; n = 16) who were recently released from NYC jails and maintained on XRB after switching from daily sublingual buprenorphine (SLB). Interviews elaborated on the acceptability and barriers and facilitators of XRB treatment pre- and post-release. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed for content related to factors influencing XRB treatment uptake and community reentry. Important themes were grouped into systems, medication, and patient-level factors. Key systems-level factors influencing initiation of XRB in jail included an alternative to perceived stigmatization and privacy concerns associated with daily in-jail SLB administration and less concerns with buprenorphine diversion. In-jail peer networks positively influenced participant adoption of XRB. XRB satisfaction was attributed to reduced in-jail clinic and medication administration visits, perceived efficacy and blockade effects upon the use of heroin/fentanyl following release, and averting the risk of criminal activities to fund opioid use. Barriers to retention included post-injection withdrawal symptoms and cravings attributed to perceived suboptimal medication dosing, injection site pain, and lack of in-jail provider information about the medication. CONCLUSION: Participants were generally favorable to XRB initiation in jail and retention post-release. Further studies are needed to address factors influencing access to XRB in criminal justice settings, including stigma, ensuring patient privacy following initiation on XRB, and patient-, provider-, and correctional staff education pertaining to XRB. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identified: NCT03604159.

A National Assessment of the Association Between Patient Race and Physician Visit Time During New Outpatient Urology Consultations.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if there is an association between patient race and physician time spent with the patient during outpatient urology consultations. METHODS: We identified all adult urology new outpatient visits in the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey dataset for 2012-2016. Patient race was dichotomized as White or non-White. Our primary outcome was time spent during the visit between the patient and urologist. Using population-level weighting, we compared differences in mean time spent during visits with White and non-White patients. Mixed-effects linear regression was used to adjust for confounding factors and to account for clustering among individual physicians. Secondary outcomes included number of services provided and if ancillary providers were seen. RESULTS: Over the 5 year period, 1668 raw visits met criteria and were used to estimate 21million new outpatient urology visits nationwide. 80% of all visits were with White patients. Mean physician time spent among visits with white patients was 23.9 minutes and 24.4 minutes for non-White patients. There was no difference in number of services provided but visits with non-white patients were less likely to include an ancillary provider. After adjustment, there was no significant difference in mean time spent with the urologist among visits with White and non-White patients (difference 0.9 minutes, 95% CI: -0.6-2.4). There were also no differences in adjusted mean time spent among return visits or new visits for hematuria, urologic cancers, or BPH. CONCLUSION: We found no statistically significant difference in time spent with a urologist during outpatient office consultations between White and non-White patients.