Methadone treatment and patient-directed hospital discharges among patients with opioid use disorder: Observations from general medicine services at an urban, safety-net hospital.

Introduction: People with opioid use disorder (OUD) have high rates of discharge against medical advice from the hospital. Interventions for addressing these patient-directed discharges (PDDs) are lacking. We sought to explore the impact of methadone treatment for OUD on PDD. Methods: Using electronic record and billing data from an urban safety-net hospital, we retrospectively examined the first hospitalization on a general medicine service for adults with OUD from January 2016 through June 2018. Associations with PDD compared to planned discharge were examined using multivariable logistic regression. Administration patterns of maintenance therapy versus new in-hospital initiation of methadone were examined using bivariate tests. Results: During the study time period, 1,195 patients with OUD were hospitalized. 60.6% of patients received medication for OUD, of which 92.8% was methadone. Patients who received no treatment for OUD had a 19.1% PDD rate while patients initiated on methadone in-hospital had a 20.5% PDD rate and patients on maintenance methadone during the hospitalization had a 8.6% PDD rate. In multivariable logistic regression, methadone maintenance was associated with lower odds of PDD compared to no treatment (aOR 0.53, 95% CI 0.34-0.81), while methadone initiation was not (aOR 0.89, 95% CI 0.56-1.39). About 60% of patients initiated on methadone received 30 mg or less per day. Conclusions: In this study sample, maintenance methadone was associated with nearly a 50% reduction in the odds of PDD. More research is needed to assess the impact of higher hospital methadone initiation dosing on PDD and if there is an optimal protective dose.

Inpatient Opioid Use Disorder Treatment by Generalists is Associated With Linkage to Opioid Treatment Programs After Discharge.

OBJECTIVES: Describe clinical and demographic associations with inpatient medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) initiation on general medicine services and to examine associations between inpatient MOUD initiation by generalists and subsequent patient healthcare utilization. METHODS: This is a retrospective study using medical record data from general medicine services at an urban safety-net hospital before an inpatient addiction consultation service. The patients were adults hospitalized for acute medical illness who had an opioid-related ICD-10 code associated with the visit. Associations with MOUD initiation were assessed using multivariable logistic regression. Hospital readmission, emergency department use, linkage to opioid treatment programs (OTP), and mortality at 30- and 90-days postdischarge were compared between those with and without hospital MOUD initiation using χ2 tests. RESULTS: Of 1,284 hospitalized patients with an opioid-related code, 59.81% received MOUD and 31.38% of these were newly initiated in-hospital. In multivariable logistic regression, Black race, mood disorder, psychotic disorder, and alcohol use disorder were negatively associated with MOUD initiation, while being aged 25-34, having a moderate hospital severity of illness score, and experiencing homelessness were positively associated. There were no bivariate associations between MOUD initiation and postdischarge emergency department use, hospital readmission, or mortality at 30- and 90-days, but those initiated on MOUD were more likely to present to an OTP within 90 days (30.57% vs 12.80%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: MOUD prescribing by inpatient generalists may help to increase the number of patients on treatment for opioid use disorder after hospital discharge. More research is needed to understand the impact of inpatient MOUD treatment without addiction specialty consultation.

Time to ACT: launching an Addiction Care Team (ACT) in an urban safety-net health system.

Across the USA, morbidity and mortality from substance use are rising as reflected by increases in acute care hospitalisations for substance use complications and substance-related deaths. Patients with substance use disorders (SUD) have long and costly hospitalisations and higher readmission rates compared to those without SUD. Hospitalisation presents an opportunity to diagnose and treat individuals with SUD and connect them to ongoing care. However, SUD care often remains unaddressed by hospital providers due to lack of a systems approach and addiction medicine knowledge, and is compounded by stigma. We present a blueprint to launching an interprofessional inpatient addiction care team embedded in the hospital medicine division of an urban, safety-net integrated health system. We describe key factors for successful implementation including: (1) demonstrating the scope and impact of SUD in our health system via a needs assessment; (2) aligning improvement areas with health system leadership priorities; (3) involving executive leadership to create goal and initiative alignment; and (4) obtaining seed funding for a pilot programme from our Medicaid health plan partner. We also present challenges and lessons learnt.

Opioid Use Disorder: Medical Treatment Options.

Opioid use disorder is highly prevalent and can be fatal. At least 2.1 million Americans 12 years and older had opioid use disorder in 2016, and approximately 47,000 Americans died from opioid overdoses in 2017. Opioid use disorder is a chronic relapsing condition, the treatment of which falls within the scope of practice of family physicians. With appropriate medication-assisted treatment, patients are more likely to enter full recovery. Methadone and buprenorphine are opioid agonists that reduce mortality, opioid use, and HIV and hepatitis C virus transmission while increasing treatment retention. Intramuscular naltrexone is not as well studied and is harder to initiate than opioid agonists because of the need to abstain for approximately one week before the first dose. However, among those who start naltrexone, it can reduce opioid use and craving. Choosing the correct medication for a given patient depends on patient preference, local availability of opioid treatment programs, anticipated effectiveness, and adverse effects. Discontinuation of pharmacotherapy increases the risk of relapse; therefore, patients should be encouraged to continue treatment indefinitely. Many patients with opioid use disorder are treated in primary care, where effective addiction treatment can be provided. Family physicians are ideally positioned to diagnose opioid use disorder, provide evidence-based treatment with buprenorphine or naltrexone, refer patients for methadone as appropriate, and lead the response to the current opioid crisis.

Acceptability of Naloxone Co-Prescription Among Primary Care Providers Treating Patients on Long-Term Opioid Therapy for Pain.

BACKGROUND: Naloxone co-prescription is recommended for patients on long-term opioids for pain, yet there are few data on the practice. OBJECTIVE: To explore naloxone co-prescribing acceptability among primary care providers for patients on long-term opioids. DESIGN: We surveyed providers at six safety-net primary care clinics in San Francisco that had initiated naloxone co-prescribing. Providers were encouraged to offer naloxone to patients on long-term opioids or otherwise at risk of witnessing or experiencing an overdose. Surveys were administered electronically 4 to 11 months after co-prescribing began. KEY RESULTS: One hundred eleven providers (69 %) responded to the survey, among whom 41.4 % were residents; 40.5 % practiced internal medicine and 55.0 % practiced family medicine. Most (79.3 %) prescribed naloxone, to a mean of 7.7 patients; 99.1 % were likely to prescribe naloxone in the future. Providers reported they were likely to prescribe naloxone to most patients, including those on low doses, defined as <20 morphine equivalent mg daily (59.8 %), ≥65 years old (83.9 %), with no overdose history (80.7 %), and with no substance use disorder (73.6 %). Most providers felt that prescribing naloxone did not affect their opioid prescribing, 22.5 % felt that they might prescribe fewer opioids, and 3.6 % felt that they might prescribe more. Concerns about providing naloxone were largely administrative, relating to time and pharmacy or payer logistics. Internists (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 0.49, 95 % CI = 0.26-0.93, p = 0.029), those licensed for 5-20 years (IRR = 2.10, 95 % CI = 1.35-3.25, p = 0.001), and those with more patients prescribed long-term opioids (IRR = 1.10, 95 % CI = 1.05-1.14, p <0.001) were independently more likely to prescribe a greater number of naloxone compared to participants without these exposures. CONCLUSIONS: Naloxone co-prescription is considered acceptable among primary care providers. Barriers such as time and dispensing logistics may be alleviated by novel naloxone formulations intended for laypersons recently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Nonrandomized Intervention Study of Naloxone Coprescription for Primary Care Patients Receiving Long-Term Opioid Therapy for Pain.

BACKGROUND: Unintentional overdose involving opioid analgesics is a leading cause of injury-related death in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility and effect of implementing naloxone prescription to patients prescribed opioids for chronic pain. DESIGN: 2-year nonrandomized intervention study. SETTING: 6 safety-net primary care clinics in San Francisco, California. PARTICIPANTS: 1985 adults receiving long-term opioid therapy for pain. INTERVENTION: Providers and clinic staff were trained and supported in naloxone prescribing. MEASUREMENTS: Outcomes were proportion of patients prescribed naloxone, opioid-related emergency department (ED) visits, and prescribed opioid dose based on chart review. RESULTS: 38.2% of 1985 patients receiving long-term opioids were prescribed naloxone. Patients prescribed higher doses of opioids and with an opioid-related ED visit in the past 12 months were independently more likely to be prescribed naloxone. Patients who received a naloxone prescription had 47% fewer opioid-related ED visits per month in the 6 months after receipt of the prescription (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.53 [95% CI, 0.34 to 0.83]; P = 0.005) and 63% fewer visits after 1 year (IRR, 0.37 [CI, 0.22 to 0.64]; P < 0.001) compared with patients who did not receive naloxone. There was no net change over time in opioid dose among those who received naloxone and those who did not (IRR, 1.03 [CI, 0.91 to 1.27]; P = 0.61). LIMITATION: Results are observational and may not be generalizable beyond safety-net settings. CONCLUSION: Naloxone can be coprescribed to primary care patients prescribed opioids for pain. When advised to offer naloxone to all patients receiving opioids, providers may prioritize those with established risk factors. Providing naloxone in primary care settings may have ancillary benefits, such as reducing opioid-related adverse events. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.

Is cannabis use associated with less opioid use among people who inject drugs?

BACKGROUND: Clinical, experimental, and ethnographic research suggests that cannabis may be used to help manage pain. Ethnographic research has revealed that some people are using cannabis to temper their illicit opioid use. We seek to learn if there is an association between cannabis use and the frequency of nonmedical opioid use among people who inject drugs (PWID). METHODS: PWID were recruited using targeted sampling methods in Los Angeles and San Francisco, California, 2011-2013. We limited analysis to people who used opioids in past 30 days (N=653). OUTCOME VARIABLE: number of times used any opioids non-medically in past 30 days. Explanatory variable: any cannabis use past 30 days. STATISTICS: multivariable linear regression with a log-transformed outcome variable. RESULTS: About half reported cannabis use in the past 30 days. The mean and median number of times using opioids in past 30 days were significantly lower for people who used cannabis than those who did not use cannabis (mean: 58.3 vs. 76.4 times; median: 30 vs 60 times, respectively; p<0.003). In multivariable analysis, people who used cannabis used opioids less often than those who did not use cannabis (Beta: -0.346; 95% confidence interval: -0.575, -0.116; p<0.003). CONCLUSIONS: There is a statistical association between recent cannabis use and lower frequency of nonmedical opioid use among PWID. This may suggest that PWID use cannabis to reduce their pain and/or nonmedical use of opioids. However, more research, including prospective longitudinal studies, is needed to determine the validity of these findings.

Promethazine use among chronic pain patients.

BACKGROUND: Concomitant use of opioids and promethazine has been reported in various subpopulations, including methadone maintenance patients, injection drug users, and at-risk teenagers. Promethazine is thought to potentiate the "high" from opioids. However, to date, the prevalence of promethazine use has not been determined among patients prescribed opioids for chronic pain. METHODS: Urine samples from 921 patients prescribed opioids for chronic pain were analyzed for promethazine. Demographic data, toxicology results, and opioid prescription information were obtained through medical record abstraction. We assessed the prevalence and factors associated with promethazine use with bivariable and multivariable statistics. RESULTS: The prevalence of promethazine-positive urine samples among chronic pain patients was 9%. Only 50% of promethazine-positive patients had an active prescription for promethazine. Having benzodiazepine-positive urine with no prescription for a benzodiazepine was statistically associated with promethazine use. Also, having a prescription for methadone for pain or being in methadone maintenance for the treatment of opioid dependence were both statistically associated with promethazine use. Chronic pain patients prescribed only a long-acting opioid were more likely to have promethazine-positive urines than patients prescribed a short-acting opioid. CONCLUSIONS: The study provides compelling evidence of significant promethazine use in chronic pain patients. Promethazine should be considered as a potential drug of abuse that could cause increased morbidity in opioid-using populations.

A primary care approach to substance misuse.

Substance misuse is common among patients in primary care settings. Although it has a substantial health impact, physicians report low levels of preparedness to identify and assist patients with substance use disorders. An effective approach to office-based treatment includes a coherent framework for identifying and managing substance use disorders and specific strategies to promote behavior change. Brief validated screening tools allow rapid and efficient identification of problematic drug use, including prescription medication misuse. After a positive screening, a brief assessment should be performed to stratify patients into three categories: hazardous use, substance abuse, or substance dependence. Patients with hazardous use benefit from brief counseling by a physician. For patients with substance abuse, brief counseling is also indicated, with the addition of more intensive ongoing follow-up and reevaluation. In patients with substance dependence, best practices include a combination of counseling, referral to specialty treatment, and pharmacotherapy (e.g., drug tapering, naltrexone, buprenorphine, methadone). Comorbid mental illness and intimate partner violence are common in patients with substance use disorders. The use of a motivational rather than a confrontational communication style during screening, counseling, and treatment is important to improve patient outcomes.

A SBIRT curriculum for medical residents: development of a performance feedback tool to build learner confidence.

A major barrier to actualizing the public health impact potential of screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) is the suboptimal development and implementation of evidence-based training curricula for healthcare providers. As part of a federal grant to develop and implement SBIRT training in medical residency programs, the authors assessed 95 internal medicine residents before they received SBIRT training to identify self-reported characteristics and behaviors that would inform curriculum development. Residents' confidence in their SBIRT skills significantly predicted SBIRT practice. Lack of experience dealing with alcohol or drug problems and discomfort in dealing with these issues were significantly associated with low confidence. To target these barriers, the authors revised their SBIRT curriculum to increase residents' confidence in their skills and developed an innovative SBIRT Proficiency Checklist and Feedback Protocol for skills practice observations. Qualitative feedback suggests that, despite the discomfort residents experience in being observed, a proficiency checklist and feedback protocol appear to boost learner confidence.