Uptake of slow-release oral morphine as opioid agonist treatment among hospitalised patients with opioid use disorder.

INTRODUCTION: Buprenorphine and methadone are highly effective first-line medications for opioid agonist treatment (OAT) but are not acceptable to all patients. We aimed to assess the uptake of slow-release oral morphine (SROM) as second-line OAT among medically ill, hospitalised patients with opioid use disorder who declined buprenorphine and methadone. METHODS: This study included consecutive hospitalised patients with untreated moderate-to-severe opioid use disorder referred to an inpatient addiction medicine consultation service, between June 2018 and September 2019, in Nova Scotia, Canada. We assessed the proportion of patients initiating first-line OAT (buprenorphine or methadone) in-hospital, and the proportion initiating SROM after declining first-line OAT. We compared rates of outpatient OAT continuation (i.e., filling outpatient OAT prescription or attending first outpatient OAT clinic visit) by medication type, and compared OAT selection between patients with and without chronic pain, using χ2 tests. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients were offered OAT initiation in-hospital; six patients (18%) also had chronic pain. Twenty-one patients (62%) initiated first-line OAT with buprenorphine or methadone. Of the 13 patients who declined first-line OAT, seven (54%) initiated second-line OAT with SROM in-hospital. Rates of outpatient OAT continuation after hospital discharge were high (>80%) and did not differ between medications (P = 0.4). Patients with co-existing chronic pain were more likely to choose SROM over buprenorphine or methadone (P = 0.005). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The ability to offer SROM (in addition to buprenorphine or methadone) increased rates of OAT initiation among hospitalised patients. Increasing access to SROM would help narrow the opioid use disorder treatment gap of unmet need.

Implementation and evaluation of a novel, unofficial, trainee-organized hospital addiction medicine consultation service.

Background: To evaluate a novel, unofficial, trainee-organized, hospital addiction medicine consultation service (AMCS), we aimed to assess whether it was (1) acceptable to hospital providers and patients, (2) feasible to organize and deliver, and (3) impacted patient care. Methods: We performed a retrospective descriptive study of all AMCS consultations over the first 16 months. We determined acceptability via the number of referrals received from admitting services, and the proportion of referred patients who consented to consultation. We evaluated feasibility via continuation/growth of the service over time, and the proportion of referrals successfully completed before hospital discharge. As most referrals related to opioid use disorder, we determined impact through the proportion of eligible patients offered and initiated on opioid agonist therapy (OAT) in hospital, and the proportion of patients who filled their outpatient prescription or attended their first visit with their outpatient OAT prescriber. Results: The unofficial AMCS grew to involve six hospital-based residents and five supervising community-based addiction physicians. The service received 59 referrals, primarily related to injection opioid use, for 50 unique patients from 12 different admitting services. 90% of patients were seen before discharge, and 98% agreed to addiction medicine consultation. Among 34 patients with active moderate-severe opioid use disorder who were not already on OAT, 82% initiated OAT in hospital and 89% of these patients continued after discharge. Conclusions: Established in response to identified gaps in patient care and learning opportunities, a novel, unofficial, trainee-organized AMCS was acceptable, feasible, and positively impacted patient care over the first 16 months. This trainee-organized, unofficial AMCS could be used as a model for other hospitals that do not yet have an official AMCS.