Growing importance of high-volume buprenorphine prescribers in OUD treatment: 2009-2018.

BACKGROUND: We examined the number and characteristics of high-volume buprenorphine prescribers and the nature of their buprenorphine prescribing from 2009 to 2018. METHODS: In this observational cohort study, IQVIA Real World retail pharmacy claims data were used to characterize trends in high-volume buprenorphine prescribers (clinicians with a mean of 30 or more active patients in every month that they were an active prescriber) during 2009-2018. Very high-volume prescribing (mean of 100+ patients per month) was also examined. RESULTS: Overall, 94,491 clinicians prescribed buprenorphine dispensed during 2009-2018. The proportion of active prescribers meeting high-volume criteria increased from 7.4 % in 2009 to 16.7 % in 2018. High-volume prescribers accounted for 80 % of dispensed buprenorphine prescriptions during 2009-2018; very high-volume prescribers accounted for 26 %. Adult primary care physicians consistently comprised the majority of high-volume prescribers. Addiction specialists were much more likely to be high-volume prescribers compared to other specialties, including psychiatrists and pain specialists. By 2018, the proportion of prescriptions from high-volume prescribers paid by Medicaid had doubled to 40 %, accompanied by a decline in both self-pay and commercial insurance. High-volume prescribers were overwhelmingly concentrated in urban counties with the highest fatal overdose rates. In 2018, the highest density of high-volume prescribers was in New England and the mid-Atlantic region. CONCLUSIONS: Growth in high-volume prescribers outpaced the overall growth in buprenorphine prescribers across 2009-2018. High-volume prescribers play an increasingly central role in providing medication for OUD in the U.S., yet results indicate key regional variation in the availability of high-volume buprenorphine prescribers.

Use of Medications for Treatment of Opioid Use Disorder Among US Medicaid Enrollees in 11 States, 2014-2018.

Importance: There is limited information about trends in the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) among Medicaid enrollees. Objective: To examine the use of medications for OUD and potential indicators of quality of care in multiple states. Design, Setting, and Participants: Exploratory serial cross-sectional study of 1 024 301 Medicaid enrollees in 11 states aged 12 through 64 years (not eligible for Medicare) with International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9 or ICD-10) codes for OUD from 2014 through 2018. Each state used generalized estimating equations to estimate associations between enrollee characteristics and outcome measure prevalence, subsequently pooled to generate global estimates using random effects meta-analyses. Exposures: Calendar year, demographic characteristics, eligibility groups, and comorbidities. Main Outcomes and Measures: Use of medications for OUD (buprenorphine, methadone, or naltrexone); potential indicators of good quality (OUD medication continuity for 180 days, behavioral health counseling, urine drug tests); potential indicators of poor quality (prescribing of opioid analgesics and benzodiazepines). Results: In 2018, 41.7% of Medicaid enrollees with OUD were aged 21 through 34 years, 51.2% were female, 76.1% were non-Hispanic White, 50.7% were eligible through Medicaid expansion, and 50.6% had other substance use disorders. Prevalence of OUD increased in these 11 states from 3.3% (290 628 of 8 737 082) in 2014 to 5.0% (527 983 of 10 585 790) in 2018. The pooled prevalence of enrollees with OUD receiving medication treatment increased from 47.8% in 2014 (range across states, 35.3% to 74.5%) to 57.1% in 2018 (range, 45.7% to 71.7%). The overall prevalence of enrollees receiving 180 days of continuous medications for OUD did not significantly change from the 2014-2015 to 2017-2018 periods (-0.01 prevalence difference, 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.02) with state variability in trend (90% prediction interval, -0.08 to 0.06). Non-Hispanic Black enrollees had lower OUD medication use than White enrollees (prevalence ratio [PR], 0.72; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.81; P < .001; 90% prediction interval, 0.52 to 1.00). Pregnant women had higher use of OUD medications (PR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.11-1.25; P < .001; 90% prediction interval, 1.01-1.38) and medication continuity (PR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.10-1.17, P < .001; 90% prediction interval, 1.06-1.22) than did other eligibility groups. Conclusions and Relevance: Among US Medicaid enrollees in 11 states, the prevalence of medication use for treatment of opioid use disorder increased from 2014 through 2018. The pattern in other states requires further research.

Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare access among patients receiving medication for opioid use disorder.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic significantly altered treatment delivery for opioid treatment programs (OTPs) dispensing medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD). We aimed to identify patterns of substance use among MOUD patients and examine whether COVID-19-related impacts on access to healthcare varied across subgroups. METHODS: This analysis was embedded within a type 3 hybrid trial that enrolled patients across eight OTPs at the start of the pandemic. Enrolled patients reported on past-30 day use of multiple substances during their baseline assessment. Participants re-contacted in May-July 2020 completed a survey about COVID-19-related impacts on various life domains. Using latent class analysis we identified patient subgroups, and then examined group differences on a set of negative and positive COVID-19 impacts related to healthcare access. RESULTS: Of the 188 trial participants, 135 (72 %) completed the survey. Latent class analysis identified three MOUD patient subgroups: minimal use (class probability: 0.25); opioid use (class probability: 0.34); and polysubstance use (class probability: 0.41). Compared to the minimal use group, the polysubstance use group reported increased substance use and difficulty accessing sterile needles, naloxone, and preferred substance. The opioid use group reported increased substance use and difficulty accessing their preferred substance. There were no significant group differences related to accessing routine or specialized healthcare or medication; or paying attention to their health. CONCLUSIONS: During COVID-19, many MOUD patients reported challenges accessing care, particularly harm reduction services for patients with polysubstance use. Additional efforts, like providing wraparound support, may be necessary to serve the needs of MOUD patients.

Leveraging COVID-19 to sustain regulatory flexibility in the treatment of opioid use disorder.

The U.S. government declared the opioid epidemic as a national public health emergency in 2017, but regulatory frameworks that govern the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) through pharmaceutical interventions have remained inflexible. The emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic has effectively removed regulatory restrictions that experts in the field of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) have been proposing for decades and has expanded access to care. The regulatory flexibilities implemented to avoid unnecessary COVID-related death must be made permanent to ensure that improved access to evidence-based treatment remains available to vulnerable individuals with OUD who otherwise face formidable barriers to MOUD. We must seize this moment of COVOD-19 regulatory flexibilities to demonstrate the feasibility, acceptability, and safety of delivering treatment for OUD through a low-threshold approach.

Improvement in Cognitive Performance after One Year of Methadone Maintenance Treatment.

Individuals with substance use disorders are known to suffer from stress, poor sleep, and cognitive impairment. We investigated whether individuals with opioid use disorder would improve cognitive performance following a year of methadone maintenance treatment (MMT). Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), and a standardized computerized cognitive battery were administered at admission (T0) to 29 patients, and repeatedly following one year of MMT (T1) by 19 patients. Admission measures did not differ between those who studied once or twice. Patients who perceived very high stress levels (PSS ≥24) at T0 (11, 37.9%) had lower computerized global cognitive scores (67.6±16.2 vs. 90.9±12.5 p≤0.0005). At T1, PSS and PSQI scores improved significantly among 11 patients with no substance abuse, but worsened among 8 with substance abuse (PSS p(interaction)=0.009, p(groups)=0.005, PSQI p(interaction)=0.01, p(groups)=0.04). Global cognitive score improved at T1 for the entire sample (81.8±20.1 to 89.2±13.8, p=0.05). Differentiation by high stress at T0 or by substance abuse at T1 subgroups showed that improvement was observed by those with very low cognitive scores at T0. Patients with poor cognition may improve following one year of MMT, due to stress and substance abuse reduction. Interventions for stress reduction are recommended.

Adherence to buprenorphine: An analysis of prescription drug monitoring program data.

BACKGROUND: Although buprenorphine is an evidence-based treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD), many individuals discontinue treatment soon after starting. This study assesses predictors of buprenorphine adherence using Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) data. METHODS: PDMP data for Philadelphia, Pennsylvania were used to measure 180-day adherence to buprenorphine among new initiates. Adherence was classified using percent days covered (PDC), and new initiates with PDC ≥ 0.80 were classified as adherent. Multivariable logistic regression was conducted to determine factors associated with buprenorphine adherence. RESULTS: Between January 2017 and December 2018, 10,669 Philadelphia residents initiated buprenorphine and 26.6 % remained adherent after 180 days. Demographic factors associated with greater odds of adherence included age category and female sex (aOR: 1.37; 95 % CI: 1.25-1.50). Those filling an opioid prescription, other than buprenorphine, during the follow-up period had lower odds of adherence than those who did not fill an opioid prescription (aOR: 0.62; 95 % CI: 0.50-0.77). Odds of adherence was greater for those on the film formulation (aOR: 1.37; 95 % CI: 1.25-1.50) than the tablet formulation. Those filling medium (aOR: 1.76; 95 % CI: 1.55-2.00) and high dose (aOR: 5.11; 95 % CI: 4.30-6.17) buprenorphine prescriptions had higher odds of adherence than those filling low dose prescriptions. CONCLUSIONS: Individual demographics, receipt of an opioid prescription, buprenorphine formulation, and buprenorphine dose were all associated with adherence to buprenorphine. Ongoing strategies to address OUD need to prioritize increasing retention in long-term evidence-based buprenorphine treatment while also encouraging providers to regularly consult the PDMP to ensure patient compliance.

Utilization of treatment by Medicaid enrollees with opioid use disorder and co-occurring substance use disorders.

BACKGROUND: Multiple substance use is common among adults who misuse opioids. Adverse consequences of drugs are more severe among multisubstance users than among single drug users. This study sought to determine whether adults with opioid use disorder (OUD) and at least one other substance use disorder (SUD) are less likely than adults with OUD only to receive certain services. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective longitudinal study using the IBM® MarketScan® Multi-State Medicaid Database. We used logistic regression to measure associations between clinical characteristics and service utilization. The sample included non-Medicare-eligible adults aged 18-64 years with at least one claim in 2016 with a primary diagnosis of OUD who were continuously enrolled in Medicaid in 2016 and 2017. RESULTS: Of the 58,745 Medicaid enrollees with an initial OUD diagnosis in 2016, 29,267 had one or more additional SUD diagnoses. In the year following diagnosis, these adults were less likely than adults with OUD only to receive OUD medication treatment (OR = 0.88, p < .0001). This was true for all specifically diagnosed co-occurring SUDS. Adults with OUD and a co-occurring SUD, however, were more likely than those with OUD only to use any type of high-intensity services. CONCLUSIONS: Adults with OUD and at least one co-occurring SUD received more intensive services, which may reflect severity and lack of OUD medication treatment before misuse escalation. Programs should account for barriers to connecting these individuals to appropriate OUD treatment.

Temporal changes in non-fatal opioid overdose patterns among people who use drugs in a Canadian setting.

Background and Aims: Little is known about how the expansion of opioid agonist therapy (OAT) and emergence of fentanyl in the illicit drug supply in North America has influenced non-fatal opioid overdose (NFOD) risk. Therefore, we sought to identify patterns of substance use and addiction treatment engagement (i.e., OAT, other inpatient or outpatient treatment) prior to NFOD, as well as the trends and correlates of each pattern among people who use drugs (PWUD) in Vancouver, Canada. Methods: Data were derived from participants in three prospective cohorts of PWUD in Vancouver in 2009-2016. Observations from participants reporting opioid-related NFOD in the previous six months were included. A latent class analysis was used to identify classes based on substances used at the time of last NFOD and addiction treatment engagement in the month prior to the last NFOD. Multivariable generalized estimating equations estimated the correlates of each class membership. Results: In total, 889 observations from 570 participants were included. Four distinct classes were identified: (1) polysubstance use (PSU) and addiction treatment engagement; (2) PSU without treatment engagement; (3) exposure to unknown substances, mostly without treatment engagement; and (4) primary heroin users without treatment engagement. The class of exposure to unknown substances appeared in 2015 and became the dominant group (76.9%) in 2016. In multivariable analyses, the odds of membership in the class of primary heroin users decreased over time (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.68-0.81). Conclusions: Changing profiles of PWUD reporting opioid-related NFOD were seen over time. Notably, there was a sudden increase in reports of overdose following exposure to unknown substances since 2015, the majority of whom reported no recent addiction treatment engagement. Further study into patterns of substance use and strategies to improve addiction treatment engagement is needed to improve and focus overdose prevention efforts.

Continuation of Buprenorphine to Facilitate Postoperative Pain Management for Patients on Buprenorphine Opioid Agonist Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Acute pain management in patients on buprenorphine opioid agonist therapy (BOAT) can be challenging. It is unclear whether BOAT should be continued or interrupted for optimization of postoperative pain control. OBJECTIVES: To determine an evidence-based approach for pain management in patients on BOAT in the perioperative setting, particularly whether BOAT should be continued or interrupted with or without bridging to another mu opioid agonist and to identify benefits and harms of either perioperative strategy. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic literature review with qualitative data synthesis. SETTING: Hospital, perioperative. METHODS: The study protocol was registered on PROSPERO (Registration number 9030276355). Medline via OVID, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane CENTRAL register of trials were searched for prospective or retrospective observational or controlled studies, case series, and case reports that described perioperative or acute pain care for patients on BOAT. References of narrative and systematic reviews addressing acute pain management in patients on BOAT and references of included articles were hand-searched to identify additional original articles for inclusion. The full text of publications were reviewed for final inclusion, and data were extracted using a standardized data extraction form. Results were summarized qualitatively. Primary outcomes were postoperative pain intensity and total opioid use and identification of benefits and harms of perioperative strategies. RESULTS: Eighteen publications presenting data on the perioperative management of patients on BOAT were identified: 10 case reports, 5 case series, and 3 retrospective cohort studies. Eleven articles reported continuation of BOAT, 2 concerned bridging BOAT, and 4 articles described stopping BOAT without planned bridging. In one retrospective cohort study, BOAT was continued in half and interrupted in half of patients. Patients on BOAT may have pain that is more difficult to treat than those who are not on OAT. There is no clear evidence that one particular strategy provides superior postoperative pain control, but interruption of BOAT may result in harm, including failure to return to baseline BOAT doses, continuing non-BOAT opioid use, or relapse of opioid use disorder. LIMITATIONS: There were a limited number of articles relevant to the study question consisting of case reports and retrospective observational studies. Some omitted relevant details. No prospective studies were found. CONCLUSIONS: There is no clear benefit to bridging or stopping BOAT but failure to restart it may pose concerns for relapse. We recommend continuing BOAT in the perioperative period when possible and incorporating an interdisciplinary approach with multimodal analgesia. KEY WORDS: Opioid use disorder, opiate substitution treatment, buprenorphine, buprenorphine-naloxone, buprenorphine opioid agonist therapy, postoperative pain, acute pain, multimodal analgesia.

Dual mental health diagnoses predict the receipt of medication-assisted opioid treatment: Associations moderated by state Medicaid expansion status, race/ethnicity and gender, and year.

BACKGROUND: Mental health diagnoses (MHD) are common among those with opioid use disorders (OUD). Methadone/buprenorphine are effective medication-assisted treatment (MAT) strategies; however, treatment receipt is low among those with dual MHDs. Medicaid expansions have broadly increased access to OUD and mental health services over time, but MAT uptake may vary depending on multiple factors, including MHD status, state Medicaid expansion decisions, and race/ethnicity and gender. Examining clinical and policy approaches to promoting MAT uptake may improve services among marginalized groups. METHODS: MAT treatment discharges were identified using the Treatment Episodes Dataset-Discharges (TEDS-D; 2014-2017) (n = 1,400,808). We used multivariate logistic regression to model MAT receipt using interactions and adjusted for several potential confounders. RESULTS: Nearly one-third of OUD treatment discharges received MAT. Dual MHDs in both expansion and non-expansion states were positively associated with MAT uptake over time. Dual MHDs were negatively associated with MAT receipt only among American Indian/Alaska Native women residing in Medicaid expansion states (aOR = 0.58, 95 % CI = 0.52-0.66, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Disparities in MAT utilization are nuanced and vary widely depending on dual MHD status, Medicaid expansion, and race/ethnicity/gender. Medicaid is beneficial but not a universal treatment panacea. Clinical decisions to initiate MAT are dependent on multiple factors and should be tailored to meet the needs of high-risk, historically disadvantaged clients.

Responses among substance abuse treatment providers to the opioid epidemic in the USA: Variations in buprenorphine and methadone treatment by geography, operational, and payment characteristics, 2007-16.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the geographic, organisational, and payment correlates of buprenorphine and methadone treatment among substance abuse treatment (SAT) providers. METHODS: Secondary analyses of the National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (NSSATS) from 2007-16 were conducted. We provide bivariate descriptive statistics regarding substance abuse treatment services which offered buprenorphine and methadone treatment from 2007-16. Using multiple logistic regression, we regressed geographic, organisational, and payment correlates on buprenorphine and methadone treatment. RESULTS: Buprenorphine is increasingly offered at SAT facilities though uptake remains comparatively low outside of the northeast. SAT facilities run by tribal governments or Indian Health Service which offer buprenorphine remain low compared to privately operated SAT facilities (AOR = 0.528). The odds of offering buprenorphine among facilities offering free or no charge treatment (AOR = 0.838) or a sliding fee scale (AOR = 0.464) was lower. SAT facilities accepting Medicaid payments showed higher odds of offering methadone treatment (AOR = 2.035). CONCLUSIONS: Greater attention towards the disparities in provision of opioid agonist therapies is warranted, especially towards the reasons why uptake has been moderate among civilian providers. Additionally, the care needs of Native Americans facing opioid-related use disorders bears further scrutiny.

The impact of chronic liver disease in patients receiving active pharmacological therapy for opioid use disorder: One-year findings from a prospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the demonstrated benefit of methadone, the incidence opioid-related overdose, and its associated mortality continues to rise at an alarming rate. The impact of high prevalence comorbid features such as chronic liver disease (CLD) on methadone treatment response remain unclear. AIM: To determine whether CLD is associated with poor response to methadone treatment. METHODS: Using a well-established multi-center cohort from the Genetics of Opioid Addiction Study (GENOA), we evaluated if presence of CLD among 1234 eligible patients with opioid use disorder receiving methadone treatment impacted health and behavioural responses to treatment. CLD was classified as any liver disorder/dysfunction present for a minimum period of six months. Serial urine toxicology assessments were used to determine treatment response. The effect of CLD was determined using a multi-variable logistic regression model. RESULTS: CLD was present in 25 % (n = 314) of the population. On average, patients with CLD were found to be older (mean age 44 vs 36 years, p < 0.0001), unemployed (81.8 % vs 61 %, p < 0.0001), and receiving government disability benefits at significantly higher rates (21.9 % vs 11 %, p < 0.0001). Increased levels of physical craving, emotional stress, as well as health risk behaviors were noted in CLD patients. Findings from the multi-variable model demonstrate a 68 % increased risk for dangerous opioid consumption behaviors (Odds Ration [OR]: 1.68, 95 % Confidence Interval [CI] 1.22, 2.31, p = 0.001) among patients with CLD. Methadone dose (OR: 0.76, 95 % CI 0.70, 0.81, p < 0.0001) was shown to be protective with a significant risk reduction of 24 % per 20 mg increase in methadone. Duration in treatment was also found to be protective (OR: 0.99, 95 % CI 0.97, 0.99, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: CLD poses a distinct risk for patients with opioid addiction. Closer drug monitoring, and substance use contingency management should be considered to reduce mortality risk in these patients.

Characterization of diverted buprenorphine use among adults entering corrections-based drug treatment in Kentucky.

BACKGROUND: Illicit, medically unsupervised use of buprenorphine (i.e., "diverted use") among vulnerable and underserved populations, such as corrections-involved adults, remains underexplored. METHODS: Survey data (2016-2017) collected as part of a clinical assessment of incarcerated adults entering corrections-based substance use treatment in Kentucky were analyzed. For years examined, 12,915 completed the survey. Removing cases for participants who did not reside in Kentucky for >6 months during the one-year pre-incarceration period (n = 908) resulted in a final sample size of 12,007. RESULTS: Over a quarter of the sample reported past-year diverted buprenorphine use prior to incarceration and 21.8 % reported use during the 30-days prior to incarceration, using 6.5 months and 14.3 days on average, respectively. A greater proportion of participants who reported diverted buprenorphine use had previously been engaged with some substance use treatment (77.0 %) and reported greater perceived need for treatment (79.4 %) compared to those who did not report use. Use was more likely among participants who were younger, white, male, and who reported rural or Appalachian residence. Diverted buprenorphine users also evidenced extensive polydrug use and presented with greater substance use disorder severity. Non-medical prescription opioid, heroin, and diverted methadone use were associated with increased odds of diverted buprenorphine use while kratom was not. Diverted methadone use was associated with a 252.9 % increased likelihood of diverted buprenorphine use. CONCLUSIONS: Diverted buprenorphine use among participants in this sample was associated with concerning high-risk behaviors and may indicate barriers to accessing opioid agonist therapies for corrections-involved Kentucky residents, particularly those in rural Appalachia.

Prevalence and treatment of opioid use disorders among primary care patients in six health systems.

BACKGROUND: The U.S. experienced nearly 48,000 opioid overdose deaths in 2017. Treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) with buprenorphine is a recommended part of primary care, yet little is known about current U.S. practices in this setting. This observational study reports the prevalence of documented OUD and OUD treatment with buprenorphine among primary care patients in six large health systems. METHODS: Adults with ≥2 primary care visits during a three-year period (10/1/2013-9/30/2016) in six health systems were included. Data were obtained from electronic health record and claims data, with measures, assessed over the three-year period, including indicators for documented OUD from ICD 9 and 10 codes and OUD treatment with buprenorphine. The prevalence of OUD treatment was adjusted for age, gender, race/ethnicity, and health system. RESULTS: Among 1,368,604 primary care patients, 13,942 (1.0 %) had documented OUD, and among these, 21.0 % had OUD treatment with buprenorphine. For those with documented OUD, the adjusted prevalence of OUD treatment with buprenorphine varied across demographic and clinical subgroups. OUD treatment was lower among patients who were older, women, Black/African American and Hispanic (compared to white), non-commercially insured, and those with non-cancer pain, mental health disorders, greater comorbidity, and more opioid prescriptions, emergency department visits or hospitalizations. CONCLUSIONS: Among primary care patients in six health systems, one in five with an OUD were treated with buprenorphine, with disparities across demographic and clinical characteristics. Less buprenorphine treatment among those with greater acute care utilization highlights an opportunity for systems-level changes to increase OUD treatment.