Extended-Release 7-Day Injectable Buprenorphine for Patients With Minimal to Mild Opioid Withdrawal.

Importance: Buprenorphine is an effective yet underused treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD). Objective: To evaluate the feasibility (acceptability, tolerability, and safety) of 7-day injectable extended-release buprenorphine in patients with minimal to mild opioid withdrawal. Design, Setting, and Participants: This nonrandomized trial comprising 4 emergency departments in the Northeast, mid-Atlantic, and Pacific geographic areas of the US included adults aged 18 years or older with moderate to severe OUD and Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale (COWS) scores less than 8 (minimal to mild), in which scores range from 0 to 7, with higher scores indicating increasing withdrawal. Exclusion criteria included methadone-positive urine, pregnancy, overdose, or required admission. Outcomes were assessed at baseline, daily for 7 days by telephone surveys, and in person at 7 days. Patient recruitment occurred between July 13, 2020, and May 25, 2023. Intervention: Injection of a 24-mg dose of a weekly extended-release formulation of buprenorphine (CAM2038) and referral for ongoing OUD care. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary feasibility outcomes included the number of patients who (1) experienced a 5-point or greater increase in the COWS score or (2) transitioned to moderate or greater withdrawal (COWS score ≥13) within 4 hours of extended-release buprenorphine or (3) experienced precipitated withdrawal within 1 hour of extended-release buprenorphine. Secondary outcomes included injection pain, satisfaction, craving, use of nonprescribed opioids, adverse events, and engagement in OUD treatment. Results: A total of 100 adult patients were enrolled (mean [SD] age, 36.5 [8.7] years; 72% male). Among the patients, 10 (10.0% [95% CI, 4.9%-17.6%]) experienced a 5-point or greater increase in COWS and 7 (7.0% [95% CI, 2.9%-13.9%]) transitioned to moderate or greater withdrawal within 4 hours, and 2 (2.0% [95% CI, 0.2%-7.0%]) experienced precipitated withdrawal within 1 hour of extended-release buprenorphine. A total of 7 patients (7.0% [95% CI, 2.9%-13.9%]) experienced precipitated withdrawal within 4 hours of extended-release buprenorphine, which included 2 of 63 (3.2%) with a COWS score of 4 to 7 and 5 of 37 (13.5%) with a COWS score of 0 to 3. Site pain scores (based on a total pain score of 10, in which 0 indicated no pain and 10 was the worst possible pain) after injection were low immediately (median, 2.0; range, 0-10.0) and after 4 hours (median, 0; range, 0-10.0). On any given day among those who responded, between 29 (33%) and 31 (43%) patients reported no cravings and between 59 (78%) and 75 (85%) reported no use of opioids; 57 patients (60%) reported no days of opioid use. Improving privacy (62%) and not requiring daily medication (67%) were deemed extremely important. Seventy-three patients (73%) were engaged in OUD treatment on day 7. Five serious adverse events occurred that required hospitalization, of which 2 were associated with medication. Conclusions and Relevance: This nonrandomized trial of the feasibility of a 7-day buprenorphine injectable in patients with minimal to mild opioid withdrawal (COWS scores, 0-7) found the formulation to be acceptable, well tolerated, and safe in those with COWS scores of 4 to 7. This new medication formulation could substantially increase the number of patients with OUD receiving buprenorphine. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04225598.

Early emergency department experience with 7-day extended-release injectable buprenorphine for opioid use disorder.

As the opioid overdose epidemic escalates, there is an urgent need for treatment innovations to address both patient and clinician barriers when initiating buprenorphine in the emergency department (ED). These include insurance status, logistical challenges such as the ability to fill a prescription and transportation, concerns regarding diversion, and availability of urgent referral sites. Extended-release buprenorphine (XR-BUP) preparations such as a new 7-day injectable could potentially solve some of these issues. We describe the pharmacokinetics of a new 7-day XR-BUP formulation and the feasibility of its use in the ED setting. We report our early experiences with this medication (investigational drug CAM2038), in the context of an ongoing clinical trial entitled Emergency Department-Initiated BUP VAlidaTION (ED INNOVATION), to inform emergency clinicians as they consider incorporating this medication into their practice. The medication was approved by the European Medicines Agency in 2018 and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2023 for those 18 years or older for the treatment of moderate to severe opioid use disorder (OUD). We report our experience with approximately 800 ED patients with OUD who received the 7-day XR-BUP preparation in the ED between June 2020 and July 2023.

Perspectives on and experiences of emergency department-initiated buprenorphine among clinical pharmacists: A multi-site qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical pharmacists are well positioned to enhance efforts to promote emergency department (ED)-initiated buprenorphine to treat opioid use disorder (OUD). Among clinical pharmacists in urban EDs, we sought to characterize barriers and facilitators for ED-initiated buprenorphine to inform future implementation efforts and enhance access to this highly effective OUD treatment. METHODS: This study was conducted as a part of Project ED Health (CTN-0069, NCT03023930), a multisite effectiveness-implementation study aimed at promoting ED-initiated buprenorphine that was conducted between April 2017 and July 2020. Data collection and analysis were grounded in the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework to assess perspectives on the relationship between 3 elements: evidence for buprenorphine, the ED context, and facilitation needs to promote ED-initiated buprenorphine. The study used an iterative coding process to identify overlapping themes within these 3 domains. RESULTS: The study conducted eight focus groups/interviews across four geographically disparate EDs with 15 pharmacist participants. We identified six themes. Themes related to evidence included (1) varied levels of comfort and experience among pharmacists with ED-initiated buprenorphine that increased over time and (2) a perception that patients with OUD have unique challenges that require guidance to optimize ED care. With regards to context, clinical pharmacists identified: (3) their ability to clarify scope of ED care in the context of unique pharmacology, formulations, and regulations of buprenorphine to ED staff, and that (4) their presence promotes successful program implementation and quality improvement. Participants identified facilitation needs including: (5) training to promote practice change and (6) ways to leverage already existing pharmacy resources outside of the ED. CONCLUSION: Clinical pharmacists play a unique and critical role in the efforts to promote ED-initiated buprenorphine. We identified 6 themes that can inform pharmacist-specific interventions that could aid in the successful implementation of this practice.

Implementation Facilitation to Promote Emergency Department-Initiated Buprenorphine for Opioid Use Disorder.

Importance: Emergency department (ED)-initiated buprenorphine for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) is underused. Objective: To evaluate whether provision of ED-initiated buprenorphine with referral for OUD increased after implementation facilitation (IF), an educational and implementation strategy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multisite hybrid type 3 effectiveness-implementation nonrandomized trial compared grand rounds with IF, with pre-post 12-month baseline and IF evaluation periods, at 4 academic EDs. The study was conducted from April 1, 2017, to November 30, 2020. Participants were ED and community clinicians treating patients with OUD and observational cohorts of ED patients with untreated OUD. Data were analyzed from July 16, 2021, to July 14, 2022. Exposure: A 60-minute in-person grand rounds was compared with IF, a multicomponent facilitation strategy that engaged local champions, developed protocols, and provided learning collaboratives and performance feedback. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were the rate of patients in the observational cohorts who received ED-initiated buprenorphine with referral for OUD treatment (primary implementation outcome) and the rate of patients engaged in OUD treatment at 30 days after enrollment (effectiveness outcome). Additional implementation outcomes included the numbers of ED clinicians with an X-waiver to prescribe buprenorphine and ED visits with buprenorphine administered or prescribed and naloxone dispensed or prescribed. Results: A total of 394 patients were enrolled during the baseline evaluation period and 362 patients were enrolled during the IF evaluation period across all sites, for a total of 756 patients (540 [71.4%] male; mean [SD] age, 39.3 [11.7] years), with 223 Black patients (29.5%) and 394 White patients (52.1%). The cohort included 420 patients (55.6%) who were unemployed, and 431 patients (57.0%) reported unstable housing. Two patients (0.5%) received ED-initiated buprenorphine during the baseline period, compared with 53 patients (14.6%) during the IF evaluation period (P < .001). Forty patients (10.2%) were engaged with OUD treatment during the baseline period, compared with 59 patients (16.3%) during the IF evaluation period (P = .01). Patients in the IF evaluation period who received ED-initiated buprenorphine were more likely to be in treatment at 30 days (19 of 53 patients [35.8%]) than those who did not 40 of 309 patients (12.9%; P < .001). Additionally, there were increases in the numbers of ED clinicians with an X-waiver (from 11 to 196 clinicians) and ED visits with provision of buprenorphine (from 259 to 1256 visits) and naloxone (from 535 to 1091 visits). Conclusions and Relevance: In this multicenter effectiveness-implementation nonrandomized trial, rates of ED-initiated buprenorphine and engagement in OUD treatment were higher in the IF period, especially among patients who received ED-initiated buprenorphine. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03023930.

Models for Implementing Emergency Department-Initiated Buprenorphine With Referral for Ongoing Medication Treatment at Emergency Department Discharge in Diverse Academic Centers.

There has been a substantial rise in the number of publications and training opportunities on the care and treatment of emergency department (ED) patients with opioid use disorder over the past several years. The American College of Emergency Physicians recently published recommendations for providing buprenorphine to patients with opioid use disorder, but barriers to implementing this clinical practice remain. We describe the models for implementing ED-initiated buprenorphine at 4 diverse urban, academic medical centers across the country as part of a federally funded effort termed "Project ED Health." These 4 sites successfully implemented unique ED-initiated buprenorphine programs as part of a comparison of implementation facilitation to traditional educational dissemination on the uptake of ED-initiated buprenorphine. Each site describes the elements central to the ED process, including screening, treatment initiation, referral, and follow-up, while harnessing organizational characteristics, including ED culture. Finally, we discuss common facilitators to program success, including information technology and electronic medical record integration, hospital-level support, strong connections with outpatient partners, and quality improvement processes.

Perspectives About Emergency Department Care Encounters Among Adults With Opioid Use Disorder.

Importance: Emergency departments (EDs) are increasingly initiating treatment for patients with untreated opioid use disorder (OUD) and linking them to ongoing addiction care. To our knowledge, patient perspectives related to their ED visit have not been characterized and may influence their access to and interest in OUD treatment. Objective: To assess the experiences and perspectives regarding ED-initiated health care and OUD treatment among US patients with untreated OUD seen in the ED. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study, conducted as part of 2 studies (Project ED Health and ED-CONNECT), included individuals with untreated OUD who were recruited during an ED visit in EDs at 4 urban academic centers, 1 public safety net hospital, and 1 rural critical access hospital in 5 disparate US regions. Focus groups were conducted between June 2018 and January 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Data collection and thematic analysis were grounded in the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) implementation science framework with evidence (perspectives on ED care), context (ED), and facilitation (what is needed to promote change) elements. Results: A total of 31 individuals (mean [SD] age, 43.4 [11.0] years) participated in 6 focus groups. Twenty participants (64.5%) identified as male and most 13 (41.9%) as White; 17 (54.8%) reported being unemployed. Themes related to evidence included patients' experience of stigma and perceived minimization of their pain and medical problems by ED staff. Themes about context included the ED not being seen as a source of OUD treatment initiation and patient readiness to initiate treatment being multifaceted, time sensitive, and related to internal and external patient factors. Themes related to facilitation of improved care of patients with OUD seen in the ED included a need for on-demand treatment and ED staff training. Conclusions and Relevance: In this qualitative study, patients with OUD reported feeling stigmatized and minimized when accessing care in the ED and identified several opportunities to improve care. The findings suggest that strategies to address stigma, acknowledge and treat pain, and provide ED staff training should be implemented to improve ED care for patients with OUD and enhance access to life-saving treatment.

Intrathecal methotrexate - Another tool for the treatment of refractory autoimmune encephalitis - Single institution cohort and literature review.

BACKGROUND: Autoimmune encephalitis (AIE) encompasses a range of inflammatory disorders manifesting with some combination of encephalopathy, seizures, behavioral changes, movement disorders, dysautonomia or other neurologic symptoms. Anti-N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor encephalitis (NMDARE) is the most common AIE and is an autoantibody mediated disorder, often paraneoplastic. Untreated or undertreated AIE has a high degree of morbidity and mortality. Immunosuppressive treatment regimens including glucocorticoids, plasma exchange (PLEX), intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) and rituximab used alone or in combination for such patients. Patients' refractory to such treatments requires more aggressive and potentially toxic therapies. We report favorable outcomes in patients with refractory AIE who received intrathecal methotrexate (IT-MTX) as part of treatment. METHODS: Cases at our institution seen between 2010 and 2020 were reviewed. We identified 5 patients in our clinical practice whose clinical presentation was compatible with NMDARE. Three patients met criteria for definite NMDARE. An additional two patients met criteria for probable NMDARE in the acute setting but were ultimately seronegative autoimmune encephalitis. All patients received at least one dose of IT-MTX after failing conventional therapies. At the time of IT-MTX administration patients were catatonic, comatose, or severely encephalopathic despite initial treatments. RESULTS: All patients were treated with methylprednisolone; 3 received a course of IVIG, 4 underwent PLEX, and 4 received rituximab. At the time IT-MTX was given, three patients required mechanical ventilation and 1 had a pacemaker placed for autonomic failure. Two patients were under consideration for transition to palliative care. All patients improved and were at or near their premorbid baseline at last follow-up. All patients tolerated IT-MTX well. CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective review demonstrates the efficacy of intrathecal methotrexate in the treatment of severe AIE who had failed other immunosuppressive regimens.

The design and conduct of a randomized clinical trial comparing emergency department initiation of sublingual versus a 7-day extended-release injection formulation of buprenorphine for opioid use disorder: Project ED Innovation.

ED-INNOVATION (Emergency Department-INitiated bupreNOrphine VAlidaTION) is a Hybrid Type-1 Implementation-Effectiveness multisite emergency department (ED) study funded through The Helping to End Addiction Long-termSM Initiative, or NIH HEAL InitiativeSM efforts to increase access to medications for opioid use disorder (OUD). We use components of Implementation Facilitation to enhance adoption of ED-initiated buprenorphine (BUP) at approximately 30 sites. Subsequently we compare the effectiveness of two BUP formulations, sublingual (SL-BUP) and 7-day extended-release injectable (CAM2038, XR-BUP) in a randomized clinical trial (RCT) of approximately 2000 patients with OUD on the primary outcome of engagement in formal addiction treatment at 7 days. Secondary outcomes assessed at 7 and 30 days include self-reported opioid use, craving and satisfaction, health service utilization, overdose events, and engagement in formal addiction treatment (30 days) and receipt of medications for OUD (at 7 and 30 days). A sample size of 1000 per group provides 90% power at the 2-sided significance level to detect a difference in the primary outcome of 8% and accommodates a 15% dropout rate. We will compare the cost effectiveness of the two treatments on the primary outcome using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. We will also conduct an ancillary study in approximately 75 patients experiencing minimal to no opioid withdrawal who will undergo XR-BUP initiation. If the ancillary study demonstrates safety, we will expand the eligibility criteria for the RCT to include individuals with minimal to no opioid withdrawal. The results of these studies will inform implementation of ED-initiated BUP in diverse EDs which has the potential to improve treatment access.

Emergency department patients with untreated opioid use disorder: A comparison of those seeking versus not seeking referral to substance use treatment.

BACKGROUND Little is known regarding the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of emergency department (ED) patients with untreated opioid use disorder (OUD) and the relationship of those characteristics with whether they were seeking a referral to substance use treatment at the time of their ED visit. METHODS Using data collected from 2/2017-1/2019 from participants enrolled in Project ED Health (CTN-0069), we conducted a cross-sectional analysis of patients with untreated moderate to severe OUD presenting to one of four EDs in Baltimore, New York City, Cincinnati, or Seattle. Sociodemographic and clinical correlates, and International Classification of Diseases Tenth Revision (ICD-10) diagnosis codes related to opioid withdrawal, injection-related infection, other substance use, overdose, and OUD of those seeking and not seeking a referral to substance use treatment on presentation were compared using univariate analyses. RESULTS Among 394 study participants, 15.2 % (60/394) came to the ED seeking a referral to substance use treatment. No differences in age, gender, education, health insurance status or housing stability were detected between those seeking and not seeking referral to substance use treatment. Those seeking a referral to substance use treatment were less likely to have urine toxicology testing positive for amphetamine [17 % (10/60) vs 31 % (104/334), p = 0.023] and methamphetamine [23 % (14/60) vs 40 % (132/334), p = 0.017] compared to those not seeking a referral. CONCLUSION Most patients with untreated OUD seen in the EDs were not seeking a referral to substance use treatment. Active identification, treatment initiation, and coding may improve ED efforts to address untreated OUD.

Use of Amphetamine-Type Stimulants Among Emergency Department Patients With Untreated Opioid Use Disorder.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Concurrent use of amphetamine-type stimulants among individuals with opioid use disorder can exacerbate social and medical harms, including overdose risk. The study evaluated rates of amphetamine-type stimulant use among patients with untreated opioid use disorder presenting at emergency departments in Baltimore, MD; New York, NY; Cincinnati, OH; and Seattle, WA. METHODS: Emergency department (ED) patients with untreated opioid use disorder (N=396) and enrolled between February 2017 and January 2019 in a multisite hybrid type III implementation science study were evaluated for concurrent amphetamine-type stimulant use. Individuals with urine tests positive for methamphetamine, amphetamine, or both were compared with amphetamine-type stimulant-negative patients. RESULTS: Overall, 38% of patients (150/396) were amphetamine-type stimulant positive; none reported receiving prescribed amphetamine or methamphetamine medications. Amphetamine-type stimulant-positive versus -negative patients were younger: mean age was 36 years (SD 10 years) versus 40 years (SD 12 years), 69% (104/150) versus 46% (114/246) were white, 65% (98/150) versus 54% (132/246) were unemployed, 67% (101/150) versus 49 (121/246) had unstable housing, 47% (71/150) versus 25% (61/245) reported an incarceration during 1 year before study admission, 60% (77/128) versus 45% (87/195) were hepatitis C positive, 79% (118/150) versus 47% (115/245) reported drug injection during 1 month before the study admission, and 42% (62/149) versus 29% (70/244) presented to the ED for an injury. Lower proportions of amphetamine-type stimulant-positive patients had cocaine-positive urine test results (33% [50/150] versus 52% [129/246]) and reported seeking treatment for substance use problems as a reason for their ED visit (10% [14/148] versus 19% [46/246]). All comparisons were statistically significant at P<.05 with the false discovery rate correction. CONCLUSION: Amphetamine-type stimulant use among ED patients with untreated opioid use disorder was associated with distinct sociodemographic, social, and health factors. Improved ED-based screening, intervention, and referral protocols for patients with opioid use disorder and amphetamine-type stimulant use are needed.

Barriers and Facilitators to Clinician Readiness to Provide Emergency Department-Initiated Buprenorphine.

Importance: Treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) with buprenorphine decreases opioid use and prevents morbidity and mortality. Emergency departments (EDs) are an important setting for buprenorphine initiation for patients with untreated OUD; however, readiness varies among ED clinicians. Objective: To characterize barriers and facilitators of readiness to initiate buprenorphine for the treatment of OUD in the ED and identify opportunities to promote readiness across multiple clinician types. Design, Setting, and Participants: Using data collected from April 1, 2018, to January 11, 2019, this mixed-methods formative evaluation grounded in the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework included 4 geographically diverse academic EDs. Attending physicians (n = 113), residents (n = 107), and advanced practice clinicians (APCs) (n = 48) completed surveys electronically distributed to all ED clinicians (n = 396). A subset of participants (n = 74) also participated in 1 of 11 focus group discussions. Data were analyzed from June 1, 2018, to February 22, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Clinician readiness to initiate buprenorphine and provide referral for ongoing treatment for patients with OUD treated in the ED was assessed using a visual analog scale. Responders (268 of 396 [67.7%]) were dichotomized as less ready (scores 0-6) or most ready (scores 7-10). An ED-adapted Organizational Readiness to Change Assessment (ORCA) and 11 focus groups were used to assess ratings and perspectives on evidence and context-related factors to promote ED-initiated buprenorphine with referral for ongoing treatment, respectively. Results: Among the 268 survey respondents (153 of 260 were men [58.8%], with a mean [SD] of 7.1 [9.8] years since completing formal training), 56 (20.9%) indicated readiness to initiate buprenorphine for ED patients with OUD. Nine of 258 (3.5%) reported Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 2000 training completion. Compared with those who were less ready, clinicians who were most ready to initiate buprenorphine had higher mean scores across all ORCA Evidence subscales (3.50 [95% CI, 3.35-3.65] to 4.33 [95% CI, 4.13-4.53] vs 3.11 [95% CI, 3.03-3.20] to 3.60 [95% CI, 3.49-3.70]; P < .001) and on the Slack Resources of the ORCA Context subscales (3.32 [95% CI, 3.08-3.55] vs 3.0 [95% CI, 2.87-3.12]; P = .02). Barriers to ED-initiated buprenorphine included lack of training and experience in treating OUD with buprenorphine, concerns about ability to link to ongoing care, and competing needs and priorities for ED time and resources. Facilitators to ED-initiated buprenorphine included receiving education and training, development of local departmental protocols, and receiving feedback on patient experiences and gaps in quality of care. Conclusions and Relevance: Only a few ED clinicians had a high level of readiness to initiate buprenorphine; however, many expressed a willingness to learn with sufficient supports. Efforts to promote adoption of ED-initiated buprenorphine will require clinician and system-level changes.

Implementation facilitation to promote emergency department-initiated buprenorphine for opioid use disorder: protocol for a hybrid type III effectiveness-implementation study (Project ED HEALTH).

BACKGROUND: Patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) frequently present to the emergency department (ED) after overdose, or seeking treatment for general medical conditions, their addiction, withdrawal symptoms, or complications of injection drug use, such as soft tissue infections. ED-initiated buprenorphine has been shown to be effective in increasing patient engagement in treatment compared with brief intervention with a facilitated referral or referral alone. However, adoption into practice has lagged behind need. To address this implementation challenge, we are evaluating the impact of implementation facilitation (IF) on the adoption of ED-initiated buprenorphine for OUD into practice. METHODS: This protocol describes a study that is being conducted through the National Institute on Drug Abuse's Center for the Clinical Trials Network. A hybrid type III effectiveness-implementation study design is used to evaluate the effectiveness of a standard educational dissemination strategy versus IF on implementation (primary) and effectiveness (secondary) outcomes in four urban, academic EDs. Sites start with a standard 60-min "Grand Rounds" educational intervention describing the prevalence of ED patients with OUD, the evidence for opioid agonist treatment and for innovative interventions with ED-initiated buprenorphine; followed by a 1-year baseline evaluation period. Using a modified stepped wedge design, sites are randomly assigned to the IF intervention which is guided by the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARiHS) framework to assess evidence, context, and facilitation-related factors impacting the adoption of ED-initiated buprenorphine. During the 6 months of IF through the 1-year IF evaluation period, external facilitators work with local stakeholders to tailor and refine a bundle of activities to meet the site's needs. The primary analyses compare the baseline evaluation period to the IF evaluation period (n = 120 patients with untreated OUD enrolled during each period) on (1) rates of provision of ED-initiated buprenorphine by ED providers with referral for ongoing medication (implementation outcome) and (2) rates of patient engagement in addiction treatment on the 30th day after the ED visit (effectiveness outcome). Finally, we will perform a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to determine if the effectiveness benefits are worth the additional costs. DISCUSSION: Results will generate novel information regarding the impact of IF as a strategy to promote ED-initiated buprenorphine. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03023930 first posted 1/10/2017, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03023930?term=0069&rank=1.

Past-year Prescription Drug Monitoring Program Opioid Prescriptions and Self-reported Opioid Use in an Emergency Department Population With Opioid Use Disorder.

BACKGROUND: Despite increasing reliance on prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) as a response to the opioid epidemic, the relationship between aberrant drug-related behaviors captured by the PDMP and opioid use disorder is incompletely understood. How PDMP data should guide emergency department (ED) assessment has not been studied. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to evaluate a relationship between PDMP opioid prescription records and self-reported nonmedical opioid use of prescription opioids in a cohort of opioid-dependent ED patients enrolled in a treatment trial. METHODS: PDMP opioid prescription records during 1 year prior to study enrollment on 329 adults meeting Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV criteria for opioid dependence entering a randomized clinical trial in a large, urban ED were cross-tabulated with data on 30-day nonmedical prescription opioid use self-report. The association among these two types of data was assessed by the Goodman and Kruskal's gamma; a logistic regression was used to explore characteristics of participants who had PDMP record of opioid prescriptions. RESULTS: During 1 year prior to study enrollment, 118 of 329 (36%) patients had at least one opioid prescription (range = 1-51) in our states' PDMP. Patients who reported ≥15 of 30 days of nonmedical prescription opioid use were more likely to have at least four PDMP opioid prescriptions (20/38; 53%) than patients reporting 1 to 14 days (14/38, 37%) or zero days of nonmedical prescription opioid use (4/38, 11%; p = 0.002). Female sex and having health insurance were significantly more represented in the PDMP (p < 0.05 for both). CONCLUSION: PDMPs may be helpful in identifying patients with certain aberrant drug-related behavior, but are unable to detect many patients with opioid use disorder. The majority of ED patients with opioid use disorder were not captured by the PDMP, highlighting the importance of using additional methods such as screening and clinical history to identify opioid use disorders in ED patients and the limitations of PDMPs to detect opioid use disorders.

Cost-effectiveness of emergency department-initiated treatment for opioid dependence.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In a recent randomized trial, patients with opioid dependence receiving brief intervention, emergency department (ED)-initiated buprenorphine and ongoing follow-up in primary care with buprenorphine (buprenorphine) were twice as likely to be engaged in addiction treatment compared with referral to community-based treatment (referral) or brief intervention and referral (brief intervention). Our aim was to evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of these three methods of intervening on opioid dependence in the ED. DESIGN: Measured health-care use was converted to dollar values. We considered a health-care system perspective and constructed cost-effectiveness acceptability curves that indicate the probability each treatment is cost-effective under different thresholds of willingness-to-pay for outcomes studied. SETTING: An urban ED in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Opioid-dependent patients aged 18 years or older. MEASUREMENTS: Self-reported 30-day assessment data were used to construct cost-effectiveness acceptability curves for patient engagement in formal addiction treatment at 30 days and the number of days illicit opioid-free in the past week. FINDINGS: Considering only health-care system costs, cost-effectiveness acceptability curves indicate that at all positive willingness-to-pay values, ED-initiated buprenorphine treatment was more cost-effective than brief intervention or referral. For example, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $1000 for 30-day treatment engagement, we are 79% certain ED-initiated buprenorphine is most cost-effective compared with other studied treatments. Similar results were found for days illicit opioid-free in the past week. Results were robust to secondary analyses that included patients with missing cost data, included crime and patient time costs in the numerator, and to changes in unit price estimates. CONCLUSION: In the United States, emergency department-initiated buprenorphine intervention for patients with opioid dependence provides high value compared with referral to community-based treatment or combined brief intervention and referral.

An interventionist adherence scale for a specialized brief negotiation interview focused on treatment engagement for opioid use disorders.

BACKGROUND: No psychometrically validated instrument for evaluating the extent to which interventionists correctly implement brief interventions designed to motivate treatment engagement for opioid use disorders has been reported in the literature. The objective of this study was to develop and examine the psychometric properties of the Brief Negotiation Interview (BNI) Adherence Scale for Opioid Use Disorders (BAS-O). METHODS: In the context of a randomized controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of 3 models of emergency department care for opioid use disorders, the authors developed and subsequently examined the psychometric properties of the BAS-O, a 38-item scale that required raters to answer whether or not ("Yes" or "No") each of the critical actions of the BNI was correctly implemented by the research interventionist. BAS-O items pertained to the BNI's 4 steps: (1) Raise the Subject, (2) Provide Feedback, (3) Enhance Motivation, and (4) Negotiate and Advise. A total of 215 audio-recorded BNI and 88 control encounters were rated by 3 trained raters who were independent of the study team and blind to study hypotheses, treatment, and assignment. RESULTS: The results indicated the BAS-O has fair to excellent psychometric properties, in terms of good internal consistency, excellent interrater reliability, discriminant validity, and construct validity, and fair predictive validity. A 13-item, 2-factor solution accounted for nearly 80% of the variance, where factor 1 addressed "Autonomy and Planning" (7 items) and factor 2 addressed "Motivation and Problems" (6 items). However, predictive validity was found for only one of the BAS-O factor items (i.e., Telling patients that treatment will address a range of issues related to their opioid use disorder). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the BAS-O is a psychometrically valid measure of adherence to the specialized BNI for motivating treatment engagement in patients with opioid use disorders, thus providing a brief (13-item), objective method of evaluating BNI skill performance.

Emergency Department-Initiated Buprenorphine for Opioid Dependence with Continuation in Primary Care: Outcomes During and After Intervention.

BACKGROUND: Emergency department (ED)-initiated buprenorphine/naloxone with continuation in primary care was found to increase engagement in addiction treatment and reduce illicit opioid use at 30 days compared to referral only or a brief intervention with referral. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the long-term outcomes at 2, 6 and 12 months following ED interventions. DESIGN: Evaluation of treatment engagement, drug use, and HIV risk among a cohort of patients from a randomized trial who completed at least one long-term follow-up assessment. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 290/329 patients (88% of the randomized sample) were included. The followed cohort did not differ significantly from the randomized sample. INTERVENTIONS: ED-initiated buprenorphine with 10-week continuation in primary care, referral, or brief intervention were provided in the ED at study entry. MAIN MEASURES: Self-reported engagement in formal addiction treatment, days of illicit opioid use, and HIV risk (2, 6, 12 months); urine toxicology (2, 6 months). KEY RESULTS: A greater number of patients in the buprenorphine group were engaged in addiction treatment at 2 months [68/92 (74%), 95% CI 65-83] compared with referral [42/79 (53%), 95% CI 42-64] and brief intervention [39/83 (47%), 95% CI 37-58; p < 0.001]. The differences were not significant at 6 months [51/92 (55%), 95% CI 45-65; 46/70 (66%) 95% CI 54-76; 43/76 (57%) 95% CI 45-67; p = 0.37] or 12 months [42/86 (49%) 95% CI 39-59; 37/73 (51%) 95% CI 39-62; 49/78 (63%) 95% CI 52-73; p = 0.16]. At 2 months, the buprenorphine group reported fewer days of illicit opioid use [1.1 (95% CI 0.6-1.6)] versus referral [1.8 (95% CI 1.2-2.3)] and brief intervention [2.0 (95% CI 1.5-2.6), p = 0.04]. No significant differences in illicit opioid use were observed at 6 or 12 months. There were no significant differences in HIV risk or rates of opioid-negative urine results at any time. CONCLUSIONS: ED-initiated buprenorphine was associated with increased engagement in addiction treatment and reduced illicit opioid use during the 2-month interval when buprenorphine was continued in primary care. Outcomes at 6 and 12 months were comparable across all groups.

Emergency department-initiated buprenorphine/naloxone treatment for opioid dependence: a randomized clinical trial.

IMPORTANCE: Opioid-dependent patients often use the emergency department (ED) for medical care. OBJECTIVE: To test the efficacy of 3 interventions for opioid dependence: (1) screening and referral to treatment (referral); (2) screening, brief intervention, and facilitated referral to community-based treatment services (brief intervention); and (3) screening, brief intervention, ED-initiated treatment with buprenorphine/naloxone, and referral to primary care for 10-week follow-up (buprenorphine). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A randomized clinical trial involving 329 opioid-dependent patients who were treated at an urban teaching hospital ED from April 7, 2009, through June 25, 2013. INTERVENTIONS: After screening, 104 patients were randomized to the referral group, 111 to the brief intervention group, and 114 to the buprenorphine treatment group. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Enrollment in and receiving addiction treatment 30 days after randomization was the primary outcome. Self-reported days of illicit opioid use, urine testing for illicit opioids, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) risk, and use of addiction treatment services were the secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Seventy-eight percent of patients in the buprenorphine group (89 of 114 [95% CI, 70%-85%]) vs 37% in the referral group (38 of 102 [95% CI, 28%-47%]) and 45% in the brief intervention group (50 of 111 [95% CI, 36%-54%]) were engaged in addiction treatment on the 30th day after randomization (P < .001). The buprenorphine group reduced the number of days of illicit opioid use per week from 5.4 days (95% CI, 5.1-5.7) to 0.9 days (95% CI, 0.5-1.3) vs a reduction from 5.4 days (95% CI, 5.1-5.7) to 2.3 days (95% CI, 1.7-3.0) in the referral group and from 5.6 days (95% CI, 5.3-5.9) to 2.4 days (95% CI, 1.8-3.0) in the brief intervention group (P < .001 for both time and intervention effects; P = .02 for the interaction effect). The rates of urine samples that tested negative for opioids did not differ statistically across groups, with 53.8% (95% CI, 42%-65%) in the referral group, 42.9% (95% CI, 31%-55%) in the brief intervention group, and 57.6% (95% CI, 47%-68%) in the buprenorphine group (P = .17). There were no statistically significant differences in HIV risk across groups (P = .66). Eleven percent of patients in the buprenorphine group (95% CI, 6%-19%) used inpatient addiction treatment services, whereas 37% in the referral group (95% CI, 27%-48%) and 35% in the brief intervention group (95% CI, 25%-37%) used inpatient addiction treatment services (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among opioid-dependent patients, ED-initiated buprenorphine treatment vs brief intervention and referral significantly increased engagement in addiction treatment, reduced self-reported illicit opioid use, and decreased use of inpatient addiction treatment services but did not significantly decrease the rates of urine samples that tested positive for opioids or of HIV risk. These findings require replication in other centers before widespread adoption. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00913770.

Facing the diagnosis of myocardial infarction: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Patient experience is increasingly recognized as one of the three pillars of quality in health care, alongside clinical effectiveness and patient safety. However, little attention has been paid to the patients' experience from the point of view of health care delivery. OBJECTIVE: To explore the initial experience of patients facing a new diagnosis of myocardial infarction (MI). METHODS: Thirty semi-structured, individual interviews were performed. The Grounded Theory method was used. Atlas.ti qualitative data analysis software facilitated the analysis. RESULTS: Three patterns of MI diagnosis experience were found: a close encounter with death, severe pain, and 'silent' MI. Newly-diagnosed MI patients who experienced a close encounter with death expected that, after necessary life-saving measures, their physician would not force immediate conversation, but leave them alone, simply to take pleasure in being alive. Newly-diagnosed MI patients who did not experience a close encounter with death expected that their physician would provide not only medical care but also immediate emotional support and opportunities to discuss in their own words their ideas, thoughts, concerns and fears. Six factors facilitated patients coping with a new diagnosis of MI: stay in hospital, completion of diagnostic tests, trust in physicians, the patient's previous expectation that he/she could have a heart attack, the patient's personality, and the need for solitude. CONCLUSION: Physicians should be aware that different patterns of patient experience when facing MI could indicate patients' differing needs for immediate emotional support and communication.

Development of a scale to measure practitioner adherence to a brief intervention in the emergency department.

Brief intervention (BI) can reduce harmful and hazardous drinking among emergency department patients. However, no psychometrically-validated instrument for evaluating the extent to which practitioners correctly implement BIs in clinical practice (e.g., adherence) exists. We developed and subsequently examined the psychometric properties of a scale that measures practitioner adherence to a BI, namely the Brief Negotiation Interview (BNI). Ratings of 342 audiotaped BIs in the emergency department demonstrated that the BNI Adherence Scale (BAS) has: (1) excellent internal consistency and discriminant validity; (2) good to excellent inter-rater reliability, and (3) good construct validity, with an eight-item, two-factor structure accounting for 62% of the variance, but (4) no predictive validity in this study. The BAS provides practitioners with a brief, objective method to evaluate their BNI skills and give feedback to them about their performance.

A brief intervention reduces hazardous and harmful drinking in emergency department patients.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Brief interventions have been shown to reduce alcohol use and improve outcomes in hazardous and harmful drinkers, but evidence to support their use in emergency department (ED) patients is limited. The use of research assessments in studies of brief interventions may contribute to uncertainty about their effectiveness. Therefore we seek to determine (1) if an emergency practitioner-performed Brief Negotiation Interview or a Brief Negotiation Interview with a booster reduces alcohol consumption compared with standard care; and (2) the impact of research assessments on drinking outcomes using a standard care-no-assessment group. METHODS: We randomized 889 adult ED patients with hazardous and harmful drinking. A total of 740 received an emergency practitioner-performed Brief Negotiation Interview (n=297), a Brief Negotiation Interview with a 1-month follow-up telephone booster (Brief Negotiation Interview with booster) (n=295), or standard care (n=148). We also included a standard care with no assessments (n=149) group to examine the effect of assessments on drinking outcomes. Primary outcomes analyzed with mixed-models procedures included past 7-day alcohol consumption and 28-day binge episodes at 6 and 12 months, collected by interactive voice response. Secondary outcomes included negative health behaviors and consequences collected by telephone surveys. RESULTS: The reduction in mean number of drinks in the past 7 days from baseline to 6 and 12 months was significantly greater in the Brief Negotiation Interview with booster (from 20.4 [95% confidence interval {CI} 18.8 to 22.0] to 11.6 [95% CI 9.7 to 13.5] to 13.0 [95% CI 10.5 to 15.5]) and Brief Negotiation Interview (from 19.8 [95% CI 18.3 to 21.4] to 12.7 [95% CI 10.8 to 14.6] to 14.3 [95% CI 11.9 to 16.8]) than in standard care (from 20.9 [95% CI 18.7 to 23.2] to 14.2 [95% CI 11.2 to 17.1] to 17.6 [95% CI 14.1 to 21.2]). The reduction in 28-day binge episodes was also greater in the Brief Negotiation Interview with booster (from 7.5 [95% CI 6.8 to 8.2] to 4.4 [95% CI 3.6 to 5.2] to 4.7 [95% CI 3.9 to 5.6]) and Brief Negotiation Interview (from 7.2 [95% CI 6.5 to 7.9] to 4.8 [95% CI 4.0 to 5.6] to 5.1 [95% CI 4.2 to 5.9]) than in standard care (from 7.2 [95% CI 6.2 to 8.2] to 5.7 [95% CI 4.5 to 6.9] to 5.8 [95% CI 4.6 to 7.0]). The Brief Negotiation Interview with booster offered no significant benefit over the Brief Negotiation Interview alone. There were no differences in drinking outcomes between the standard care and standard care-no assessment groups. The reductions in rates of driving after drinking more than 3 drinks from baseline to 12 months were greater in the Brief Negotiation Interview (38% to 29%) and Brief Negotiation Interview with booster (39% to 31%) groups than in the standard care group (43% to 42%). CONCLUSION: Emergency practitioner-performed brief interventions can reduce alcohol consumption and episodes of driving after drinking in hazardous and harmful drinkers. These results support the use of brief interventions in ED settings.