Long-term treatment outcomes in a First Nations high school population with opioid use disorder.

OBJECTIVE: To assess for long-term positive effects of buprenorphine treatment (BT) on opioid use disorder (OUD) at a Nishnawbe Aski Nation high school clinic. DESIGN: Postgraduation telephone survey of high school students between March 2017 and January 2018. SETTING: Dennis Franklin Cromarty High School in Thunder Bay, Ont. PARTICIPANTS: All 44 students who had received BT in the high school clinic during its operation from 2011 to 2013 were eligible to participate. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Current substance use, BT status, and social and employment status. RESULTS: Thirty-eight of the 44 students who had received BT in the high school clinic were located and approached; 32 consented to participate in the survey. A descriptive analysis of the surveyed indicators was undertaken. Almost two-thirds (n = 20, 62.5%) of the cohort had graduated from high school, more than one-third (n = 12, 37.5%) were employed full time, and most (n = 29, 90.6%) rated their health as "good" or "OK." A greater percentage of participants who continued taking BT after high school (n = 19, 61.3%) were employed full time (n = 8, 42.1% vs n = 4, 33.3%) and were abstinent from alcohol (n = 12, 63.2% vs n = 4, 33.3%). Participants still taking BT were significantly more likely to have obtained addiction counseling in the past year than those participants not in treatment (n = 9, 47.4% vs n = 1, 8.3%; P = .0464). CONCLUSION: The study results suggest that offering OUD treatment to youth in the form of BT in a high school clinic might be an effective strategy for promoting positive long-term health and social outcomes. Clinical treatment guidelines currently recommend long-term opioid agonist treatment as the treatment of choice for OUD in the general population; they should consider adding youth to the population that might also benefit.

Buprenorphine in the emergency department: Randomized clinical controlled trial of clonidine versus buprenorphine for the treatment of opioid withdrawal.

OBJECTIVE: To compare buprenorphine to clonidine for the treatment of opioid withdrawal in the emergency department (ED) and to study the effect assigned treatment medication had on longer-term addiction treatment outcomes. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Toronto, Ont. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-six patients presenting to the ED while in opioid withdrawal or soon to be in opioid withdrawal. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients were randomized to receive either clonidine or buprenorphine treatment. Both groups also received a corresponding discharge prescription and information on how to follow up in the addictions rapid access clinic (RAC) within a few days. Participants were followed for 1 month with respect to attendance at the RAC and to opioid agonist treatment status. Outcome measures included attendance at the RAC within 5 days of the initial ED visit and opioid agonist treatment status at 1 month (as determined by clinic attendance or self-report during a follow-up telephone interview). RESULTS: Participants who received buprenorphine in the ED were more likely to be receiving opioid agonist treatment at the 1-month mark compared with those participants who received clonidine to treat their withdrawal (P = .011). CONCLUSION: When opioid withdrawal is treated with buprenorphine in the ED, patients are more likely to be receiving opioid agonist treatment and connected with addiction treatment 1 month later. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03174067 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Quality of primary care among individuals receiving treatment for opioid use disorder.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if people receiving opioid agonist treatment (OAT), a long-term treatment approach, are also receiving high-quality primary care. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: Recipients of public drug benefits who had at least 6 months of continuous use of methadone or buprenorphine between October 1, 2012, and September 30, 2013. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rates of cancer screening and diabetes monitoring among those who had at least 6 months of continuous OAT were compared with matched controls. Conditional logistic regression models were used to assess differences after adjusting for confounders. In secondary analyses, outcomes by type of OAT and factors related to health care delivery were compared. RESULTS: A cohort of 20 406 OAT patients was identified; they had a mean (SD) of 31 (15) physician clinic visits during the 6-month study period. Compared with the control group, OAT patients were less likely to receive screening for cervical cancer (48.7% vs 62.6%; adjusted odds ratio [AOR] of 0.34, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.36), breast cancer (23.3% vs 49.1%; AOR = 0.19, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.24), and colorectal cancer (32.5% vs 49.0%; AOR = 0.34, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.38), and less likely to have monitoring for diabetes (11.7% vs 28.5%; AOR = 0.16, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.21). Patients receiving OAT who were taking buprenorphine, enrolled in a medical home, or seeing a low-volume prescriber were generally more likely to receive cancer screening and diabetes monitoring. CONCLUSION: Patients receiving OAT were less likely to receive chronic disease prevention and management than matched controls were despite frequent health care visits, indicating a gap in equitable access to primary care.

Opioid agonist therapy during residential treatment of opioid use disorder: Cohort study on access and outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To determine access to opioid agonist therapy (OAT) for those entering residential treatment for opioid use disorder; to report on treatment outcomes for those taking OAT and those not taking OAT; and to determine the association between OAT use and residential treatment completion. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with opioid use disorder admitted to publicly funded residential treatment programs in the province of Ontario between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2016. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Access to OAT during residential treatment using descriptive statistics. Treatment outcomes (ie, completed the program, voluntarily left early, involuntary discharged, and other) for the entire cohort and for the OAT and non-OAT groups using descriptive statistics. Association between OAT use at admission and treatment completion (a binary outcome) using bivariate and multivariate models. RESULTS: Among an identified cohort of 1910 patients with opioid use disorder, 52.8% entered programs that permitted access to OAT. Overall, 56.8% of patients completed treatment, 23.3% voluntarily left early (eg, were no-shows, dropped out), 17.0% were involuntarily discharged, and 2.9% were discharged early for other reasons. Those taking OAT were as likely to complete treatment as those not taking OAT (53.9% vs 57.5%, respectively; adjusted odds ratio of 1.07, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.38). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates 2 large gaps in care for patients with opioid use disorder. First, these patients have poor access to OAT-the first-line treatment of opioid use disorder-while in publicly funded residential treatment programs; and second, many are involuntarily discharged from treatment. Additionally, this study indicates that patients taking OAT have similar likelihood of completing residential treatment as those not taking OAT do. Limitations of this study are that it is based on observational data for patients who self-selected before admission to use OAT or not, and it is likely not all confounders were accounted for.

Primary care management of opioid use disorders: Abstinence, methadone, or buprenorphine-naloxone?

OBJECTIVE: To advise physicians on which treatment options to recommend for specific patient populations: abstinence-based treatment, buprenorphine-naloxone maintenance, or methadone maintenance. SOURCES OF INFORMATION: PubMed was searched and literature was reviewed on the effectiveness, safety, and side effect profiles of abstinence-based treatment, buprenorphine-naloxone treatment, and methadone treatment. Both observational and interventional studies were included. MAIN MESSAGE: Both methadone and buprenorphine-naloxone are substantially more effective than abstinence-based treatment. Methadone has higher treatment retention rates than buprenorphine-naloxone does, while buprenorphine-naloxone has a lower risk of overdose. For all patient groups, physicians should recommend methadone or buprenorphine-naloxone treatment over abstinence-based treatment (level I evidence). Methadone is preferred over buprenorphine-naloxone for patients at higher risk of treatment dropout, such as injection opioid users (level I evidence). Youth and pregnant women who inject opioids should also receive methadone first (level III evidence). If buprenorphine-naloxone is prescribed first, the patient should be promptly switched to methadone if withdrawal symptoms, cravings, or opioid use persist despite an optimal buprenorphine-naloxone dose (level II evidence). Buprenorphine-naloxone is recommended for socially stable prescription oral opioid users, particularly if their work or family commitments make it difficult for them to attend the pharmacy daily, if they have a medical or psychiatric condition requiring regular primary care (level IV evidence), or if their jobs require higher levels of cognitive functioning or psychomotor performance (level III evidence). Buprenorphine-naloxone is also recommended for patients at high risk of methadone toxicity, such as the elderly, those taking high doses of benzodiazepines or other sedating drugs, heavy drinkers, those with a lower level of opioid tolerance, and those at high risk of prolonged QT interval (level III evidence). CONCLUSION: Individual patient characteristics and preferences should be taken into consideration when choosing a first-line opioid agonist treatment. For patients at high risk of dropout (such as adolescents and socially unstable patients), treatment retention should take precedence over other clinical considerations. For patients with high risk of toxicity (such as patients with heavy alcohol or benzodiazepine use), safety would likely be the first consideration. However, the most important factor to consider is that opioid agonist treatment is far more effective than abstinence-based treatment.

Evaluation of 6 remote First Nations community-based buprenorphine programs in northwestern Ontario: Retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate established opioid addiction treatment programs that use traditional healing in combination with buprenorphine-naloxone maintenance treatment in 6 First Nations communities in the Sioux Lookout region of northwestern Ontario. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Six First Nations communities in northwestern Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 526 First Nations participants in opioid-dependence treatment programs. INTERVENTION: Buprenorphine-naloxone substitution therapy and First Nations healing programming. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Retention rates and urine drug screening (UDS) results. RESULTS: Treatment retention rates at 6, 12, and 18 months were 84%, 78%, and 72%, respectively. We estimate that the rate at 24 months will also be more than 70%. The UDS programming varied and was implemented in only 1 community. Initially urine testing was voluntary and it then became mandatory. Screening with either method found the proportion of urine samples with negative results for illicit opioids ranged between 84% and 95%. CONCLUSION: The program's treatment retention rates and negative UDS results were higher than those reported for most methadone and buprenorphine-naloxone programs, despite a patient population where severe posttraumatic stress disorder is endemic, and despite the programs' lack of resources and addiction expertise. Community-based programs like these overcome the initial challenge of cultural competence. First Nations communities in other provinces should establish their own buprenorphinenaloxone programs, using local primary care physicians as prescribers. Sustainable core funding is needed for programming, long-term aftercare, and trauma recovery for such initiatives.

Obstetrical and neonatal outcomes of methadone-maintained pregnant women: a canadian multisite cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe obstetrical and neonatal outcomes including neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) in a Canadian cohort of methadone-maintained pregnant women. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review at three integrated care programs in Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal. Pregnant women on methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) who attended for care between 1997 and 2009 were included in this multisite study. Maternal and neonatal outcomes in each of the three contributing centres were compared. RESULTS: A total of 94 pregnant methadone-maintained women were included in the final analysis: 36 from Toronto, 36 from Vancouver, and 22 from Montreal. Maternal demographics showed inter-site differences in ethnicity and marital status. Obstetrical complications were not frequent; the most frequent was antenatal hemorrhage, which occurred in 14% of the total cohort. The incidence of premature labour was significantly higher in Vancouver and Montreal than in Toronto. The mean gestational age at delivery for the entire cohort was 38 weeks; mean birth weight was 2856 grams. The average length of hospital stay for babies with NAS was 19 days, with 27% of neonates requiring pharmacological treatment for NAS. Approximately 60% of neonates were discharged from hospital to the care of their mother. CONCLUSION: Integrated care programs resulted in satisfactory obstetrical and neonatal outcomes for pregnant women on MMT. Policies promoting maternal-newborn contact, rooming-in, and breastfeeding may help to decrease the severity of NAS and the need for pharmacological treatment of NAS. We strongly recommend the development of similar programs across Canada to address gaps in services.

Objectif : Décrire les issues obstétricales et néonatales, y compris le syndrome d'abstinence néonatal (SAN), au sein d'une cohorte canadienne de femmes enceintes recevant un traitement de substitution à la méthadone. Méthodes : Nous avons mené une analyse de dossiers rétrospective au sein de trois programmes de soins intégrés à Vancouver, à Toronto et à Montréal. Les femmes enceintes recevant un traitement de substitution à la méthadone (TSM) qui ont sollicité les services de ces programmes entre 1997 et 2009 ont été admises à cette étude multisite. Les issues maternelles et néonatales constatées au sein de chacun des centres participants ont été comparées. Résultats : En tout, 94 femmes enceintes recevant un traitement de substitution à la méthadone ont été admises à l'analyse finale : 36 de Toronto, 36 de Vancouver et 22 de Montréal. Les caractéristiques démographiques maternelles ont révélé la présence de différences entre les programmes en matière d'ethnicité et d'état matrimonial. Les complications obstétricales n'ont pas été fréquentes : la plus fréquente a été l'hémorragie prénatale, laquelle a été constatée chez 14 % des femmes de la cohorte entière. L'incidence du travail prématuré était considérablement plus élevée à Vancouver et à Montréal qu'à Toronto. Pour l'ensemble de la cohorte, l'âge gestationnel moyen au moment de l'accouchement a été de 38 semaines; le poids denaissance moyen a été de 2 856 grammes. La durée moyenne de l'hospitalisation des nouveau-nés présentant un SAN a été de 19 jours, 27 % d'entre eux ayant nécessité une pharmacothérapie pour contrer le SAN. Environ 60 % des nouveau-nés ont été remis à leur mère à la suite de l'obtention de leur congé de l'hôpital. Conclusion : Les programmes de soins intégrés ont permis l'obtention d'issues obstétricales et néonatales satisfaisantes chez les femmes enceintes recevant un TSM. Les politiques favorisant les contacts entre la mère et le nouveau-né, le partage de la même chambre d'hôpital et l'allaitement pourraient contribuer à atténuer la gravité du SAN et la nécessité d'avoir recours à une pharmacothérapie pour contrer le SAN. Nous recommandons fortement la mise sur pied de programmes similaires partout au Canada afin de combler les écarts en matière de services.

Obstetric and Gynecologic Resident Ultrasound Education Project: Is the Current Level of Gynecologic Ultrasound Training in Canada Meeting the Needs of Residents and Faculty?

OBJECTIVES: Ultrasound is a critical diagnostic imaging tool in obstetrics and gynecology (Ob/Gyn). Obstetric ultrasound is taught during residency, but we suspected a gap in Gyn ultrasound education. Proficiency in Gyn ultrasound allows real-time interpretation and management of pelvic disease and facilitates technical skill development for trainees learning blinded procedures. This study sought to evaluate ultrasound education in Canada's Ob/Gyn residency programs and assess whether residents and physicians perceived a need for a formalized Gyn ultrasound curriculum. METHODS: We distributed a needs assessment survey to residents enrolled in Canadian Ob/Gyn residency programs and to all obstetrician/gynecologists registered as members of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. Residents were asked to specify their current training in ultrasound and to rate the adequacy of their curriculum. All respondents rated the importance of proficiency in pelvic ultrasound for practicing obstetrician/gynecologists as well as the perceived need for formalized ultrasound training in Ob/Gyn residency programs. RESULTS: Eighty-two residents and 233 physicians completed the survey. Extents and types of ultrasound training varied across residency programs. Most residents reported inadequate exposure to Gyn ultrasound, and most residents and physicians agreed that it is important for obstetrician/gynecologists to be proficient in Gyn ultrasound and that the development of a standardized Gyn ultrasound curriculum for residency programs is important. CONCLUSIONS: Current ultrasound education in Ob/Gyn varies across Canadian residency programs. Training in Gyn ultrasound is lacking, and both trainees and physicians confirmed the need for a standardized Gyn ultrasound curriculum for residency programs in Canada.

Primary care management of alcohol use disorder and at-risk drinking: Part 1: screening and assessment.

OBJECTIVE: To provide primary care physicians with evidence-based information and advice on the screening and assessment of at-risk drinking and alcohol use disorder (AUD). A companion article outlines the management of at-risk drinking and AUD. SOURCES OF INFORMATION: We conducted a nonsystematic literature review, using search terms on primary care, AUD, alcohol dependence, alcohol abuse, alcohol misuse, unhealthy drinking, and primary care screening, identification, and assessment. MAIN MESSAGE: Family physicians should screen all patients at least yearly for unhealthy drinking with a validated screening test. Screen patients who present with medical or psychosocial problems that might be related to alcohol use. Determine if patients who have positive screening results are at-risk drinkers or have AUD. If patients have AUD, categorize it as mild, moderate, or severe using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition, criteria. Share this diagnosis with the patient and offer assistance. Do a further assessment for patients with AUD. Screen for other substance use, concurrent disorders, and trauma. Determine whether there is a need to report to child protection services or the Ministry of Transportation. Determine the need for medical management of alcohol withdrawal. Conduct a brief physical examination and order laboratory tests to assess complete blood count and liver transaminase levels, including γ-glutamyl transpeptidase. CONCLUSION: Primary care is well suited to screening and assessment of alcohol misuse.

Primary care management of alcohol use disorder and at-risk drinking: Part 2: counsel, prescribe, connect.

OBJECTIVE: To provide primary care physicians with evidence-based information and advice on the management of at-risk drinking and alcohol use disorder (AUD). SOURCES OF INFORMATION: We conducted a nonsystematic literature review using search terms that included primary care; screening, interventions, management, and treatment; and at-risk drinking, alcohol use disorders, alcohol dependence, and alcohol abuse; as well as specific medical and counseling interventions of relevance to primary care. MAIN MESSAGE: For their patients with at-risk drinking and AUD, physicians should counsel and, when indicated (ie, in patients with moderate or severe AUD), prescribe and connect. Counsel: Offer all patients with at-risk drinking a brief counseling session and follow-up. Offer all patients with AUD counseling sessions and ongoing (frequent and regular) follow-up. Prescribe: Offer medications (disulfiram, naltrexone, acamprosate) to all patients with moderate or severe AUD. Connect: Encourage patients with AUD to attend counseling, day or residential treatment programs, and support groups. If indicated, refer patients to an addiction medicine physician, concurrent mental health and addiction services, or specialized trauma therapy. CONCLUSION: Family physicians can effectively manage patients with at-risk drinking and AUD.

Approach to cannabis use disorder in primary care: focus on youth and other high-risk users.

OBJECTIVE: To review the clinical features and complications of at-risk cannabis use and cannabis use disorder, and to outline an office-based protocol for screening, identifying, and managing this disorder. SOURCES OF INFORMATION: PubMed was searched for controlled trials, observational studies, and reviews on cannabis use among adolescents and young adults; cannabis-related medical and psychiatric harms; cannabis use disorder and its treatment; and lower-risk cannabis use guidelines. MAIN MESSAGE: Physicians should ask all patients about cannabis use. They should ask adolescents and young adults and those at highest risk of cannabis-related harms (those with concurrent psychiatric or substance use disorders) more frequently. Physicians should also ask about cannabis use in patients who have problems that could be caused by cannabis, such as mood disorders, psychosis, and respiratory symptoms. In patients who report cannabis use, physicians should inquire about frequency and amount, tolerance and withdrawal symptoms, attempts to reduce use, and cannabis-related harms. Lower-risk cannabis users smoke, inhale, or ingest cannabis occasionally without evidence of school, work, or social dysfunction; those with problematic use often use cannabis daily or almost daily, have difficulty reducing their use, and have impaired school, work, or social functioning. Physicians should offer all patients with problematic use brief advice and counseling, focusing on the health effects of cannabis and setting a goal of abstinence (some higher-risk groups should not use cannabis at all) or reduced use, and they should provide practical strategies to reduce cannabis use. Physicians should incorporate simple motivational interviewing techniques into the counseling sessions. They should refer those patients who are unable to reduce use or who are experiencing harms from cannabis use to specialized care, while ensuring those patients remain connected to primary care. As well, physicians should give information on lower-risk cannabis use to all cannabis users. CONCLUSION: Physicians should screen all patients in their practices at least once for cannabis use, especially those who have problems that might be caused by cannabis. Physicians should screen those at higher risk more often, at least annually. Lower-risk cannabis use should be distinguished from problematic use. Brief counseling should be provided to those with problematic use; these patients should be referred to specialists if they are unable to reduce or cease use.

Prescribing smoked cannabis for chronic noncancer pain: preliminary recommendations.

OBJECTIVE: To offer preliminary guidance on prescribing smoked cannabis for chronic pain before the release of formal guidelines. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: We reviewed the literature on the analgesic effectiveness of smoked cannabis and the harms of medical and recreational cannabis use. We developed recommendations on indications, contraindications, precautions, and dosing of smoked cannabis, and categorized the recommendations based on levels of evidence. Evidence is mostly level II (well conducted observational studies) and III (expert opinion). MAIN MESSAGE: Smoked cannabis might be indicated for patients with severe neuropathic pain conditions who have not responded to adequate trials of pharmaceutical cannabinoids and standard analgesics (level II evidence). Smoked cannabis is contraindicated in patients who are 25 years of age or younger (level II evidence); who have a current, past, or strong family history of psychosis (level II evidence); who have a current or past cannabis use disorder (level III evidence); who have a current substance use disorder (level III evidence); who have cardiovascular or respiratory disease (level III evidence); or who are pregnant or planning to become pregnant (level II evidence). It should be used with caution in patients who smoke tobacco (level II evidence), who are at increased risk of cardiovascular disease (level III evidence), who have anxiety or mood disorders (level II evidence), or who are taking higher doses of opioids or benzodiazepines (level III evidence). Cannabis users should be advised not to drive for at least 3 to 4 hours after smoking, for at least 6 hours after oral ingestion, and for at least 8 hours if they experience a subjective "high" (level II evidence). The maximum recommended dose is 1 inhalation 4 times per day (approximately 400 mg per day) of dried cannabis containing 9% delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (level III evidence). Physicians should avoid referring patients to "cannabinoid" clinics (level III evidence). CONCLUSION: Future guidelines should be based on systematic review of the literature on the safety and effectiveness of smoked cannabis. Further research is needed on the effectiveness and long-term safety of smoked cannabis compared with pharmaceutical cannabinoids, opioids, and other standard analgesics.

Integrated care for pregnant women on methadone maintenance treatment: Canadian primary care cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the characteristics of a national cohort of pregnant women on methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) and to provide treatment outcome data for integrated care programs. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. SETTING: Three different integrated care programs in geographically distinct cities: the Toronto Centre for Substance Use in Pregnancy in Toronto, Ont; the Herzl Family Practice Centre in Montreal, Que; and the Sheway clinic in Vancouver, BC. PARTICIPANTS: Pregnant women meeting criteria for opioid dependence and attending an integrated care program between 1997 and 2009. Women were excluded if they were on MMT only for chronic pain. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient demographic characteristics, concurrent medical and psychiatric disorders, and substance use outcome data. RESULTS: A total of 102 opioid-dependent pregnancies were included. The mean age was 29.7 years and 64% of women were white. Women in Montreal were more likely to have partners and had fewer children. Differences in living and housing situations among the sites tended to resolve by the time of delivery. Almost half of this cohort tested positive for hepatitis C. Women had a high prevalence of depression and anxiety across all sites. Half of this cohort was on MMT before conception and for the other half, MMT was initiated at a mean gestational age of 20.7 weeks, resulting in a mean dose of 82.4 mg at delivery. At the first visit, polysubstance use was common. Prescription opioid use was more frequent in Toronto and heroin use was more prevalent in Vancouver and Montreal. For the entire population, significant reductions were found by the time of delivery for illicit (P < .001) and prescription opioids (P = .001), cocaine (P < .001), marijuana (P = .009), and alcohol use (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Despite geographic differences, all 3 integrated care programs have been associated with significant decreases in substance use in pregnant opioid-dependent women.