Comparative evaluation of craving, sleep quality, sexual function and quality of life in opioid use disorder patients in remission with buprenorphine/naloxone maintenance treatment.

AIM: To compare opioid use disorder (OUD) patients who continue to use opioids and are in remission with buprenorphine-naloxone (B/N) in terms of some parameters and to evaluate the relationship between B/N dose and these parameters. METHOD: We included 141 OUD patients in remission with B/N maintenance treatment for at least 6 months, 141 who still used opioids, and 141 healthy volunteers. Substance Craving Scale (SCS), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), Arizona Sexual Experiences Scale (ASEX), and Short Form 36 (SF-36) were administered. RESULTS: PSQI scores and ASEX scores were higher in those who continued to use opiates than in OUD in remission, and in OUD in remission compared to controls. OUD patients with current opioid use also had lower SF-36 scores compared to both patients in remission and healthy controls. SCS, PSQI, ASEX, and SF-36 scores were similar when the three groups were examined based on the dosage of B/N (below 8, 8-15, and 16 mg/day and above) use in OUD in remission. CONCLUSIONS: Quality of life, craving, sleep and sexual functions improved significantly with B/N; however, these effects are not dependent on B/N dosage.

Impact of Depressive Symptom Severity on Buprenorphine/Naloxone and Methadone Outcomes in People With Prescription-Type Opioid Use Disorder: Results From a Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of depressive symptom severity on opioid use and treatment retention in individuals with prescription-type opioid use disorder (POUD). METHOD: We analyzed data from a multi-centric, pragmatic, open-label, randomized controlled trial comparing buprenorphine/naloxone to methadone models of care in 272 individuals with POUD. Opioid use was self-reported every two weeks for 24 weeks using the Timeline Followback. Depressive symptom severity was self-reported with the Beck Depression Inventory at baseline, week 12 and week 24. RESULTS: Baseline depressive symptom severity was not associated with opioid use nor treatment retention. At week 12, moderate depressive symptoms were associated with greater opioid use while mild to severe depressive symptoms were associated with lowered treatment retention. At week 24, moderate depressive symptoms were associated with greater opioid use. CONCLUSIONS: Ongoing depressive symptoms lead to poorer outcomes in POUD. Clinicians are encouraged to use integrative approaches to optimize treatment outcomes. This study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03033732) on January 27th, 2017, prior to participants enrollment.

Buprenorphine-naloxone, buprenorphine, and methadone throughout pregnancy in maternal opioid use disorder.

INTRODUCTION: Current WHO guidelines recommend using methadone or buprenorphine as maintenance treatments for maternal opioid use disorder. However, buprenorphine-naloxone, with a lower abuse risk than buprenorphine monotherapy or methadone, offers a potentially beneficial alternative, but scientific evidence on its effects on pregnancies, fetuses, and newborns is scarce. This paper compares the outcomes of the pregnancies, deliveries, and newborns of women on buprenorphine-naloxone, buprenorphine, or methadone maintenance treatments. According to the hypothesis, as a maintenance treatment, buprenorphine-naloxone does not have more adverse effects than buprenorphine, whereas methadone is more complicated. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this population-based study, 172 pregnant women on medical-assisted treatments were followed-up at Helsinki University Women's Hospital (Finland). Women receiving the same opioid maintenance treatment from conception to delivery and their newborns were included. Consequently, 67 mother-child dyads met the final inclusion criteria. They were divided into three groups based on their opioid pharmacotherapy. The outcomes were compared among the groups and, where applicable, with the Finnish population. RESULTS: The buprenorphine-naloxone and buprenorphine groups showed similar outcomes and did not significantly differ from each other in terms of maternal health during pregnancies, deliveries, or newborns. Illicit drug use during the pregnancy was common in all groups, but in the methadone group it was most common (p = 0.001). Most neonates (96%) were born full-term with good Apgar scores. They were of relatively small birth size, with those in the methadone group tending to be the smallest. Of the neonates 63% needed pharmacological treatment for neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome. The need was lower in the buprenorphine-based groups than in the methadone group (p = 0.029). CONCLUSIONS: Buprenorphine-naloxone seems to be as safe for pharmacotherapy for maternal opioid use disorder as buprenorphine monotherapy for both mother and newborn. Hence it could be a choice for oral opioid maintenance treatment during pregnancy, but larger studies are needed before changing the official recommendations. Women on methadone treatment carry multifactorial risks and require particularly cautious follow up. Furthermore, illicit drug use is common in all treatment groups and needs to be considered for all patients with opioid use disorder.

Treatment Experiences for Patients Receiving Buprenorphine/Naloxone for Opioid Use Disorder: A Qualitative Study of Patients' Perceptions and Attitudes.

Background: Although buprenorphine/naloxone has been demonstrated to be an effective treatment for patients with opioid use disorder (OUD), treatment retention has been a challenge. This study extends what is presently a limited literature regarding patients' experiences with this medication and the implications for treatment retention. Methods: The study was conducted as a qualitative investigation of patients in treatment for OUD at the time of the study. Forty-three patients (27 men, 15 women, mean age 34.7) were recruited from three clinical settings, a community health center, an academically-based treatment site, and an independent substance abuse treatment facility. Most patients had returned to use in the past after attempts to become abstinent. Results: Patients generally reported positive experiences with this medication noting it helped to reduce opioid cravings quickly. As important considerations for treatment retention, patients emphasized a firm commitment to achieving abstinence when beginning treatment and a prescriber who is informed about and attentive to their emotional state. Diverging attitudes did exist regarding treatment duration as some patients were accepting of long-term treatment while others desired a relatively brief option. Among patients who had returned to use, potentially important issues emerged pertaining to the absence of patient outreach for missed medication appointments and inadequate discharge planning following stays at rehabilitation facilities. Conclusions: While results regarding the importance of patient motivation and strong patient-prescriber relationships have been noted in previous studies, other findings regarding opportunities to improve patient outreach and coordination of care have received relatively less attention and warrant further consideration.

Investigation of Simulated Adherence in Long-Term Buprenorphine/Naloxone Treatment Patients.

BACKGROUND: Buprenorphine is a medication that is used to treat opioid use disorder by reducing withdrawal symptoms and cravings for opioids. Patients with poor adherence are at higher risk of relapse and overdose. Providers often test adherence through urine testing but are not aware of simulated adherence, where patients may directly add buprenorphine to the urine samples. As of now, there exists no literature on the simulated adherence practices for patients who stayed in the treatment for more than three months. METHODS: This study is a cross-sectional analysis of simulated adherence through urine toxicology results of 3950 patients undergoing buprenorphine/naloxone treatment. Simulated adherence was measured by the ratio of norbuprenorphine and buprenorphine <0.02 in the urine sample. Descriptive statistics as well as multivariate analysis was conducted to examine the relationship between patient information and outcomes. RESULTS: Out of 3950 patients, 411 (10.4%) had a history of one or more simulated adherence. On average, patients with multiple simulated adherences had 48.1% of their tests simulated, while on the contrary, patients with a single occurrence of simulated adherence had 17.6% of their tests simulated. Weekly testing and visit number of over 15 were associated with a higher likelihood of simulated adherence. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrates that simulated adherence is a recurring phenomenon among buprenorphine/naloxone treatment patients regardless of the duration in the treatment. Utilization of quantitative urine toxicology to identify simulated adherence will enable healthcare providers to formulate a more precise and effective treatment plan tailored to support individual patient needs.

Perspectives Regarding Medications for Opioid Use Disorder Among Individuals with Mental Illness.

Most people with co-occurring opioid use disorder (OUD) and mental illness do not receive effective medications for treating OUD. To investigate perspectives of adults in a publicly-funded mental health system regarding medications for OUD (MOUD), we conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with 13 adults with OUD (current or previous diagnosis) receiving mental health treatment. Themes that emerged included: perceiving or using MOUDs as a substitute for opioids or a temporary solution to prevent withdrawal symptoms; negative perceptions about methadone/methadone clinics; and viewing MOUD use as "cheating". Readiness to quit was important for patients to consider MOUDs. All participants were receptive to discussing MOUDs with their mental health providers and welcomed the convenience of receiving care for their mental health and OUD at the same location. In conclusion, clients at publicly-funded mental health clinics support MOUD treatment, signaling a need to expand access and build awareness of MOUDs in these settings.

Treatment retention in opioid agonist therapy: comparison of methadone versus buprenorphine/naloxone by analysis of daily-witnessed dispensed medication in a Canadian Province.

BACKGROUND: The last decade has shown a remarkable increase in the rates of illicit opioid use in Canada and internationally, which is associated with large increases in opioid related morbidity and mortality. While the differences between methadone and buprenorphine/naloxone in terms of retention have been studied outside Canada, the unique location and design of this study, gives it a specific significance. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to describe the relative treatment retention rates for first episode opioid replacement treatment between methadone and buprenorphine/naloxone for patients receiving daily witnessed dispensed medications in Nova Scotia. METHODS: A longitudinal retrospective descriptive study analyzing secondary data from the Nova Scotia Prescription Monitoring Program on patients 18 years of age and older who started first episode opioid agonist therapy with methadone or buprenorphine/naloxone for opioid use disorder in Nova Scotia between 2014 and 2018. Treatment episode was defined as date of initial opioid agonist prescription until there is a gap of greater than 6 days without receiving opioid agonist medication at a pharmacy. RESULTS: One thousand eight hundred sixty-seven of whom were analyzed as they had at least 1 day in treatment. There was significant treatment dropout within the first 2 weeks of treatment, which did not show a significant difference between OAT medication (23.4% of buprenorphine/naloxone; 22.2% methadone). Median duration of retention in treatment was 58 days for those treated with buprenorphine/naloxone and 101 days for patients treated with methadone. Multivariate cox proportional hazards model showed that buprenorphine/naloxone use as compared to methadone lead to increased hazard of treatment dropout by 62% (HR = 1.62). Hazard rate of treatment dropout for patients below 25 years of age was calculated. (HR 1.53). Median duration of retention in treatment for this subgroup of patients younger than age 25 was 37.5 days for patients treated with buprenorphine/naloxone and 69 days for patients treated with methadone. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggests that methadone is a numerically superior medication for opioid use disorder when the metric of treatment retention is viewed in isolation, for our population in Nova Scotia. However, the results should be interpreted carefully considering the number of limitations of this study. There are social/accessibility, pharmacologic/safety, and patient preference factors which are also key in decision making when prescribing opioid agonist therapy. These must all be considered when deciding on which medication to initiate for a patient beginning a new treatment episode with OAT for opioid use disorder. This study should stimulate further research into this important area in addiction medicine.

Comparison of naltrexone implant and oral buprenorphine-naloxone in the treatment of opiate use disorder.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare the effectiveness of extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX) implant and sublingual buprenorphine-naloxone (BUP-NX) in relapse prevention in opiate use disorder (OUD). METHODS: Medical records of 400 patients who were treated for OUD between 2016 and 2020 were retrospectively evaluated concerning sociodemographic and clinical characteristics and abstinence duration with either BUP-NX (192 patients) or XR-NTX (208 patients) as maintenance treatments. RESULTS: The median age of patients using BUP-NX was 25.00, and the median age of patients using XR-NTX was 25.50 (p = .785). The ratio of female patients in the BUP-NX group and the XR-NTX group was 7.3% (n = 14) and 6.7% (n = 14), respectively. A significantly higher abstinence time was observed in the BUP-NX group (median = 4 months) than in the XR-NTX group (median = 3 months) (p = .015). Liver function tests were within the normal ranges at the three time points, which were just before the beginning and in the first and third months of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that BUP-NX might be more effective than XR-NTX in preventing relapse in OUD and both drugs are safe for the liver. Prospective randomized studies are needed to replicate our results.

Baseline- and treatment-associated pain in the X:BOT comparative effectiveness study of extended-release naltrexone versus buprenorphine-naloxone for OUD.

Chronic pain is highly prevalent among patients with opioid use disorder (OUD). However, little is known about how pharmacological treatments for OUD, for example, extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX) and buprenorphine-naloxone (BUP-NX), affect pain. To begin addressing this question, we performed a secondary analysis of pain data on a large prospective 24-week, open-label, randomized-controlled comparative effectiveness trial of XR-NTX versus BUP-NX (X:BOT trial). Participants' pain status was measured by the EuroQol (EQ-5D). Based on their responses to the pain question at baseline, participants were dichotomized into "Pain" versus "No Pain" categories. Participant's pain status was evaluated every 4 weeks. A mixed effects longitudinal logistic regression model was fitted to examine the differential effect of XR-NTX versus BUP-NX on pain, modelling pain at all available follow-up assessments, adjusted for age, sex, and baseline pain. A total of 474 individuals who were successfully inducted onto their assigned medications were included in this analysis. Among participants endorsing pain at baseline, substantial reductions in pain were observed over the course of the study in both treatment groups. Howecver reduction in pain was slightly greater in the group treated with XR-NTX than the one treated with BUP-NX (OR = 1.60 [95% CI: 1.07-2.40], P = 0.023). Future research using instruments and design specifically focused on pain could extend the present observations and evaluate their clinical significance.

Opioid agonist treatment (OAT) experiences and release plans among federally incarcerated individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) in Ontario, Canada: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Incarcerated populations experience an elevated prevalence of opioid use disorder (OUD). Federal correctional institutions in Canada have increasingly treated OUD among correctional populations via opioid agonist treatment (OAT) - an evidence based pharmacotherapy that works to reduce drug use and related health harms. However, there is limited evidence regarding incarcerated individuals' experiences with institutional-based OAT, as well potential OAT-related community release prospects. This information is important for optimal treatment retention and improved health. To address this knowledge gap, we conducted a longitudinal follow-up study examining OAT-related experiences among federally incarcerated individuals before and after community release. This article focuses on the baseline (pre-release) data. METHODS: This mixed-methods study examined OAT-related experiences and release prospects among n = 46 individuals scheduled for community release, recruited from seven federal prisons located in Ontario, Canada. Participants underwent a comprehensive interviewer-administered on-site assessment, including quantitative and qualitative items. Assessment data was furthermore linked to administrative correctional data. Data were analyzed using thematic qualitative and descriptive quantitative approaches. RESULTS: Participants had complex histories with opioid use including related negative health outcomes. Experiences with institutional OAT were divergent and provision was not standardized; those with OAT engagement pre-admission did not experience many challenges, whereas those initiating OAT during incarceration experienced barriers such as treatment waitlists and adverse process experiences. Most participants expressed a preference for buprenorphine-naloxone over methadone, but described difficulties accessing it. Participants were keen to transition into community-based treatment, yet envisaged prospective barriers and facilitators concerning successful reintegration and treatment continuity. CONCLUSIONS: Major barriers towards the current administration of OAT in federal correctional systems in Canada exist, including extensive waitlists, non-standardized practices, and challenges accessing preferred OAT formulations; this contributes to sub-optimal treatment. Eliminating waitlists, standardizing OAT provision, providing additional OAT options, and more comprehensive release planning may be essential for treatment retention and positive outcomes.

Perception of a New Prolonged-Release Buprenorphine Formulation in Patients with Opioid Use Disorder: The PREDEPO Study.

AIM: The aim of the study was to assess the acceptance of patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) to switching their opioid dependence treatment (ODT) for a prolonged-release buprenorphine (PRB) injection according to their prior ODT (buprenorphine/naloxone [B/N] or methadone). METHODS: This was an observational, retrospective/cross-sectional, multicentre study of adult patients diagnosed with OUD on ODT. Data collected from diaries were analysed to know their interest and opinion on PRB. Questions with fixed response options were included, and several Likert scales were used. RESULTS: A total of 98 patients were enrolled (B/N: 50.0%, methadone: 50.0%). The mean age was 46.9 ± 8.43 years and 79.6% were males. PRB was similarly perceived by both groups in most variables analysed, receiving a mean score of 7.2/10 (B/N: 7.4, methadone: 7.0; p = 0.520), and approximately 65% of patients said they were willing to switch to PRB (B/N: 63.3%, methadone: 65.3%; p = 0.833). Of these, a higher percentage in the B/N group considered that switching would be easy/very easy (B/N: 90.3%, methadone: 46.9%; p < 0.001) and that they would start PRB when available (B/N: 64.5%, methadone: 34.3%; p = 0.005). More than 90% would prefer the monthly injection (B/N: 93.6%, methadone: 100%; p = 0.514). One-third of patients in both groups were unsure/would not switch their ODT to PRB (B/N: 36.7%, methadone: 34.7%; p = 0.833). The main reason was administration by injection. CONCLUSION: Two-thirds of patients would switch their treatment for PRB, and most patients on B/N considered that switching would be easy. PRB could be a suitable alternative for OUD management.

Early buprenorphine-naloxone initiation for opioid use disorder reduces opioid overdose, emergency room visits, and healthcare cost compared to late initiation.

Background: Although the effectiveness of buprenorphine-naloxone (BUP-NX) has been established, real-world evidence on the benefits of early treatment initiation is limited.Objective: To evaluate the association between early BUP-NX initiation and health-related outcomes among insured adults with opioid use disorder (OUD).Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis using the Optum's de-identified Clinformatics® Data Mart Database from 2010 to 2018. Patients who initiated BUP-NX within 30 days of OUD diagnosis were classified as early initiators. Patients who initiated BUP-NX later, but within the one-year follow-up, were defined as late initiators. Outcomes included opioid overdose, opioid overdose-related emergency department (ED) visits, and all-cause healthcare cost during the year after OUD diagnosis. We employed generalized linear models to compare outcomes between early and late initiators, adjusting for baseline covariates and accounting for missing information for covariates using multiple imputation.Results: A total of 8,388 patients with OUD were identified; mean age was 39.9 years; 36% were female; and 67.6% were early initiators. Early initiators had an estimated 42% lower rate of opioid overdose (adjusted rate ratio (aRR) = 0.58; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.52, 0.64); 51% lower rate of opioid overdose-related ED visits (aRR = 0.49; 95% CI: 0.44, 0.55); and 31% lower total healthcare cost (adjusted cost ratio = 0.69; 95% CI: 0.66, 0.72), compared to late initiators.Conclusion: Compared to late BUP-NX initiation, early initiation was associated with a lower risk of opioid overdose and opioid overdose-related ED visits, and reduced total healthcare cost among insured adult patients with OUD.

Initiation of Buprenorphine/Naloxone on Rates of Discharge Against Medical Advice.

Objective: Evidence shows that patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) have an increased rate of discharge against medical advice (DAMA) as well as higher rates of hospital readmission. Therefore, the objective of this study was to determine if inpatient initiation of buprenorphine/naloxone in patients with OUD is associated with decreased rates of DAMA. Methods: This was a single center retrospective cohort study conducted at a level 1, academic medical center. The study included patients with OUD admitted to the Internal Medicine service from January through May of both 2018 and 2019 for an admitting diagnosis other than opioid withdrawal. The primary endpoint was rate of DAMA among OUD patients not initiated on opioid agonist therapy compared to those initiated on buprenorphine/naloxone. The secondary endpoint was the association between factors of the initiation process on rates of DAMA. Patients were excluded if they were discharged in less than 24 hours or received intermittent administration of buprenorphine/naloxone. Results: The rate of DAMA in OUD patients not initiated on buprenorphine/naloxone was 13.85% compared to 2.56% in those initiated on buprenorphine/naloxone (P = .048). Conclusion: In OUD patients initiated on buprenorphine/naloxone, the rate of DAMA was significantly lower than those who were not. This data supports the importance of optimizing the opportunity to initiate buprenorphine/naloxone in the acute care setting to minimize withdrawal symptoms therefore reducing the rate of DAMA. Ultimately increasing the ability to adequately treat the primary reason for admission and potentially decreasing readmission rates. Further studies are needed to evaluate this impact as this study is limited to a small sample size therefore lacking adequate power.

Linking MATTERS: Barriers and Facilitators to Implementing Emergency Department-Initiated Buprenorphine-Naloxone in Patients with Opioid Use Disorder and Linkage to Long-Term Care.

BACKGROUND: In March 2019, our health system launched a project called Linking MATTERS (Medication for Addiction Treatment linkage Through Emergency depaRtmentS) to initiate evidence-based treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) with buprenorphine-naloxone (B/N) in our emergency departments and connect patients to our primary care sites to continue their addiction care. Methods: Six months after project implementation, we conducted in-depth interviews with frontline providers (n = 14), including emergency physicians and hospitalists, recovery coaches, ED and outpatient nurses, and case managers. We used qualitative thematic analysis to identify barriers and facilitators to implementation and suggestions for improving the project. Results: We identified five salient themes: (1) provider trainings: mandated, rather than optional trainings, facilitated provider uptake; (2) provider attitudes: there was a growing recognition of addiction as a chronic, medical disease and the value of B/N in supporting patients' recovery, driven by a desire to make a difference in patients' lives; (3) patient engagement: frontline providers with lived experience of addiction who had designated time (such as recovery coaches) were optimally positioned to engage patients; (4) the linking mechanism: personal connections between ED and outpatient providers, rather than follow-up telephone calls, facilitated linkage; and (5) suggestions for improving the program, including: a physical space/bridge clinic to provide patient linkage, expansion of the recovery coach program, and standardized, evidence-based interdisciplinary trainings for all frontline providers. Conclusion: The insights provided will support further program modifications. Healthcare systems should explore whether the components we identified warrant attention locally based on their unique infrastructure and culture.

Buprenorphine Naloxone and Extended Release Injectable Naltrexone for the Treatment of Opioid Use Disorder Among a Veteran Patient Sample: A Retrospective Chart Review.

OBJECTIVE: Previous research has demonstrated the effectiveness of both extended-release injectable naltrexone (XR-NTX) and buprenorphine/naloxone (BUP-NX) in the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD). However, studies using real-world samples with multiple medical and psychiatric comorbidities are lacking. The study's primary aims were to: (1) compare clinical presentations in an inclusive sample of OUD-diagnosed US military veterans receiving XR-NTX and BUP-NX, and (2) investigate differences in 90-day treatment outcomes between these two groups. Methods: The medical records of 79 patients receiving medications to treat OUD in a VA hospital's addiction outpatient treatment program were reviewed retrospectively. The analysis included all veterans who initiated medication treatment during the study period. Differences between medication groups on co-occurring diagnoses, treatment retention, and related outcomes were examined. Results: The two groups were similar in medical and psychiatric comorbidity, although the BUP-NX group were more likely to have a pain diagnosis. No statistically significant differences in retention or toxicology results were found between the two groups over the 90-day study period. The rate of positive urine screens for the BUP-NX group was 19.2% for opiates and 13.5% for other illicit substances, and 3.7% and 11.1% respectively for the XR- NTX group. Conclusion: There was no evidence that 90-days outcomes differed for veterans based on medication received, and there were more similarities than differences in clinical characteristics. Additional research is needed, including larger sample size and prospective randomized control trial to evaluate VA patients' treatment outcomes receiving BUP-NX or XR-NTX for OUD.

Patterns of buprenorphine/naloxone prescribing: an analysis of claims data from Massachusetts.

Background: The brand name Suboxone and its generic formulation buprenorphine/naloxone is a medication for treating opioid use disorder. While this medication has been shown to be effective, little research has examined the extent to which it is being prescribed and under what circumstances.Objective: This study examined patterns of prescription claims for buprenorphine/naloxone in terms of volume and associated clinical conditions.Methods: The study was conducted using a statewide database comprising pharmacy and medical claims that were covered by commercial health insurance plans in Massachusetts between 2011 and 2015. Trends in prescription volume for buprenorphine/naloxone were assessed based on the annual number of patients with a prescription for buprenorphine/naloxone. To examine clinical conditions associated with buprenorphine/naloxone prescriptions, patients' pharmacy claims were linked to their medical claims within the prior three months. For patients with common pain-related conditions, the odds they were prescribed buprenorphine/naloxone rather than oxycodone, a widely used opioid for pain management, were also examined.Results: The number of patients with a buprenorphine/naloxone prescription increased substantially during the study period, from approximately 25,000 in 2011 to over 39,000 in 2015. The most common clinical condition associated with buprenorphine/naloxone prescribing was opioid use disorder, but a substantial percentage of prescriptions were preceded by diagnoses that included pain or were for pain alone.Conclusion: A substantial increase in the number of patients with a prescription for buprenorphine/naloxone was observed. While buprenorphine/naloxone is most frequently prescribed for opioid use disorder, clinicians also appear to prescribe it for pain, particularly for patients who may be at elevated risk for opioid use disorder.

Home induction and outpatient treatment of kratom use disorder with buprenorphine-naloxone: A case report in a young adult.

Background: The use of the natural product, kratom, has increased significantly in recent years. The active compounds in kratom have been shown to produce both opioid and stimulant-like effects. While kratom is marketed as a safe, non-addictive method to treat pain and opioid withdrawal, there have been reports demonstrating that kratom is physiologically addictive and linked to overdose deaths. A limited number of case-reports are available describing treatment of kratom use disorder in middle-aged adults, generally in the context of chronic pain and in inpatient settings. Our case is unique in that we describe outpatient treatment of kratom use disorder in a young adult with comorbid attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and in the absence of chronic pain. Case: A 20-year-old college student with ADHD presented to an office-based opioid agonist treatment clinic (OBOT) for treatment of kratom use disorder. He was unable to attend inpatient or residential substance use treatment due to work and school obligations. Additionally, he had stopped taking his prescribed stimulant due to cardiac side effects. The OBOT team successfully initiated buprenorphine-naloxone (BUP/NAL) sublingual films via home induction to treat his kratom use disorder. The patient is being monitored monthly with plans to slowly taper his BUP/NAL dose as tolerated. Discussion: We present a case of a young adult male with kratom use disorder, complicated by a diagnosis of ADHD, successfully treated with BUP/NAL via home induction. The patient is currently kratom-free, reports improved mood and sleep patterns since initiating BUP/NAL, and is able to once again tolerate his ADHD stimulant medication. Healthcare providers should be aware of the use of kratom and consider utilizing BUP/NAL to treat dependence to this botanical drug.

Implementing group visits for opioid use disorder: A case series.

Background: Group-based models of Office-Based Opioid Treatment with buprenorphine-naloxone (B/N) are increasingly being implemented in clinical practice to increase access to care and provide additional therapeutic benefits. While previous studies reported these Group-Based Opioid Treatment (GBOT) models are feasible for providers and acceptable to patients, there has been no literature to help providers with the more practical aspects of how to create and maintain GBOT in different outpatient settings. Case series: We present 4 cases of GBOT implementation across a large academic health care system, highlighting various potential approaches for providers who seek to implement GBOT and demonstrate "success" based on feasibility and sustainability of these models. For each case, we describe the pros and cons and detail the personnel and resources involved, patient mix and group format, workflow logistics, monitoring and management, and sustainability components. Discussion: The implementation details illustrate that there is no one-size-fits-all approach, although feasibility is commonly supported by a team-based, patient-centered medical home. This approach includes the capacity for referral to higher levels of mental health and addiction support services and is bolstered by ongoing provider communication and shared resources across the health system. Future research identifying the core and malleable components to implementation, their evidence base, and how they might be influenced by site-specific resources, culture, and other contextual factors can help providers better understand how to implement a GBOT model in their unique clinical environment.

Medications for Opioid Use Disorder Utilization Among Oxford House Residents.

Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) and recovery homes that have traditionally served those not taking medications for their recovery are important resources for treating opioid use disorder. However, little is known whether such recovery homes are a good fit for persons utilizing MOUD, and whether residents' characteristics such as drug histories and the composition of recovery homes in terms MOUD and non-MOUD residents are related to attitudes toward MOUD. The present investigation examined characteristics of persons utilizing MOUD, and attitudes regarding MOUD utilization among residents living in recovery homes (Oxford Houses, OH) in the U.S. consisting of MOUD and non-MOUD residents. Residents living with others who were utilizing MOUD reported more favorable attitudes than residents who were not living with such residents, but this was observed only among residents whose primary drug of choice involved heroin or opioids. There were no significant differences observed in terms of abstinence rates, involvement in 12-step groups, or previous MOUD treatments between residents utilizing or not utilizing MOUD. Findings suggest that persons utilizing MOUD benefit by recovery homes such as OHs whose residents have favorable attitudes toward MOUD, especially when living with fellow residents who utilize MOUD.

Perioperative opioid requirements of patients receiving sublingual buprenorphine-naloxone: a case series.

BACKGROUND: Buprenorphine, a partial opioid agonist, displaces full opioid agonists from receptors and may impede surgical pain management. We report the effects of a sublingual formulation of buprenorphine-naloxone, Suboxone (SL-BUP), on perioperative pain management. METHODS: We identified all adult surgical patients from December 31, 2004, to January 1, 2016, who received SL-BUP within 30 days prior to procedures performed with general, regional, or combined general/regional anesthesia. We recorded opioid use during the procedure, in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU), and during the 24 h following PACU discharge. We also examined opioid use in those who continued SL-BUP until the day of surgery vs those who preoperatively discontinued SL-BUP. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients were treated preoperatively with SL-BUP. Three patients had regional anesthesia only, and opioid requirements were case dependent. Requirements were minimal for creation of an arteriovenous fistula and high following knee replacement and cesarean section. Twelve patients received combined general/regional anesthesia, and 17 received general anesthesia only. Intraoperative and PACU opioid use in these 2 groups were not significantly different (P = .10 and P = .93, respectively). In both groups opioid use increased after discharge from the PACU, and remained comparable between the general and combined general/regional group through the first 24 h after PACU discharge (P = .78). Although median [interquartile range] 24-h opioid doses were higher among patients who discontinued SL-BUP, the difference was not statistically significant in the general anesthesia-only group (SL-BUP discontinued, 199 [110-411] mg IV-MEq [intravenous morphine equivalent] vs SL-BUP continued, 106 [58-160] mg IV-MEq; P = .15) or in the combined general/regional group (SL-BUP discontinued, 140 [100-157] mg IV-MEq vs SL-BUP continued, 100 [73-203] mg IV-MEq; P = .94). CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of the type of anesthesia used, physicians treating patients with SL-BUP must be prepared to administer large doses of opioids during the early postoperative period. No difference in opioid requirements was noted between patients who perioperatively stopped SL-BUP versus those who continued SL-BUP.