A qualitative examination of the positive and negative consequences associated with going tobacco-free in substance abuse treatment: the NY State experience.

INTRODUCTION: In 2008, the New York State (NYS) Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services (OASAS) required all state-funded or state-certified addiction treatment programs to be 100% tobacco-free. The regulation prohibits the use or possession of all tobacco products by patients, employees, volunteers, and visitors. This includes exterior grounds and vehicles owned, leased, or operated by the facility. Addiction treatment centers are also required to screen patients for tobacco use and incorporate tobacco cessation into treatment programming. This study examined the perceived effectiveness of this regulation from the perspective of counselors and clinical supervisors. METHODS: Qualitative data were collected from 261 counselors and 80 clinical supervisors working in 50 free-standing substance abuse treatment programs throughout NYS. Questions asked about the perceived positive and negative consequences of the OASAS regulation approximately 1 year after its implementation. RESULTS: The findings indicate mixed reactions to the regulation. A wide range of positive and negative consequences were identified, which were generally consistent across counselor and clinical supervisor reports. The most commonly reported positive outcomes were positive behavior change (e.g., less smoking, increased intentions to quit) and increased awareness about smoking (e.g., dangers, available assistance to quit). The most commonly reported negative consequences were reinforcing addict behaviors among patients (e.g., lying, "dealing" cigarettes) and enforcement problems (e.g., difficulty enforcing, policing for compliance). CONCLUSION: Findings have implications for the implementation of tobacco-free regulations in substance abuse treatment programs.

Conducting clinical research with prescription opioid dependence: defining the population.

Most treatment studies of opioid-dependent populations have focused predominantly on heroin users, despite a recent increase in those dependent upon prescription opioids. A key methodological challenge involved in studying the latter group involves defining the population. Specifically, researchers must decide whether to include (1) concurrent heroin users and (2) individuals with pain. The multi-site Prescription Opioid Addiction Treatment Study is examining treatments for this population. This paper describes various inclusion criteria considered by the study team related to heroin use and pain. The goal was to recruit a distinct but generalizable population of individuals dependent upon prescription opioids. (Am J Addict 2010;00:1-6).

Disseminating evidence-based practices in substance abuse treatment: a review with suggestions.

Although substance abuse professionals are generally open to new and better therapeutic methods, most evidence-based treatments do not easily find their way into practice. Natural diffusion processes for innovations in substance abuse treatments are relatively informal and have yielded a widely acknowledged gap between science and community practice. This review focuses on methods for effectively disseminating new treatment methods into practice. Therapist manuals and one-time workshops are in themselves relatively ineffective in helping practitioners gain proficiency in new clinical approaches. Individual performance feedback and coaching improve the acquisition of clinical skills. Specific incentives for implementation may also be needed to encourage treatment providers, programs, and systems to adopt new approaches.

Patient characteristics associated with buprenorphine/naloxone treatment outcome for prescription opioid dependence: Results from a multisite study.

BACKGROUND: Prescription opioid dependence is a growing problem, but little research exists on its treatment, including patient characteristics that predict treatment outcome. METHODS: A secondary analysis of data from a large multisite, randomized clinical trial, the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network Prescription Opioid Addiction Treatment Study (POATS) was undertaken to examine baseline patient characteristics (N=360) associated with success during 12-week buprenorphine/naloxone treatment for prescription opioid dependence. Baseline predictor variables included self-reported demographic and opioid use history information, diagnoses assessed via the Composite International Diagnostic Interview, and historical opioid use and related information from the Pain And Opiate Analgesic Use History. RESULTS: In bivariate analyses, pre-treatment characteristics associated with successful opioid use outcome included older age, past-year or lifetime diagnosis of major depressive disorder, initially obtaining opioids with a medical prescription to relieve pain, having only used opioids by swallowing or sublingual administration, never having used heroin, using an opioid other than extended-release oxycodone most frequently, and no prior opioid dependence treatment. In multivariate analysis, age, lifetime major depressive disorder, having only used opioids by swallowing or sublingual administration, and receiving no prior opioid dependence treatment remained as significant predictors of successful outcome. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to examine characteristics associated with treatment outcome in patients dependent exclusively on prescription opioids. Characteristics associated with successful outcome after 12 weeks of buprenorphine/naloxone treatment include some that have previously been found to predict heroin-dependent patients' response to methadone treatment and some specific to prescription opioid-dependent patients receiving buprenorphine/naloxone.

Primary outcome indices in illicit drug dependence treatment research: systematic approach to selection and measurement of drug use end-points in clinical trials.

AIMS: Clinical trials test the safety and efficacy of behavioral and pharmacological interventions in drug-dependent individuals. However, there is no consensus about the most appropriate outcome(s) to consider in determining treatment efficacy or on the most appropriate methods for assessing selected outcome(s). We summarize the discussion and recommendations of treatment and research experts, convened by the US National Institute on Drug Abuse, to select appropriate primary outcomes for drug dependence treatment clinical trials, and in particular the feasibility of selecting a common outcome to be included in all or most trials. METHODS: A brief history of outcomes employed in prior drug dependence treatment research, incorporating perspectives from tobacco and alcohol research, is included. The relative merits and limitations of focusing on drug-taking behavior, as measured by self-report and qualitative or quantitative biological markers, are evaluated. RESULTS: Drug-taking behavior, measured ideally by a combination of self-report and biological indicators, is seen as the most appropriate proximal primary outcome in drug dependence treatment clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the most appropriate outcome will vary as a function of salient variables inherent in the clinical trial, such as the type of intervention, its target, treatment goals (e.g. abstinence or reduction of use) and the perspective being taken (e.g. researcher, clinical program, patient, society). It is recommended that a decision process, based on such trial variables, be developed to guide the selection of primary and secondary outcomes as well as the methods to assess them.

Adjunctive counseling during brief and extended buprenorphine-naloxone treatment for prescription opioid dependence: a 2-phase randomized controlled trial.

CONTEXT: No randomized trials have examined treatments for prescription opioid dependence, despite its increasing prevalence. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of brief and extended buprenorphine hydrochloride-naloxone hydrochloride treatment, with different counseling intensities, for patients dependent on prescription opioids. DESIGN: Multisite, randomized clinical trial using a 2-phase adaptive treatment research design. Brief treatment (phase 1) included 2-week buprenorphine-naloxone stabilization, 2-week taper, and 8-week postmedication follow-up. Patients with successful opioid use outcomes exited the study; unsuccessful patients entered phase 2: extended (12-week) buprenorphine-naloxone treatment, 4-week taper, and 8-week postmedication follow-up. SETTING: Ten US sites. Patients A total of 653 treatment-seeking outpatients dependent on prescription opioids. INTERVENTIONS: In both phases, patients were randomized to standard medical management (SMM) or SMM plus opioid dependence counseling; all received buprenorphine-naloxone. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Predefined "successful outcome" in each phase: composite measures indicating minimal or no opioid use based on urine test-confirmed self-reports. RESULTS: During phase 1, only 6.6% (43 of 653) of patients had successful outcomes, with no difference between SMM and SMM plus opioid dependence counseling. In contrast, 49.2% (177 of 360) attained successful outcomes in phase 2 during extended buprenorphine-naloxone treatment (week 12), with no difference between counseling conditions. Success rates 8 weeks after completing the buprenorphine-naloxone taper (phase 2, week 24) dropped to 8.6% (31 of 360), again with no counseling difference. In secondary analyses, successful phase 2 outcomes were more common while taking buprenorphine-naloxone than 8 weeks after taper (49.2% [177 of 360] vs 8.6% [31 of 360], P < .001). Chronic pain did not affect opioid use outcomes; a history of ever using heroin was associated with lower phase 2 success rates while taking buprenorphine-naloxone. CONCLUSIONS: Prescription opioid-dependent patients are most likely to reduce opioid use during buprenorphine-naloxone treatment; if tapered off buprenorphine-naloxone, even after 12 weeks of treatment, the likelihood of an unsuccessful outcome is high, even in patients receiving counseling in addition to SMM.

Multisite effectiveness trials of treatments for substance abuse and co-occurring problems: have we chosen the best designs?

Multisite effectiveness trials such as those carried out in the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (CTN) are a critical step in the development and dissemination of evidence-based treatments because they address how such treatments perform in real-world clinical settings. As Brigham et al. summarized in a recent article (G. S. Brigham, D. J. Feaster, P. G. Wakim, & C. L. Dempsey C. L., 2009), several possible experimental designs may be chosen for such effectiveness trials. These include (a) a new treatment intervention (Tx) is compared to an existing mode of community based treatment as usual (TAU): Tx versus TAU; (b) a new intervention is added to TAU and compared to TAU alone: Tx + TAU versus TAU; or (c) a new intervention is added to TAU and compared to a control condition added to TAU: Tx + TAU versus control + TAU. Each of these designs addresses a different question and has different potential strengths and weaknesses. As of December 2009, the primary outcome paper had been published for 16 of the multisite randomized clinical trials conducted in the CTN, testing various treatments for drug abuse, HIV risk behavior, or related problems. This paper systematically examines, for each of the completed trials, the experimental design type chosen and its original rationale, the main findings of the trial, and the strengths and weaknesses of the design in hindsight. Based on this review, recommendations are generated to inform the design of future effectiveness trials on treatments for substance abuse, HIV risk, and other behavioral health problems.

Buprenorphine tapering schedule and illicit opioid use.

AIMS: To compare the effects of a short or long taper schedule after buprenorphine stabilization on participant outcomes as measured by opioid-free urine tests at the end of each taper period. DESIGN: This multi-site study sponsored by Clinical Trials Network (CTN, a branch of the US National Institute on Drug Abuse) was conducted from 2003 to 2005 to compare two taper conditions (7 days and 28 days). Data were collected at weekly clinic visits to the end of the taper periods, and at 1-month and 3-month post-taper follow-up visits. SETTING: Eleven out-patient treatment programs in 10 US cities. INTERVENTION: Non-blinded dosing with Suboxone during the 1-month stabilization phase included 3 weeks of flexible dosing as determined appropriate by the study physicians. A fixed dose was required for the final week before beginning the taper phase. MEASUREMENTS: The percentage of participants in each taper group providing urine samples free of illicit opioids at the end of the taper and at follow-up. FINDINGS: At the end of the taper, 44% of the 7-day taper group (n = 255) provided opioid-free urine specimens compared to 30% of the 28-day taper group (n = 261; P = 0.0007). There were no differences at the 1-month and 3-month follow-ups (7-day = 18% and 12%; 28-day = 18% and 13%, 1 month and 3 months, respectively). CONCLUSION: For individuals terminating buprenorphine pharmacotherapy for opioid dependence, there appears to be no advantage in prolonging the duration of taper.

Safety strategies to prevent suicide in multiple health care environments.

BACKGROUND: Patient suicide is one of the primary sentinel events reported throughout the United States. North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System undertook a series of performance improvement efforts to identify suicide risk factors and develop a series of strategies and tools to maximize the safety of all vulnerable patients. METHODOLOGY: A multidisciplinary task force conducted root cause analyses of 17 attempted and completed suicides and targeted inadequate patient assessment, poor communication, and knowledge deficits. A protocol was designed to ensure appropriate assessment, monitoring, and treatment of patients at risk for alcohol withdrawal and suicide. Poor communication as patients moved throughout the continuum of care was addressed through targeted education, a centralized intake model, and an inter-institutional transfer summary form. A continuous suicide risk assessment tool was incorporated into the inpatient behavioral health rounds. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS: The new tools have raised awareness, improved accountability, and encouraged best practices throughout the health system.