Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND: Opioid overdose deaths have reached epidemic proportions in the United States. This problem stems from both licit and illicit opioid use. Physicians play a role in prescribing opioids, recognizing risky use, and initiating prevention, including Opioid Overdose Prevention Training (OOPT). The American Heart Association (AHA) modified their basic life support (BLS) algorithms to consider naloxone in high risk populations and when a pulse is appreciated; however, the AHA did not provide OOPT. Our intervention filled this training deficiency by teaching medical students opioid overdose resuscitation with a Train-The-Trainer model as part of mandatory BLS training. METHODS: We introduced OOPT, following a Train-The-Trainer model, into the required Basic Life Support (BLS) training for first-year medical students at a single medical school in a large urban area. We administered pre- and post-evaluations to assess the effects of the training on opioid overdose knowledge, self-reported preparedness to respond to opioid overdoses, and attitudes towards patients with SUDS. RESULTS: In the fall 2014, 120 first-year medical students received OOPT. Seventy-three students completed both pre- and post-training evaluations. Improvements in knowledge about and preparedness to respond to opioid overdoses were statistically significant (p <.01) and large (Cohen's D = 2.70 and Cohen's D = 2.10 respectively). There was no statistically significant change in attitude toward patients with SUDs. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated the effectiveness of OOPT as an adjunct to BLS in increasing knowledge about and preparedness to respond to opioid overdoses; improving attitudes toward patients with SUDs likely requires additional intervention. We will characterize knowledge and preparedness durability, program sustainability, and long-term changes in attitudes in future evaluations. These results support dissemination of OOPT as a part of BLS training for all medical students, and potentially all BLS providers.

Buprenorphine office-based opioid maintenance is an increasingly common form of treatment for opioid use disorders. However, total prescribing has not kept pace with the current opioid and overdose epidemic and access remains scarce among the underserved. This study sought to assess current provider attitudes and clinical practices among a targeted sample of primarily New York City public sector buprenorphine prescribers. A cross-sectional online survey purposefully sampled buprenorphine prescribers in NYC with a focus on those serving Medicaid and uninsured patient populations. Expert review of local provider networks, snowball referrals, and in-person networking generated an email list, which received a survey link. A brief 25-question instrument queried provider and practice demographics, prescribing practices including induction approaches and attitudes regarding common hot topics (e.g., buprenorphine diversion, prescriber patient limits, insurance issues, ancillary treatments). Of 132 email invitations, N=72 respondents completed (n=64) or partially completed (n=8) the survey between January and April 2016. Most (79%) were Medicaid providers in non-psychiatric specialties (72%), working in a hospital-based or community general practice (51%), and board-certified in addiction medicine or psychiatry (58%). Practice sizes were generally 100 patients or fewer (71%); many providers (64%) individually prescribed buprenorphine <25% of total practice time to a median 23 patients (mean 31, range 0-102). Unobserved (home) induction for new patients was a common practice: 49% predominantly prescribed unobserved induction; 16% mixed unobserved and observed inductions. Adjunctive psychosocial counseling was routinely recommended (46%) or considered on a case-by-case basis (17%) versus mandated (37%). Medication prior authorization requirements were the highest rated barriers to practice, followed by inadequate clinic space, limited clinic time and/or support staff, and inadequate psychiatric services for dual diagnoses. Buprenorphine diversion was not rated as an important practice barrier. In conclusion, this targeted survey of buprenorphine prescribers in NYC treating primarily underserved populations showed a consistent pattern of part-time prescribing to modest volumes of patients, routine use of unobserved buprenorphine induction, and primarily elective referrals to psychosocial counseling. Barriers to prescribing included prior authorization requirements, lack of clinical resources (space, staff) and psychiatric services. Federal and local efforts to reduce such barriers may improve buprenorphine access among the underserved.

BACKGROUND: Buprenorphine maintenance for opioid dependence remains of limited availability among underserved populations, despite increases in US opioid misuse and overdose deaths. Low threshold primary care treatment models including the use of unobserved, "home," buprenorphine induction may simplify initiation of care and improve access. Unobserved induction and long-term treatment outcomes have not been reported recently among large, naturalistic cohorts treated in low threshold safety net primary care settings. METHODS: This prospective clinical registry cohort design estimated rates of induction-related adverse events, treatment retention, and urine opioid results for opioid dependent adults offered buprenorphine maintenance in a New York City public hospital primary care office-based practice from 2006 to 2013. This clinic relied on typical ambulatory care individual provider-patient visits, prescribed unobserved induction exclusively, saw patients no more than weekly, and did not require additional psychosocial treatment. Unobserved induction consisted of an in-person screening and diagnostic visit followed by a 1-week buprenorphine written prescription, with pamphlet, and telephone support. Primary outcomes analyzed were rates of induction-related adverse events (AE), week 1 drop-out, and long-term treatment retention. Factors associated with treatment retention were examined using a Cox proportional hazard model among inductions and all patients. Secondary outcomes included overall clinic retention, buprenorphine dosages, and urine sample results. RESULTS: Of the 485 total patients in our registry, 306 were inducted, and 179 were transfers already on buprenorphine. Post-induction (n = 306), week 1 drop-out was 17%. Rates of any induction-related AE were 12%; serious adverse events, 0%; precipitated withdrawal, 3%; prolonged withdrawal, 4%. Treatment retention was a median 38 weeks (range 0-320) for inductions, compared to 110 (0-354) weeks for transfers and 57 for the entire clinic population. Older age, later years of first clinic visit (vs. 2006-2007), and baseline heroin abstinence were associated with increased treatment retention overall. CONCLUSIONS: Unobserved "home" buprenorphine induction in a public sector primary care setting appeared a feasible and safe clinical practice. Post-induction treatment retention of a median 38 weeks was in line with previous naturalistic studies of real-world office-based opioid treatment. Low threshold treatment protocols, as compared to national guidelines, may compliment recently increased prescriber patient limits and expand access to buprenorphine among public sector opioid use disorder patients.

The acceptability and clinical impact of a web-based intervention among patients entering addiction treatment who lack recent internet access are unclear. This secondary analysis of a national multisite treatment study (NIDA Clinical Trials Network-0044) assessed for acceptability and clinical impact of a web-based psychosocial intervention among participants enrolling in community-based, outpatient addiction treatment programs. Participants were randomly assigned to 12 weeks of a web-based therapeutic education system (TES) based on the community reinforcement approach plus contingency management versus treatment as usual (TAU). Demographic and clinical characteristics, and treatment outcomes were compared among participants with recent internet access in the 90 days preceding enrollment (N = 374) and without internet access (N = 133). Primary outcome variables included (1) acceptability of TES (i.e., module completion; acceptability of web-based intervention) and (2) clinical impact (i.e., self-reported abstinence confirmed by urine drug/breath alcohol tests; retention measured as time to dropout). Internet use was common (74 %) and was more likely among younger (18-49 years old) participants and those who completed high school (p < .001). Participants randomized to TES (n = 255) without baseline internet access rated the acceptability of TES modules significantly higher than those with internet access (t = 2.49, df = 218, p = .01). There was a near significant interaction between treatment, baseline abstinence, and internet access on time to dropout (chi 2(1) = 3.8089, p = .051). TES was associated with better retention among participants not abstinent at baseline who had internet access (X 2(1) = 6.69, p = .01). These findings demonstrate high acceptability of this web-based intervention among participants that lacked recent internet access.

The deployment of health information technologies promises to optimize clinical outcomes for populations with substance use disorders. Electronic health records, web-based counseling interventions, and mobile phone applications enhance the delivery of evidence-based behavioral and pharmacological treatments, with minimal burden to clinical personnel, infrastructure, and work flows. This clinical case shares a recent experience utilizing mobile phone text messaging between an office-based buprenorphine provider in a safety net ambulatory clinic and a patient seeking buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder. The case highlights the use of text message-based physician-patient communication to facilitate unobserved "home" induction onto buprenorphine.

BACKGROUND: Extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX) is an injectable monthly sustained-release mu opioid receptor antagonist, which blocks the typical effects of heroin and other opioid agonists. Use of XR-NTX among opioid dependent persons leaving jails and prisons is increasing despite scant high-quality evidence regarding XR-NTX's effectiveness at re-entry. METHODS: This 24-week, open-label randomized controlled trial examines the effectiveness of XR-NTX as opioid relapse prevention at release from jail (N=85) compared to enhanced treatment as usual (ETAU, N=85). A third, non-randomized, quasi-experimental naturalistic arm of participants who have newly initiated a jail-to-community methadone treatment program (MTP, N=85) allows for comparisons to a methadone standard-of-care. RESULTS: We describe the rationale, design, and primary and secondary outcomes of the study. The primary outcome is an opioid relapse event; the primary contrast is a time-to-relapse comparison of XR-NTX and ETAU over a 24-week treatment phase. Secondary outcomes are rates of: (a) post-release opioid treatment participation, (b) opioid, alcohol, and cocaine use, (c) injection drug use and HIV sexual risk behaviors, (d) overdose (fatal and non-fatal) and all-cause mortality, and, (e) re-incarceration. CONCLUSIONS: XR-NTX is a potentially important, effective treatment and relapse prevention option for a large US population of persons with opioid use disorders leaving jails. This study will estimate XR-NTX's effectiveness relative to existing standards of care, including counseling-only treatment-as-usual and methadone maintenance.