Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND: Unobserved, or "home" buprenorphine induction is common in some clinical practices. Patients take the initial and subsequent doses of buprenorphine after, rather than during, an office visit. This review summarizes the literature on the feasibility and acceptability, safety, effectiveness, and prevalence of unobserved induction. METHODS: We searched the English language literature for studies describing unobserved buprenorphine induction and associated outcomes. Clinical studies were assessed by strength of design, bias, and internal and external validity. Surveys of provider practices and unobserved induction adoption were reviewed for prevalence data and key findings. We also examined previous review papers and international buprenorphine treatment guidelines. RESULTS: N = 10 clinical studies describing unobserved induction were identified: 1 randomized controlled trial, 3 prospective cohort studies, and 6 retrospective cohort studies. The evidence supports the feasibility of unobserved induction, particularly in office-based primary care practices. Evidence is weak to moderate in support of no differences in adverse event rates between unobserved and observed inductions. There is insufficient or weak evidence in terms of any or no differences in overall effectiveness (treatment retention, medication adherence, illicit opioid abstinence, other drug use). N = 9 provider surveys assessed unobserved induction: observed induction logistics are seen as barriers to buprenorphine prescribing; unobserved induction appears widespread in specific locations. International guidelines reviewed emphasize clinician or pharmacist observed induction (the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Australia); only one (Denmark) explicitly endorses unobserved induction. CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence supporting unobserved induction as more, less, or as effective as observed induction. However, the predominantly observational and naturalistic studies of unobserved induction reviewed, all of which have significant sources of bias and limited external validity, document feasibility and low rates of adverse events. Unobserved induction seems to be widely adopted in US and French regional provider surveys. Prescribers, policy makers, and patients should balance the benefits of observed induction such as maximum clinical supervision with the ease-of-use and comparable safety profile of unobserved induction.

Unobserved or "home" buprenorphine induction has become a common clinical practice. Patients take the initial and subsequent doses of buprenorphine after, rather than during, an office visit. This clinical case summarizes an unobserved induction onto buprenorphine in a typical new patient. We review the core issues surrounding patient selection, feasibility, logistics, safety, and effectiveness of unobserved buprenorphine induction. Prescribers, treatment providers, policy makers, and patients should weigh the benefits of observed induction (maximum clinical supervision) with the reduced resource burden, flexibility, and comparable safety of unobserved induction.

The time required to conduct drug and alcohol screening has been a major barrier to its implementation in mainstream healthcare settings. Because patient self-administered tools are potentially more efficient, we translated the Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) into an audio guided computer assisted self interview (ACASI) format. This study reports on the test-retest reliability of the ACASI ASSIST in an adult primary care population. Adult primary care patients completed the ACASI ASSIST, in English or Spanish, twice within a 1-4week period. Among the 101 participants, there were no significant differences between test administrations in detecting moderate to high risk use for tobacco, alcohol, or any other drug class. Substance risk scores from the two administrations had excellent concordance (90-98%) and high correlation (ICC 0.90-0.97) for tobacco, alcohol, and drugs. The ACASI ASSIST has good test-retest reliability, and warrants additional study to evaluate its validity for detecting unhealthy substance use.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This analysis aims to: (1) compare induction experiences among participants who self-reported using one of the four most commonly reported POs, and (2) examine factors associated with difficult bup-nx induction. Our hypothesis, based on previous research and current guidelines, is that those on longer-acting opioids will have experienced more difficult inductions. METHODS: The Prescription Opioid Addiction Treatment Study (POATS) was a multi-site, randomized clinical trial, using a two-phase adaptive treatment research design. This analysis examines bup-nx induction of participants who self-reported primary PO use of methadone, ER-oxycodone, IR-oxycodone, and hydrocodone (n = 569). Analyses examined characteristics associated with difficult induction, defined as increased withdrawal symptoms measured by the Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale (COWS) after the first bup-nx dose with higher scores denoting greater withdrawal symptoms/severity. RESULTS: Contrary to our hypothesis, difficult induction experiences did not differ by primary PO type. Those who experienced a post-induction increase in COWS score had lower pre-dose COWS scores compared to those who did not experience a post-induction increase in COWS score (10.09 vs. 12.77, t(624) = -13.56, p < .001). Demographics characteristics, depression, and pain history did not predict a difficult induction. CONCLUSIONS AND SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE: Difficult bup-nx inductions were not associated with participants' primary PO. Severity of withdrawal, measured with the COWS, was an important variable, reminding clinicians that bup-nx should not be commenced prior to evidence of moderate opioid withdrawal. These findings add to the evidence that with careful procedures, bup-nx can used with few difficulties in PO-dependent patients. (Am J Addict 2013;XX:000-000).

In October 2012, Bellevue Hospital Center (Bellevue) in New York City was temporarily closed as a result of Hurricane Sandy, the largest hurricane in US history. Bellevue's primary care office-based buprenorphine program was temporarily closed and later relocated to an affiliate public hospital. Previous research indicates that the relationships between disaster exposure, substance use patterns, psychiatric symptoms, and mental health services utilization is complex, with often conflicting findings regarding post-event outcomes (on the individual and community level) and antecedent risk factors. In general, increased use of tobacco, alcohol, and illicit drugs is associated with both greater disaster exposure and the development or exacerbation of other psychiatric symptoms and need for treatment. To date, there is limited published information regarding post-disaster outcomes among patients enrolled in office-based buprenorphine treatment, as the treatment modality has only been relatively approved recently. Patients enrolled in the buprenorphine program at the time of the storm were surveyed for self-reported buprenorphine adherence and illicit substance and alcohol use, as well as disaster-related personal consequences and psychiatric sequelae post-storm. Baseline demographic characteristics and insurance status were available from the medical record. Analysis was descriptive (counts and proportions) and qualitative, coding open-ended responses for emergent themes. There were 132 patients enrolled in the program at the time of the storm; of those, 91 were contacted and 89 completed the survey. Almost half of respondents reported disruption of their buprenorphine supply. Unexpectedly, patients with psychiatric comorbidity were no more likely to report increased use/relapse as a result. Rather, major risk factors associated with increased use or relapse post-storm were: (1) shorter length of time in treatment, (2) exposure to storm losses such as buprenorphine supply disruption, (3) a pre-storm history of red flag behaviors (in particular, repeat opioid-positive urines), and (4) new-onset post-storm psychiatric symptoms. Our findings highlight the relative resilience of buprenorphine as an office-based treatment modality for patients encountering a disaster with associated unanticipated service disruption. In responding to future disasters, triaging patient contact and priority based on a history of red-flag behaviors, rather than a history of psychiatric comorbidity, will likely optimize resource allocation, especially among recently enrolled patients. Additionally, patients endorsing new-onset psychiatric manifestations following disasters may be an especially high-risk group for poor outcomes, warranting further study.

BACKGROUND: The extent of damage in New York City following Hurricane Sandy in October 2012 was unprecedented. Bellevue Hospital Center (BHC), a tertiary public hospital, was evacuated and temporarily closed as a result of hurricane-related damages. BHC's large primary care office-based buprenorphine clinic was relocated to an affiliate public hospital for three weeks. The extent of environmental damage and ensuing service disruption effects on rates of illicit drug, tobacco, and alcohol misuse, buprenorphine medication supply disruptions, or direct resource losses among office-based buprenorphine patients is to date unknown. METHODS: A quantitative and qualitative semi-structured survey was administered to patients in BHC's primary care buprenorphine program starting one month after the hurricane. Survey domains included: housing and employment disruptions; social and economic support; treatment outcomes (buprenorphine adherence and ability to get care), and tobacco, alcohol, and drug use. Open-ended questions probed general patient experiences related to the storm, coping strategies, and associated disruptions. RESULTS: There were 132 patients enrolled in the clinic at the time of the storm; of those, 91 patients were recruited to the survey, and 89 completed (98% of those invited). Illicit opioid misuse was rare, with 7 respondents reporting increased heroin or illicit prescription opioid use following Sandy. Roughly half of respondents reported disruption of their buprenorphine-naloxone medication supply post-event, and self-lowering of daily doses to prolong supply was common. Additional buprenorphine was obtained through unscheduled telephone or written refills from relocated Bellevue providers, informally from friends and family, and, more rarely, from drug dealers. CONCLUSIONS: The findings highlight the relative adaptability of public sector office-based buprenorphine treatment during and after a significant natural disaster. Only minimal increases in self-reported substance use were reported despite many disruptions to regular buprenorphine supplies and previous daily doses. Informal supplies of substitute buprenorphine from family and friends was common. Remote telephone refill support and a temporary back-up location that provided written prescription refills and medication dispensing for uninsured patients enabled some patients to maintain an adequate medication supply. Such adaptive strategies to ensure medication maintenance continuity pre/post natural disasters likely minimize poor treatment outcomes.