Faculty Bibliography

Patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) tend to get assigned to one of 3 medications based on the treatment program to which the patient presents (e.g., opioid treatment programs tend to treat patients with methadone, while office-based practices tend to prescribe buprenorphine). It is possible that optimally matching patients with treatment type would reduce the risk of return to regular opioid use (RROU). We analyzed data from 3 comparative effectiveness trials from the US National Institute on Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network (CTN0027, 2006-2010; CTN0030, 2006-2009; and CTN0051 2014-2017), in which patients with OUD (n = 1,459) were assigned to treatment with either injection extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX), sublingual buprenorphine-naloxone (BUP-NX), or oral methadone. We learned an individualized rule by which to assign medication type such that risk of RROU during 12 weeks of treatment would be minimized, and then estimated the amount by which RROU risk could be reduced if the rule were applied. Applying our estimated treatment rule would reduce risk of RROU compared with treating everyone with methadone (relative risk (RR) = 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.60, 0.97) or treating everyone with XR-NTX (RR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.47, 0.96). Applying the estimated treatment rule would have resulted in a similar risk of RROU to that of with treating everyone with BUP-NX (RR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.73, 1.11).

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To inform clinical practice, we identified subgroups of adults based on levels of depression symptomatology over time during opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment. METHODS:Participants were 474 adults in a 24-week treatment trial for OUD. Depression symptoms were measured using the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) at nine-time points. This was a secondary analysis of the Clinical Trials Network Extended-Release Naltrexone versus Buprenorphine for Opioid Treatment (XBOT) trial using a growth mixture model. RESULTS:Three distinct depression trajectories were identified: Class 1 High Recurring-10% with high HAM-D with initial partial reductions (of HAM-D across time), Class 2 Persistently High-5% with persistently high HAM-D, and Class 3 Low Declining-85% of the participants, with low HAM-D with early sustained reductions. The majority (low declining) had levels of depression that improved in the first 4 weeks and then stabilized across the treatment period. In contrast, 15% (high recurring and persistently high) had high initial levels that were more variable across time. The persistently high class had higher rates of opioid relapse. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS/CONCLUSIONS:In this OUD sample, most depressive symptomatology was mild and improved after medication treatment for opioid use disorder (MOUD). Smaller subgroups had higher depressive symptoms that persisted or recurred after the initiation of MOUD. Depressive symptoms should be followed in patients initiating treatment for OUD, and when persistent, should prompt further evaluation and consideration of antidepressant treatment. SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE/CONCLUSIONS:This study is the first to identify three distinct depression trajectories among a large clinical sample of individuals in MOUD treatment.

IMPORTANCE:Methadone treatment is the most effective evidence-based treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD), but challenges related to dosing and premature treatment dropout argue for adjunct interventions to improve outcomes. One potential behavioral intervention with low risk involves harnessing placebo effects. OBJECTIVE:To determine the effect of a pharmacologically conditioned open-label placebo (C-OLP) on 90-day methadone dose, retention, drug use, withdrawal, craving, quality of life, and sleep. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:This 2-arm, open-label, single-blind randomized clinical trial was conducted between December 5, 2017, and August 2, 2019, in an academically affiliated community opioid treatment program. Analyses were conducted between October 1, 2019, and April 30, 2020. A total of 320 newly enrolled adults seeking treatment for moderate to severe OUD were assessed for study eligibility; 131 met eligibility criteria, provided informed consent, and were randomized to either C-OLP or treatment as usual (TAU) in an unequal-block (3:2) manner. Exclusion criteria were pregnancy, hospital/program transfers, and court-ordered treatment. INTERVENTIONS:Participants randomized to C-OLP received pharmacologic conditioning and a placebo pill and methadone, and participants randomized to TAU were given methadone only. Participants met with the study team 5 times: at baseline (treatment intake) and 2, 4, 8, and 12 weeks postbaseline. Interactions were balanced between the 2 groups. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:Outcomes included 90-day methadone dose (primary) and treatment retention, drug use, withdrawal, craving, quality of life, and sleep quality (secondary). Analyses were conducted as intention-to-treat. RESULTS:Of the 131 people enrolled in the study, 54 were randomized to TAU and 77 to C-OLP. Mean (SD) age was 45.9 (11.2) years; most of the participants were Black or African American (83 [63.4%]) and male (84 [64.1%]). No significant group differences were observed in the mean (SD) 90-day methadone dose (83.1 [25.1] mg for group TAU, 79.4 [19.6] mg for group C-OLP; t = 0.621991; P = .43), but the groups differed significantly in their retention rates: 33 (61.1%) for TAU and 60 (77.9%) for C-OLP (χ21 = 4.356; P = .04; number needed to treat for the beneficial outcome of 3-month treatment retention, 6; 95% CI, 4-119). C-OLP participants also reported significantly better sleep quality. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:In this randomized clinical trial, C-OLP had no effect on the primary outcome of 90-day methadone dose. However, C-OLP participants were significantly more likely to remain in treatment. These findings support the use of C-OLP as a methadone treatment adjunct, but larger trials are needed to further examine the use of C-OLP. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02941809.

BACKGROUND:Extended-release injectable naltrexone (XR-NTX) is an effective treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD), but initiation remains a barrier to implementation. Standard practice requires a 10- to 15-day inpatient admission prior to XR-NTX initiation and involves a methadone or buprenorphine taper followed by a 7- to 10-day washout, as recommended in the Prescribing Information for XR-NTX. A 5- to 7-day rapid induction approach was developed that utilizes low-dose oral naltrexone and non-opioid medications. METHODS:The CTN-0097 Surmounting Withdrawal to Initiate Fast Treatment with Naltrexone (SWIFT) study was a hybrid type I effectiveness-implementation trial that compared the effectiveness of the standard procedure (SP) to the rapid procedure (RP) for XR-NTX initiation across six community inpatient addiction treatment units, and evaluated the implementation process. Sites were randomized to RP every 14 weeks in an optimized stepped wedge design. Participants (target recruitment = 450) received the procedure (SP or RP) that the site was implementing at time of admission. The hypothesis was RP will be non-inferior to SP on proportion of inpatients who receive XR-NTX, with a shorter admission time for RP. Superiority testing of RP was planned if the null hypothesis of inferiority of RP to SP was rejected. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:If RP for XR-NTX initiation is shown to be effective, the shorter inpatient stay could make XR-NTX more feasible and have an important public health impact expanding access to OUD pharmacotherapy. Further, a better understanding of facilitators and barriers to RP implementation can help with future translatability and uptake to other community programs. TRIAL REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:NCT04762537 Registered February 21, 2021.

INTRODUCTION/UNASSIGNED:Psychosocial support is recommended in conjunction with medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD), although optimal "dose," modality, and timing of participation is not established. This study comprised a secondary analysis of counseling and 12-Step attendance and subsequent opioid use in a MOUD randomized clinical trial. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:=283). Mixed-effects logistic regression models were fit with opioid use as the response variable, and a counseling/12-Step attendance predictor. Differences by treatment assignment were examined. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:=.025); with each additional hour associated with 13% (95% CI: 0.83, 0.90) reduction in odds of opioid use. The strength of this association grew over time. In the BUP-NX arm, group counseling was associated with a greater reduction in odds of opioid use than for XR-NTX, (OR=0.32 (95% CI: .22, 0.48) vs. OR=0.69 (95% CI: 0.43, 1.08)). For XR-NTX, 12-Step was associated with a greater reduction in odds of opioid use (OR=0.35 (95% CI: 0.22, 0.54) vs. OR=0.65 (95% CI: 0.47, 0.89) for BUP-NX)). CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Psychosocial engagement has a proximal association with opioid use, the strength of that association may grow with dose and time. Alternatively, more motivated individuals may both attend more counseling/12-Step and have better treatment outcomes, or the relationship may be reciprocal.

Several lines of evidence suggest that classic psychedelics (5-HT_2A receptor agonists or partial agonists) such as psilocybin might facilitate behavior change in individuals with substance use disorders. We conducted a multi-site, double-blind, randomized controlled trial (RCT) to assess the effects of psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy in alcohol-dependent volunteers. In addition to a structured 12-week psychotherapy platform, participants (n = 96) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either oral psilocybin or an active placebo (oral diphenhydramine) in each of two dosing sessions (at weeks 4 and 8). Initial doses were 25 mg/70 kg psilocybin or 50 mg diphenhydramine, which could be increased in the second session depending on initial response. The psychotherapy platform combined evidence-based, manualized therapy for alcohol dependence with a supportive context for the dosing sessions. All participants were followed in the RCT through week 36. At the end of the RCT, participants who still met safety criteria were offered an open-label psilocybin session. Data collected at screening, baseline and throughout the study included: demographics, measures of alcohol use, subjective response to psilocybin and diphenhydramine, and safety measures. The primary outcome was the proportion of heavy drinking days during the 32 weeks after the first dosing session (i.e., between week 4 and week 36). Secondary outcomes included safety, additional measures of drinking (e.g., abstinence, drinking days, etc.), craving, self-efficacy, and acute effects. We will also explore moderators and mediators of the primary outcome. The primary outcomes will be published elsewhere. In this paper, we describe the protocol and rationale for our design decisions.

Importance/UNASSIGNED:Although classic psychedelic medications have shown promise in the treatment of alcohol use disorder (AUD), the efficacy of psilocybin remains unknown. Objective/UNASSIGNED:To evaluate whether 2 administrations of high-dose psilocybin improve the percentage of heavy drinking days in patients with AUD undergoing psychotherapy relative to outcomes observed with active placebo medication and psychotherapy. Design, Setting, and Participants/UNASSIGNED:In this double-blind randomized clinical trial, participants were offered 12 weeks of manualized psychotherapy and were randomly assigned to receive psilocybin vs diphenhydramine during 2 day-long medication sessions at weeks 4 and 8. Outcomes were assessed over the 32-week double-blind period following the first dose of study medication. The study was conducted at 2 academic centers in the US. Participants were recruited from the community between March 12, 2014, and March 19, 2020. Adults aged 25 to 65 years with a DSM-IV diagnosis of alcohol dependence and at least 4 heavy drinking days during the 30 days prior to screening were included. Exclusion criteria included major psychiatric and drug use disorders, hallucinogen use, medical conditions that contraindicated the study medications, use of exclusionary medications, and current treatment for AUD. Interventions/UNASSIGNED:Study medications were psilocybin, 25 mg/70 kg, vs diphenhydramine, 50 mg (first session), and psilocybin, 25-40 mg/70 kg, vs diphenhydramine, 50-100 mg (second session). Psychotherapy included motivational enhancement therapy and cognitive behavioral therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures/UNASSIGNED:The primary outcome was percentage of heavy drinking days, assessed using a timeline followback interview, contrasted between groups over the 32-week period following the first administration of study medication using multivariate repeated-measures analysis of variance. Results/UNASSIGNED:A total of 95 participants (mean [SD] age, 46 [12] years; 42 [44.2%] female) were randomized (49 to psilocybin and 46 to diphenhydramine). One participant (1.1%) was American Indian/Alaska Native, 5 (5.3%) were Black, 16 (16.8%) were Hispanic, and 75 (78.9%) were non-Hispanic White. Of the 95 randomized participants, 93 received at least 1 dose of study medication and were included in the primary outcome analysis. Percentage of heavy drinking days during the 32-week double-blind period was 9.7% for the psilocybin group and 23.6% for the diphenhydramine group, a mean difference of 13.9%; (95% CI, 3.0-24.7; F1,86 = 6.43; P = .01). Mean daily alcohol consumption (number of standard drinks per day) was also lower in the psilocybin group. There were no serious adverse events among participants who received psilocybin. Conclusions and Relevance/UNASSIGNED:Psilocybin administered in combination with psychotherapy produced robust decreases in percentage of heavy drinking days over and above those produced by active placebo and psychotherapy. These results provide support for further study of psilocybin-assisted treatment for AUD. Trial Registration/UNASSIGNED:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02061293.

BACKGROUND:Although there is consensus that having a "high-enough" dose of buprenorphine (BUP-NX) or methadone is important for reducing relapse to opioid use, there is debate about what this dose is and how it should be attained. We estimated the extent to which different dosing strategies would affect risk of relapse over 12 weeks of treatment, separately for BUP-NX and methadone. METHODS:This was a secondary analysis of three comparative effectiveness trials. We examined four dosing strategies: 1) increasing dose in response to participant-specific opioid use, 2) increasing dose weekly until some minimum dose (16 mg BUP, 100 mg methadone) was reached, 3) increasing dose weekly until some minimum and increasing dose in response to opioid use thereafter (referred to as the "hybrid strategy"), and 4) keeping dose constant after the first 2 weeks of treatment. We used a longitudinal sequentially doubly robust estimator to estimate contrasts between dosing strategies on risk of relapse. RESULTS:For BUP-NX, increasing dose following the hybrid strategy resulted in the lowest risk of relapse. For methadone, holding dose constant resulted in greatest risk of relapse; the other three strategies performed similarly. For example, the hybrid strategy reduced week 12 relapse risk by 13 % (RR: 0.87, 95 %CI: 0.83-0.95) and by 20 % (RR: 0.80, 95 %CI: 0.71-0.90) for BUP-NX and methadone respectively, as compared to holding dose constant. CONCLUSIONS:Doses should be targeted toward minimum thresholds and, in the case of BUP-NX, raised when patients continue to use opioids.

Background/UNASSIGNED:The extent to which clinical trials of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) are representative or not is unknown. Some patient characteristics modify MOUD effectiveness; if these same characteristics differ in distribution between the trial population and usual-care population, this could contribute to lack of generalizability-a discrepancy between trial and usual-care effectiveness. Our objective was to identify interpretable, multidimensional subgroups who were prescribed MOUD in substance use treatment programs in the US but who were not represented or under-represented by clinical trial participants. Methods/UNASSIGNED:This was a secondary descriptive analysis of trial and real-world data. The trial data included twenty-seven US opioid treatment programs in the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network, N = 2,199 patients. The real-world data included US substance use treatment programs that receive public funding, N = 740,015 patients. We characterized real-world patient populations who were non-represented and under-represented in the trial data in terms of sociodemographic and clinical characteristics that could modify MOUD effectiveness. Results/UNASSIGNED:We found that 10.7% of MOUD patients in TEDS-A were not represented in the three clinical trials. As expected, pregnant MOUD patients (n = 19,490) were not represented. Excluding pregnancy, education and marital status from the characteristics, 2.6% of MOUD patients were not represented. Patients aged 65 years and older (n = 11,204), and those 50-64 years who identified as other (non-White, non-Black, and non-Hispanic) race/ethnicity or multi-racial (n = 7,281) were under-represented. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:Quantifying and characterizing non- or under-represented subgroups in trials can provide the data necessary to improve representation in future trials and address research-to-practice gaps.