Faculty Bibliography

Aim: Naltrexone is first-line pharmacotherapy for alcohol use disorders (AUD). Oral naltrexone (ONTX) is under-prescribed in primary care and possibly limited by poor adherence. Monthly injectable extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX) may improve adherence and good clinical outcomes.
Method(s): This is a randomized, open-label, comparative effectiveness trial of 24 weeks of XR-NTX vs. O-NTX as AUD treatment in primary care at a public hospital in New York City. Adults (>18 yo) with AUD randomized to XR-NTX (380 mg/month) vs. O-NTX (50 mg/day) with Medical Management. Self-reported daily drinking recall informed the primary outcome, a Good Clinical Outcome (GCO) across weeks 5-24, defined as abstinence or moderate drinking and 0-2 days of heavy drinking per month. Data & Results: N = 237 adults randomized (n = 117 XR-NTX; n = 120 O-NTX); mean age 48.5 (SD 10.6); 71%male; 54%AA, 21% Hispanic; 41%employed. At baseline mean drinks/day were 9.6 (SD 11.6); 29% abstinent days; 61%heavy drinking days; mean Obsessive Compulsive Drinking Scale (OCDS) scores were 17.6 (SD 7.1) and mean AUDIT scores were 24.2 (SD 8.0). 64%of monthly XR-NTX injections were received and 67%ofmonthly O-NTX refills were provided. The primary GCO across weeks 5-24 was reported by 29%XR-NTX and 23%O-NTX (p = 0.29). Mean months with a GCO was 2.9 XR-NTX, 2.5 O-NTX (p = 0.21). Rates of%days abstinent (70%XRNTX vs. 71%O-NTX; p = 0.77) and %heavy drinking days (20%XR-NTX vs. 16%O-NTX; p = 0.28) were similar weeks 1-24. Mean blood pressure decreased from 127/86 mmHg at baseline to 124/83 mmHg at week 25; there was no change in mean weight (180 lb) pre/post, and there were no differences in BP or weight changes by arm. Declines in OCDS scores (17.6 to 7.6) were similar by arm.
Conclusion(s): Initiation and retention on both forms of naltrexone was robust. Overall, participants reported improved longitudinal drinking outcomes. There was insufficient evidence of any differences in primary and secondary self-reported drinking outcomes between monthly XR-NTX and daily ONTX. Additional analysis will examine CDT and LFT levels during treatment, and interactions with OPMR1 genotype status

BACKGROUND:Extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX, Vivitrol®) and daily oral naltrexone tablets (O-NTX) are FDA-approved mu opioid receptor antagonist medications for alcohol dependence treatment. Despite the efficacy of O-NTX, non-adherence and poor treatment retention have limited its adoption into primary care. XR-NTX is a once-a-month injectable formulation that offers a potentially more effective treatment option in reducing alcohol consumption and heavy drinking episodes among persons with alcohol use disorders. METHODS:This pragmatic, open-label, randomized controlled trial examines the effectiveness of XR-NTX vs. O-NTX in producing a Good Clinical Outcome, defined as abstinence or moderate drinking (<2 drinks/day, men; <1 drink/day, women; and < 2 heavy drinking occasions/month) during the final 20 of 24 weeks of primary care-based Medical Management treatment for alcohol dependence. Secondary aims will estimate the cost effectiveness of XR-NTX vs. O-NTX, in conjunction with primary-care based Medical Management for both groups, and patient-level characteristics associated with effectiveness in both arms. Alcohol dependent persons are recruited from the community into treatment in a New York City public hospital primary care setting (Bellevue Hospital Center) for 24 weeks of either XR-NTX (n = 117) or O-NTX (n = 120). RESULTS:We describe the rationale, specific aims, design, and recruitment results to date. Alternative design considerations and secondary aims and outcomes are reported. CONCLUSIONS:XR-NTX treatment in a primary care setting is potentially more efficacious, feasible, and cost-effective than oral naltrexone when treating community-dwelling persons with alcohol use disorders. This study will estimate XR-NTX's treatment and cost effectiveness relative to oral naltrexone.

BACKGROUND:Treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) is highly effective, yet it remains dramatically underutilized. Individuals with OUD have disproportionately high rates of hospitalization and low rates of addiction treatment. Hospital-based addiction consult services offer a potential solution by using multidisciplinary teams to evaluate patients, initiate medication for addiction treatment (MAT) in the hospital, and connect patients to post-discharge care. We are studying the effectiveness of an addiction consult model [Consult for Addiction Treatment and Care in Hospitals (CATCH)] as a strategy for engaging patients with OUD in treatment as the program rolls out in the largest municipal hospital system in the US. The primary aim is to evaluate the effectiveness of CATCH in increasing post-discharge initiation and engagement in MAT. Secondary aims are to assess treatment retention, frequency of acute care utilization and overdose deaths and their associated costs, and implementation outcomes. METHODS:A pragmatic trial at six hospitals, conducted in collaboration with the municipal hospital system and department of health, will be implemented to study the CATCH intervention. Guided by the RE-AIM evaluation framework, this hybrid effectiveness-implementation study (Type 1) focuses primarily on effectiveness and also measures implementation outcomes to inform the intervention's adoption and sustainability. A stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial design will determine the impact of CATCH on treatment outcomes in comparison to usual care for a control period, followed by a 12-month intervention period and a 6- to 18-month maintenance period at each hospital. A mixed methods approach will primarily utilize administrative data to measure outcomes, while interviews and focus groups with staff and patients will provide additional information on implementation fidelity and barriers to delivering MAT to patients with OUD. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:Because of their great potential to reduce the negative health and economic consequences of untreated OUD, addiction consult models are proliferating in response to the opioid epidemic, despite the absence of a strong evidence base. This study will provide the first known rigorous evaluation of an addiction consult model in a large multi-site trial and promises to generate knowledge that can rapidly transform practice and inform the potential for widespread dissemination of these services. TRIAL REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:NCT03611335.

Background/UNASSIGNED:Not enough evidence exists to compare buprenorphine-naloxone with extended-release naltrexone for treating opioid use disorder. Objective/UNASSIGNED:To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of buprenorphine-naloxone versus extended-release naltrexone. Design/UNASSIGNED:Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a previously reported randomized clinical trial of 570 adults in 8 U.S. inpatient or residential treatment programs. Data Sources/UNASSIGNED:Study instruments. Target Population/UNASSIGNED:Adults with opioid use disorder. Time Horizon/UNASSIGNED:24-week intervention with an additional 12 weeks of observation. Perspective/UNASSIGNED:Health care sector and societal. Interventions/UNASSIGNED:Buprenorphine-naloxone and extended-release naltrexone. Outcome Measures/UNASSIGNED:Incremental costs combined with incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental time abstinent from opioids. Results of Base-Case Analysis/UNASSIGNED:Use of the health care sector perspective and a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY showed buprenorphine-naloxone to be preferable to extended-release naltrexone in 97% of bootstrap replications at 24 weeks and in 85% at 36 weeks. Similar results were obtained with incremental time abstinent from opioids as an outcome and with use of the societal perspective. Results of Sensitivity Analysis/UNASSIGNED:The base-case results were sensitive to the cost of the 2 treatments and the success of randomized treatment initiation. Limitation/UNASSIGNED:Relatively short follow-up for a chronic condition, substantial missing data, no information on patient out-of-pocket and social service costs. Conclusion/UNASSIGNED:Buprenorphine-naloxone is preferred to extended-release naltrexone as first-line treatment when both options are clinically appropriate and patients require detoxification before initiating extended-release naltrexone. Primary Funding Source/UNASSIGNED:National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health.

BACKGROUND:Criminal justice involved (CJS) populations with opioid use disorder (OUD) have high rates of relapse, future arrests, and death upon release. While medication for OUD (MOUD) reduces opioid relapse, concerns regarding diversion and stigma limit treatment in CJS populations. Extended release naltrexone (XR-NTX), as an opioid antagonist, may be more acceptable to CJS administrators. However, the impact of XR-NTX on criminal recidivism remains unknown. METHODS:Arrest data from a published randomized trial comparing XR-NTX to treatment as usual (TAU) was captured by self-report and official state arrest records. Comparisons of future arrests, time to first arrest and total number of arrests were performed using chi square tests and multivariable generalized regression models. Secondary outcomes explored differences in arrests by type and severity of crime, use of opioid and other drugs, and study phase. RESULTS:Of 308 participants randomized, 300 had arrest data. The incidence of arrests did not differ between XR-NTX (47.6%) and TAU (42.5%) participants. (ChiSq p = 0.37). Additionally, there was no significant difference in time to first arrest (adjusted HR 1.35, CI 0.96-1.89) and number of arrests per participant (adjusted IR 1.33, CI 0.78-2.27). Controlling for gender, age, previous criminal activity, and use of non-opioid drugs, logistic regression demonstrated no significant difference in incidence of arrests between groups (adjusted OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.85-2.22). CONCLUSIONS:We detected no significant difference in arrests between CJS participants with OUD randomized to XR-NTX or TAU. Despite its efficacy in reducing opioid use, XR-NTX alone may be insufficient to reduce criminal recidivism.

Background/UNASSIGNED:Smoking remains a major public health burden among persons with opioid and/or alcohol use disorder. Methods/UNASSIGNED:A 49-item semi-structured survey was conducted among urban, inpatient detoxification program patients eliciting demographic and clinical characteristics, smoking profile, technology use patterns, and preferences for adopting technology-based smoking cessation interventions. Multivariate logistic regression models further evaluated the association between participant demographic and clinical characteristics and technology preferences. Results/UNASSIGNED:Participants were mostly male (91%), and admitted for detoxification for alcohol (47%), heroin (31%), or both alcohol and heroin (22%). Past 30-day smoking was reported by 78% of the sample. Mobile phone ownership was common (89%); with an average past-year turnover of 3 mobile phones and 3 phone numbers. Computer ownership was low (28%) and one third reported daily internet use (34%). Telephone (41%) and text message-based interventions (40%) were the most popular platforms to facilitate smoking cessation. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:Despite concurrent AUD-OUD, most respondents had attempted to quit smoking in the last year and preferred telephone- and text message-based interventions to facilitate smoking cessation. High turnover of mobile phones, phone numbers, and limited access to computers pose barriers to dissemination of technology-based smoking cessation interventions in this vulnerable population.