Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Smoking prevalence in individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) is over 80%. Research suggests that opioid use significantly increases smoking, which could account for the strikingly low smoking-cessation rates observed in both methadone- and buprenorphine-maintained patients, even with the use of first-line smoking-cessation interventions. If opioids present a barrier to smoking-cessation, then better smoking outcomes should be observed in OUD patients treated with extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX, an opioid antagonist) compared to those receiving buprenorphine (BUP-NX, a partial opioid agonist). METHODS:The current study is a secondary analysis of a 24-week, multi-site, open-label, randomized clinical trial conducted within the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network comparing the effectiveness of XR-NTX vs. BUP-NX for adults with OUD. Longitudinal mixed effects models were used to determine if there was a significant reduction in cigarette use among daily smokers successfully inducted to treatment (n = 373) and a subset of those who completed treatment (n = 169). RESULTS:Among daily smokers inducted onto OUD medication, those in the XR-NTX group smoked fewer cigarettes per day (M = 11.36, SE = 0.62) relative to smokers in the BUP-NX group (M = 13.33, SE = 0.58) across all study visits, (b (SE) = -1.97 (0.55), p < .01). Results were similar for the treatment completers. CONCLUSIONS:OUD patients treated with XR-NTX reduced cigarette use more than those treated with BUP-NX, suggesting that XR-NTX in combination with other smoking cessation interventions might be a better choice for OUD smokers interested in reducing their tobacco use.

This activity is a paper presentation on a secondary analysis of factors associated with opioid abstinence three months following the treatment trial. While abstinence is not required for improvement in opioid use outcomes, better understanding of abstinence-related factors can inform efforts to facilitate stable recovery for opioid-dependent individuals. XXBackground(s): Opioid use disorder (OUD) is associated with substantial mortality. There are effective treatments in reducing opioid use and overdose events. However, many patients that successfully initiate OUD pharmacotherapy will discontinue treatment within the first few weeks or months. Upon treatment discontinuation, patients are at risk for relapse and overdose, however, not all patients relapse. There is a need to better understand predictors of relapse and abstinence after medication discontinuation. XXObjective(s): 1) Demonstrate general understanding of effective treatments for OUD and current barriers to treatment retention. 2) Describe factors associated with opioid abstinence from this secondary analysis. 3) Identify limitations in analyses and interpreting results. XXMethod(s): This secondary analysis examines correlates of opioid abstinence in 428 participants at week 36 follow-up from the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network CTN-0051) X:BOT trial. X:BOT randomized participants to buprenorphine-naloxone (BUP-NX) or extended-release injectable naltrexone (XR-NTX) for up to 24 weeks of outpatient treatment. Study medications were discontinued at study completion or relapse. Follow-up assessments in the community were done at weeks 28 and 36. XXResult(s): Participants had higher odds of being abstinent at week 36 if randomized to XR-NTX compared with BUP-NX (odds ratio [OR] [95% confidence interval [CI]] = 2.47 [1.63, 3.74]), were on XR-NTX at follow-up compared with those off medication (OR = 2.33 [1.40, 3.90]), had longer time to relapse (OR = 1.04 [1.02, 1.07]), successfully inducted onto study medication compared with those who failed induction (OR = 3.16 [1.45, 6.92]), had longer time on study medication (OR = 1.03[1.01, 1.05]), and had more abstinent weeks during the trial (OR = 1.04 [1.02, 1.07]). XXConclusion(s): In general, participants that had better outcomes during the treatment trial were found to be abstinent from opioids at follow-up in the community. This included successful induction onto study medication, longer time on medication, greater time to relapse, and more abstinent weeks. While abstinence is not required for improvement in opioid use outcomes, better understanding of abstinence-related factors can inform efforts to facilitate stable recovery for opioid-dependent individuals. Scientific Significance: There is a need to better understand predictors of relapse and abstinence after medication discontinuation in order to better advise patients that may discontinue medications. Barriers to treatment retention and sustained abstinence are factors generally considered to be proxies for greater disease severity. Less is understood about factors associated with sustained abstinence

AIM/OBJECTIVE:This report examined naturalistic opioid use outcomes and utilization of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) 36 weeks post-randomization in the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (CTN) Extended-Release Naltrexone (XR-NTX) versus Buprenorphine-Naloxone (BUP-NX) for Opioid Treatment trial (CTN-0051, X:BOT). DESIGN/METHODS:X:BOT was a multisite, randomized, 24-week comparative effectiveness trial of BUP-NX (N = 287) and XR-NTX (N = 283). Study medications were discontinued following treatment completion, relapse, or dropout. Participants were encouraged to continue MOUD. This report examined opioid use outcomes in 428 (75%) of the 570 participants who attended the 36-week follow-up visit. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:Adults with opioid use disorder recruited from 8 community treatment programs across the United States. MEASUREMENTS/METHODS:Outcomes included medication status (on/off MOUD), type of MOUD (BUP-NX, XR-NTX, or methadone), abstinence from non-prescribed opioids, opioid use days, relapse, and other substance use 30 days prior to the 36-week visit. Relapse was defined as opioid use for 4 consecutive weeks or 7 consecutive days in the past month. Baseline and clinical variables included opioid use severity, intravenous drug use, study medication assignment, and induction status. FINDINGS/RESULTS:Of the 428 participants who completed the 36-week visit, 225 (53%) of participants were receiving MOUD and 203 (47%) were not. Compared to those off medication, participants on medication had fewer opioid use days (4.4 days (SD 9.0) versus 9.8 days (SD 12.1)), fewer met relapse criteria (37 (16.4%) versus 79 (38.9%)), and reported less stimulant use (34 (15.2%) versus 56 (27.7%)) and sedative use (14 (6.3%) versus 31 (15.3%)). There was no difference in abstinence rates between those on or off MOUD. A greater proportion of participants on XR-NTX (47 (53.4%) of 88 participants) were abstinent from non-prescribed opioids compared to those on buprenorphine (28 (23.3%) of 120 participants). CONCLUSIONS:Naturalistic outcomes data showed that despite potential barriers to continuing treatment in the community, about half of individuals were on opioid use disorder pharmacotherapy at follow-up and those on medication generally had better outcomes. Future research should explore barriers and facilitators to treatment retention in community settings; and developing interventions tailored to improve treatment engagement and adherence.

Importance/UNASSIGNED:Guidelines recommend that adult patients receive screening for alcohol and drug use during primary care visits, but the adoption of screening in routine practice remains low. Clinics frequently struggle to choose a screening approach that is best suited to their resources, workflows, and patient populations. Objective/UNASSIGNED:To evaluate how to best implement electronic health record (EHR)-integrated screening for substance use by comparing commonly used screening methods and examining their association with implementation outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants/UNASSIGNED:This article presents the outcomes of phases 3 and 4 of a 4-phase quality improvement, implementation feasibility study in which researchers worked with stakeholders at 6 primary care clinics in 2 large urban academic health care systems to define and implement their optimal screening approach. Site A was located in New York City and comprised 2 clinics, and site B was located in Boston, Massachusetts, and comprised 4 clinics. Clinics initiated screening between January 2017 and October 2018, and 93 114 patients were eligible for screening for alcohol and drug use. Data used in the analysis were collected between January 2017 and October 2019, and analysis was performed from July 13, 2018, to March 23, 2021. Interventions/UNASSIGNED:Clinics integrated validated screening questions and a brief counseling script into the EHR, with implementation supported by the use of clinical champions (ie, clinicians who advocate for change, motivate others, and use their expertise to facilitate the adoption of an intervention) and the training of clinic staff. Clinics varied in their screening approaches, including the type of visit targeted for screening (any visit vs annual examinations only), the mode of administration (staff-administered vs self-administered by the patient), and the extent to which they used practice facilitation and EHR usability testing. Main Outcomes and Measures/UNASSIGNED:Data from the EHRs were extracted quarterly for 12 months to measure implementation outcomes. The primary outcome was screening rate for alcohol and drug use. Secondary outcomes were the prevalence of unhealthy alcohol and drug use detected via screening, and clinician adoption of a brief counseling script. Results/UNASSIGNED:Patients of the 6 clinics had a mean (SD) age ranging from 48.9 (17.3) years at clinic B2 to 59.1 (16.7) years at clinic B3, were predominantly female (52.4% at clinic A1 to 64.6% at clinic A2), and were English speaking. Racial diversity varied by location. Of the 93,114 patients with primary care visits, 71.8% received screening for alcohol use, and 70.5% received screening for drug use. Screening at any visit (implemented at site A) in comparison with screening at annual examinations only (implemented at site B) was associated with higher screening rates for alcohol use (90.3%-94.7% vs 24.2%-72.0%, respectively) and drug use (89.6%-93.9% vs 24.6%-69.8%). The 5 clinics that used a self-administered screening approach had a higher detection rate for moderate- to high-risk alcohol use (14.7%-36.6%) compared with the 1 clinic that used a staff-administered screening approach (1.6%). The detection of moderate- to high-risk drug use was low across all clinics (0.5%-1.0%). Clinics with more robust practice facilitation and EHR usability testing had somewhat greater adoption of the counseling script for patients with moderate-high risk alcohol or drug use (1.4%-12.5% vs 0.1%-1.1%). Conclusions and Relevance/UNASSIGNED:In this quality improvement study, EHR-integrated screening was feasible to implement in all clinics and unhealthy alcohol use was detected more frequently when self-administered screening was used at any primary care visit. The detection of drug use was low at all clinics, as was clinician adoption of counseling. These findings can be used to inform the decision-making of health care systems that are seeking to implement screening for substance use. Trial Registration/UNASSIGNED:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02963948.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS/OBJECTIVE:In a US randomized-effectiveness trial comparing extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX) with buprenorphine-naloxone (BUP-NX) for the prevention of opioid relapse among participants recruited during inpatient detoxification (CTN-0051), the requirement to complete opioid detoxification prior to initiating XR-NTX resulted in lower rates of initiation of XR-NTX (72% XR-NTX versus 94% BUP-NX). DESIGN/METHODS:This was a retrospective secondary analysis of CTN-0051 trial data, including follow-up data over 24-36 weeks. SETTING/METHODS:Eight community-based, inpatient-detoxification and follow-up outpatient treatment facilities in the United States. PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:A total of 283 participants randomized to receive XR-NTX. MEASUREMENTS/METHODS:Efficiency was estimated using a multivariable generalized structural equation model to explore simultaneous determinants of XR-NTX induction and induction duration (detoxification + residential days). Cost-effectiveness was estimated from the health-care sector perspective and included expected costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). FINDINGS/RESULTS:Treatment site was the only modifiable factor that simultaneously increased the likelihood of XR-NTX induction and decreased induction duration. Incorporating the higher predicted probability of XR-NTX induction, and fewer predicted days of detoxification and subsequent residential treatment into the cost-effectiveness framework, reduced the incremental average 24-week total cost of XR-NTX treatment from $5317 more than that of BUP-NX (P = 0.01) to a non-statistically-significant difference of $1016 (P = 0.63). QALYs gained remained similar across arms. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Adopting an efficient model of extended-release naltrexone initiation could result in extended-release naltrexone and buprenorphine-naloxone being of comparable economic value from the health-care sector perspective over 24-36 weeks for patients seeking treatment for opioid use disorder at an inpatient detoxification facility.

BACKGROUND:Extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX) is an effective maintenance treatment for opioid use disorder, but induction from active opioid use is a challenge as individuals must complete detoxification before induction. We aimed to determine whether use of methadone or buprenorphine, long acting agonist opioids commonly used for detoxification, were associated with decreased likelihood of induction onto XR-NTX. METHODS:We performed a secondary analysis of a large open-label randomized trial of buprenorphine versus XR-NTX for treatment of individuals with opioid use disorder recruited from eight short term residential (detoxification) units. This analysis only included individuals randomized to the XR-NTX arm of the trial (N = 283). The method of detoxification varied according to usual practices at each inpatient program. Logistic regression models estimating the log-odds of induction onto XR-NTX were fit, with detoxification regimen received as the predictor. RESULTS:In the unadjusted logistic regression model, detoxification drug received (either methadone or buprenorphine) was significantly associated with decreased likelihood of induction onto XR-NTX compared to receiving non-opioid detoxification (Overall: P < 0.001); buprenorphine vs non-opioid detoxification: OR (95% CI) = 0.32 (0.15-0.67); methadone vs non-opioid detoxification: OR (95% CI) = 0.23 (0.11-0.46). After controlling for site as a random effect, the association of detoxification drug with induction success lost statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS:Use of agonist medication during detoxification was associated with XR-NTX induction failure. Medication choice was determined by each site's clinical practice and therefore this association could not be separated from other site level variables. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:NCT02032433.

BACKGROUND:For many reasons, the emergency department (ED) is a critical venue to initiate OUD interventions. The prevailing culture of the ED has been that substance use disorders are non-emergent conditions better addressed outside the ED where resources are less constrained. This study, its rapid funding mechanism, and accelerated timeline originated out of the urgent need to learn whether ED-initiated buprenorphine (BUP) with referral for treatment of OUD is generalizable, as well as to develop strategies to facilitate its adoption across a variety of ED settings and under real-world conditions. It both complements and uses methods adapted from Project ED Health (CTN-0069), a Hybrid Type 3 implementation-effectiveness study of using Implementation Facilitation (IF) to integrate ED-initiated BUP and referral programs. METHODS:ED-CONNECT (CTN 0079) was a three-site implementation study exploring the feasibility, acceptability, and impact of introducing ED-initiated BUP in rural and urban settings with high-need, limited resources, and different staffing structures. We used a multi-faceted approach to develop, introduce and iteratively refine site-specific ED clinical protocols and implementation plans for opioid use disorder (OUD) screening, ED-initiated BUP, and referral for treatment. We employed a participatory action research approach and use mixed methods incorporating data derived from abstraction of medical records and administrative data, assessments of recruited ED patient-participants, and both qualitative and quantitative inquiry involving staff from the ED and community, patients, and other stakeholders. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:This study was designed to provide the necessary, time-sensitive understanding of how to identify OUD and initiate treatment with BUP in the EDs previously not providing ED-initiated BUP, in communities in which this intervention is most needed: high need, low resource settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:The study was prospectively registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03544112) on June 01, 2018: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03544112 .

BACKGROUND: Under-treatment of drug and alcohol use in primary care settings has been attributed, in part, to medical providers' negative attitudes toward substance use. As a part of an implementation study of electronic health record-integrated substance use screening in primary care clinics, conducted in the NIDA Clinical Trials Network, we assessed baseline attitudes among medical staff.
METHOD(S): Eligible participants were primary care providers and medical assistants in 4 urban academic primary care clinics. Prior to implementation of a substance use screening program, participants completed the Substance Abuse Attitudes Survey (SAAS), a validated 50-item self-administered survey that measures attitudes to substance use in 5 domains: permissiveness, non-moralism, nonstereotyping, treatment intervention, and treatment optimism. Participants were asked to rate their level of agreement with each item on a five-point Likert scale.
RESULT(S): In total, 131/191 (69% response rate) eligible staff completed the survey. Participants had mean age 42; 76% were female; 11% Hispanic/Latino, 6% Black, 25% Asian. The majority of the sample was physicians (78%), while 11% were nurse practitioners, and 11% were medical assistants. Participants had an overall average of 13.2 years in practice. Approximately onethird reported moderate to high satisfaction treating patients with drug problems (35.1%) and alcohol problems (33.6%). The proportion of participants having positive attitudes in each of the following domains were: non-moralism (64.1%); non-stereotyping (55.7%); treatment intervention (47.3%); treatment optimism (48.9%); and permissiveness (44.3%). Negative attitudes toward permissiveness reflect responses to items addressing health effects of substance use, especially among teens.
CONCLUSION(S): While most primary care staff did not endorse moralistic or stereotyping statements about alcohol and drug use, attitudes toward addiction treatment were mixed, with less than half endorsing positive attitudes toward treatment effectiveness. These results suggest a need to improve attitudes, particularly toward addiction treatment. This could be accomplished through education and increased exposure to effective interventions that can be delivered by primary care providers, including officebased treatment for alcohol and opioid use disorder

BACKGROUND: Alcohol and drug use are often under-identified in primary care settings. While prior research indicates that patients are generally supportive of alcohol screening, less is known about attitudes toward drug screening or the collection of this information in electronic health records (EHRs). As a part of an implementation study of EHRintegrated substance use screening in primary care, conducted in the NIDA Clinical Trials Network, patients were surveyed on their attitudes toward screening for substance use during medical visits.
METHOD(S): Surveys were administered to patients in four urban academic primary care clinics on a quarterly basis, for one year following the introduction of a screening program. English-speaking adult patients presenting for a primary care visit were eligible. Participants were recruited from the waiting room and self-administered an 18-item survey exploring attitudes toward screening and discussing substance use with healthcare providers.
RESULT(S): A total of 479 patients completed the survey (mean age 54.1; 58% female; 58% white, 23% black; 19% Hispanic/Latino). Participants overwhelmingly felt that they should be asked about their substance use (91%), and deemed it appropriate for their doctor to recommend reducing use if it could adversely affect their health (92%). Most (87%) were equally comfortable discussing alcohol or drug use. A majority (63%) preferred discussing substance use with their doctor over other medical staff. Responses weremixed regarding screening modality: 55%preferred face-to-face, 22% had no preference, 14% preferred self- administration. Participants reported that they would be honest with their provider (94%), but 32% were concerned about medical record confidentiality.
CONCLUSION(S): Primary care patients strongly supported being screened for drug and alcohol use, and would be comfortable discussing it with their doctor. However, patients' concerns about having their substance use documented in their medical record could pose a barrier to achieving accurate responses. These findings suggest a need to educate patients on the confidentiality of medical records and the value of disclosing substance use for their medical care