Faculty Bibliography

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.

OBJECTIVES:To estimate the costs of providing extended-release injectable naltrexone (XR-NTX) and buprenorphine-naloxone (BUP-NX) following inpatient detoxification using data derived from a multisite randomized controlled trial at 8 US community-based treatment programs. STUDY DESIGN:Cost data were collected for 3 intervention phases: program start-up, inpatient detoxification, and up to 24 weeks of medication induction and management visits (post detoxification). Cost analyses were from the healthcare sector perspective (2015 US$); patient costs are also reported. METHODS:We conducted site visits, administered a cost survey to treatment programs, and analyzed study data on medication and services utilization. Nationally representative sources were used to estimate unit costs. Uncertainty was evaluated in sensitivity analyses. RESULTS:Mean start-up costs were $1071 per program for XR-NTX and $828 per program for BUP-NX. Mean costs per participant were $5416 for XR-NTX (57% detoxification, 37% medication, 3% provider, 3% patient) and $4148 for BUP-NX (64% detoxification, 12% medication, 10% provider, 14% patient). Total cost per participant ranged by site from $2979 to $8963 for XR-NTX and from $2521 to $6486 for BUP-NX. CONCLUSIONS:For treatment providers, offering XR-NTX and/or BUP-NX as part of existing detoxification treatment modalities generates modest costs in addition to the costs of detoxification, which vary substantially among the 8 sites. From the patient's perspective, the costs associated with medication management visits may be a barrier for some individuals considering these treatments.