Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND: Opioid use disorders have reached epidemic proportions, with overdose now the leading cause of accidental death in the United States. Extended release naltrexone (XR-NTX) has emerged as a medication treatment that reduces opioid use and craving. However, the effect of XR-NTX therapy on acute healthcare utilization, including emergency department visits and inpatient hospitalizations, remains uncertain. The objective of the current study is to evaluate hospital-based healthcare resource utilization in adults involved in the criminal justice system with a history of opioid use disorder randomized to XR-NTX therapy compared with treatment as usual (TAU) during a 6-month treatment phase and 12months post-treatment follow up. METHODS: This retrospective exploratory analysis uses data collected in a published randomized trial. Comparisons of the number of emergency department visits and hospital admissions (for drug detox, psychiatric care and other medical reasons) were performed using chi square tests for any admission and negative binomial models for number of admissions. RESULTS: Of the 308 participants randomized, 96% had utilization data (76% complete 6months, 67% complete follow up). No significant differences were seen in overall healthcare utilization (IRR=0.88, 95%CI 0.63-1.23, p=0.45), or substance use-related drug detox hospitalizations (IRR=0.83, 95%CI 0.32-2.16, p=0.71). Despite having more participants report chronic medical problems at baseline (43% vs. 32%, p=0.05), those receiving XR-NTX generally experienced equivalent or lower rates of healthcare utilization compared to TAU. The XR-NTX group had significantly lower medical/surgical related hospital admissions (IRR=0.55, 95%CI 0.30-1.00, p=0.05) during the course of the entire study. CONCLUSIONS: XR-NTX did not significantly increase rates of healthcare utilization compared to TAU. Provider concerns regarding healthcare utilization should not preclude the consideration of XR-NTX as therapy for opioid use disorders.

BACKGROUND: Extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX), an opioid antagonist, and sublingual buprenorphine-naloxone (BUP-NX), a partial opioid agonist, are pharmacologically and conceptually distinct interventions to prevent opioid relapse. We aimed to estimate the difference in opioid relapse-free survival between XR-NTX and BUP-NX. METHODS: We initiated this 24 week, open-label, randomised controlled, comparative effectiveness trial at eight US community-based inpatient services and followed up participants as outpatients. Participants were 18 years or older, had Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5 opioid use disorder, and had used non-prescribed opioids in the past 30 days. We stratified participants by treatment site and opioid use severity and used a web-based permuted block design with random equally weighted block sizes of four and six for randomisation (1:1) to receive XR-NTX or BUP-NX. XR-NTX was monthly intramuscular injections (Vivitrol; Alkermes) and BUP-NX was daily self-administered buprenorphine-naloxone sublingual film (Suboxone; Indivior). The primary outcome was opioid relapse-free survival during 24 weeks of outpatient treatment. Relapse was 4 consecutive weeks of any non-study opioid use by urine toxicology or self-report, or 7 consecutive days of self-reported use. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02032433. FINDINGS: Between Jan 30, 2014, and May 25, 2016, we randomly assigned 570 participants to receive XR-NTX (n=283) or BUP-NX (n=287). The last follow-up visit was Jan 31, 2017. As expected, XR-NTX had a substantial induction hurdle: fewer participants successfully initiated XR-NTX (204 [72%] of 283) than BUP-NX (270 [94%] of 287; p<0.0001). Among all participants who were randomly assigned (intention-to-treat population, n=570) 24 week relapse events were greater for XR-NTX (185 [65%] of 283) than for BUP-NX (163 [57%] of 287; hazard ratio [HR] 1.36, 95% CI 1.10-1.68), most or all of this difference accounted for by early relapse in nearly all (70 [89%] of 79) XR-NTX induction failures. Among participants successfully inducted (per-protocol population, n=474), 24 week relapse events were similar across study groups (p=0.44). Opioid-negative urine samples (p<0.0001) and opioid-abstinent days (p<0.0001) favoured BUP-NX compared with XR-NTX among the intention-to-treat population, but were similar across study groups among the per-protocol population. Self-reported opioid craving was initially less with XR-NTX than with BUP-NX (p=0.0012), then converged by week 24 (p=0.20). With the exception of mild-to-moderate XR-NTX injection site reactions, treatment-emergent adverse events including overdose did not differ between treatment groups. Five fatal overdoses occurred (two in the XR-NTX group and three in the BUP-NX group). INTERPRETATION: In this population it is more difficult to initiate patients to XR-NTX than BUP-NX, and this negatively affected overall relapse. However, once initiated, both medications were equally safe and effective. Future work should focus on facilitating induction to XR-NTX and on improving treatment retention for both medications. FUNDING: NIDA Clinical Trials Network.

BACKGROUND: The acceptability, feasibility and effectiveness of web-based interventions among criminal justice involved populations are understudied. This study is a secondary analysis of baseline characteristics associated with criminal justice system (CJS) status as treatment outcome moderators among participants enrolling in a large randomized trial of a web-based psychosocial intervention (Therapeutic Education System [TES]) as part of outpatient addiction treatment. METHODS: We compared demographic and clinical characteristics, TES participation rates, and the trial's two co-primary outcomes, end of treatment abstinence and treatment retention, by self-reported CJS status at baseline: 1) CJS-mandated to community treatment (CJS-mandated), 2) CJS-recommended to treatment (CJS-recommended), 3) no CJS treatment mandate (CJS-none). RESULTS: CJS-mandated (n = 107) and CJS-recommended (n = 69) participants differed from CJS-none (n = 331) at baseline: CJS-mandated were significantly more likely to be male, uninsured, report cannabis as the primary drug problem, report fewer days of drug use at baseline, screen negative for depression, and score lower for psychological distress and higher on physical health status; CJS-recommended were younger, more likely single, less likely to report no regular Internet use, and to report cannabis as the primary drug problem. Both CJS-involved (CJS -recommended and -mandated) groups were more likely to have been recently incarcerated. Among participants randomized to the TES arm, module completion was similar across the CJS subgroups. A three-way interaction of treatment, baseline abstinence and CJS status showed no associations with the study's primary abstinence outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, CJS-involved participants in this study tended to be young, male, and in treatment for a primary cannabis problem. The feasibility and effectiveness of the web-based psychosocial intervention, TES, did not vary by CJS-mandated or CJS-recommended participants compared to CJS-none. Web-based counseling interventions may be effective interventions as US public safety policies begin to emphasize supervised community drug treatment over incarceration.

The prevalence of urine tampering within office-based opioid treatment (OBOT) is not currently known. This study was a cross-sectional analysis of an OBOT practice in New York City that experienced both a change in provider and a change in electronic medical record software. At that time, every patient in the practice received a urine drug test for "quantitative buprenorphine metabolites." METHODS: Outcomes of the first three urine drug tests were tabulated and analyzed with specific attention to the frequency of buprenorphine-positive (bup+), norbuprenorphine-negative (norbup-) samples, a pattern consistent with urine tampering. RESULTS: On the first sample 6/33 (18%) of patients submitted bup+/norbup- samples, and an additional 3 patients submitted bup+/norbup- samples on subsequent urine tests. Retention to the end of the study period among patients with bup+/norbup- samples was 33%, while in those with bup+/norbup+samples it was 96%. A scatter plot of norbuprenorphine vs. buprenorphine levels estimated that a ratio of <0.2 indicated tampering. CONCLUSION: Testing for buprenorphine metabolites yields valuable clinical information. The prevalence of a result pattern consistent with tampering by "urine spiking," the addition of unconsumed buprenorphine into the urine sample, may be higher than previous estimates. Previous lower cutoffs of the norbuprenorphine:buprenorphine metabolic ratio may miss a substantial proportion of these likely tampered samples.

Concerns persist that individuals with substance use disorders who are under community criminal justice supervision experience circumstances that might compromise their provision of valid, informed consent for research participation. These concerns include the possibilities that desire to obtain access to treatment might lead individuals to ignore important information about research participation, including information about risks, or that cognitive impairment associated with substance use might interfere with attending to important information. We report results from a consent quiz (CQ) administered in a multisite randomized clinical trial of long-acting naltrexone to prevent relapse to opioid use disorder among adults under community criminal justice supervision-a treatment option difficult to access by this population of individuals. Participants were required to answer all 11 items correctly before randomization. On average, participants answered 9.8 items correctly (89%) at baseline first attempt (n=306). At week 21 (n=212), participants scored 87% (9.5 items correct) without review. Performance was equivalent to, or better than, published results from other populations on a basic consent quiz instrument across multiple content domains. The consent quiz is an efficient method to screen for adequate knowledge of consent information as part of the informed consent process. Clinical researchers who are concerned about these issues should consider using a consent quiz with corrected feedback to enhance the informed consent process. Overall, while primarily useful as an educational tool, employing a CQ as part of the gateway to participation in research may be particularly important as the field continues to advance and tests novel experimental treatments with significant risks and uncertain potential for benefit.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Criminal justice-involved individuals are highly susceptible to opioid relapse and overdose-related deaths. In a recent randomized trial, we demonstrated the effectiveness of extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX; Vivitrol(R) ) in preventing opioid relapse among criminal justice-involved US adults with a history of opioid use disorder. The cost of XR-NTX may be a significant barrier to adoption. Thus, it is important to account for improved quality of life and downstream cost-offsets. Our aims were to (1) estimate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for XR-NTX versus treatment as usual (TAU) and evaluate it relative to generally accepted value thresholds; and (2) estimate the incremental cost per additional year of opioid abstinence. DESIGN: Economic evaluation of the aforementioned trial from the taxpayer perspective. Participants were randomized to 25 weeks of XR-NTX injections or TAU; follow-up occurred at 52 and 78 weeks. SETTING: Five study sites in the US Northeast corridor. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 308 participants were randomized to XR-NTX (n = 153) or TAU (n = 155). MEASUREMENTS: Incremental costs relative to incremental economic and clinical effectiveness measures, QALYs and abstinent years, respectively. FINDINGS: The 25-week cost per QALY and abstinent-year figures were $162 150 and $46 329, respectively. The 78-week figures were $76 400/QALY and $16 371/abstinent year. At 25 weeks, we can be 10% certain that XR-NTX is cost-effective at a value threshold of $100 000/QALY and 62% certain at $200 000/QALY. At 78 weeks, the cost-effectiveness probabilities are 59% at $100 000/QALY and 76% at $200 000/QALY. We can be 95% confident that the intervention would be considered 'good value' at $90 000/abstinent year at 25 weeks and $500/abstinent year at 78 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: While extended-release naltrexone appears to be effective in increasing both quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and abstinence, it does not appear to be cost-effective using generally accepted value thresholds for QALYs, due to the high price of the injection.

ISSUES: Mobile phone use has increased dramatically and concurrent with rapid developments in mobile phone-based health interventions. The integration of text messaging interventions promises to optimise the delivery of care for persons with substance dependence with minimal disruption to clinical workflows. We conducted a systematic review to assess the acceptability, feasibility and clinical impact of text messaging interventions for persons with illicit drug and alcohol dependence. APPROACH: Studies were required to evaluate the use of text messaging as an intervention for persons who met Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition criterion for a diagnosis of illicit drug and/or alcohol dependence. Authors searched for articles published to date in MEDLINE (pubmed.gov), the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CINAHL, Google Scholar and PsychINFO. KEY FINDINGS: Eleven articles met the search criteria for this review and support the acceptability and feasibility of text messaging interventions for addressing illicit drug and alcohol dependence. Most studies demonstrated improved clinical outcomes, medication adherence and engagement with peer support groups. Text messaging interventions also intervened on multiple therapeutic targets such as appointment attendance, motivation, self-efficacy, relapse prevention and social support. IMPLICATIONS: Suggestions for future research are described, including intervention design features, clinician contact, privacy measures and integration of behaviour change theories. CONCLUSION: Text messaging interventions offer a feasible platform to address a range of substances (i.e. alcohol, methamphetamine, heroin and alcohol), and there is increasing evidence supporting further larger-scale studies. [Tofighi B, Nicholson JM, McNeely J, Muench F, Lee JD. Mobile phone messaging for illicit drug and alcohol dependence: A systematic review of the literature. Drug Alcohol Rev 2017;00:000-000].

Buprenorphine office-based opioid maintenance is an increasingly common form of treatment for opioid use disorders. However, total prescribing has not kept pace with the current opioid and overdose epidemic and access remains scarce among the underserved. This study sought to assess current provider attitudes and clinical practices among a targeted sample of primarily New York City public sector buprenorphine prescribers. A cross-sectional online survey purposefully sampled buprenorphine prescribers in NYC with a focus on those serving Medicaid and uninsured patient populations. Expert review of local provider networks, snowball referrals, and in-person networking generated an email list, which received a survey link. A brief 25-question instrument queried provider and practice demographics, prescribing practices including induction approaches and attitudes regarding common hot topics (e.g., buprenorphine diversion, prescriber patient limits, insurance issues, ancillary treatments). Of 132 email invitations, N=72 respondents completed (n=64) or partially completed (n=8) the survey between January and April 2016. Most (79%) were Medicaid providers in non-psychiatric specialties (72%), working in a hospital-based or community general practice (51%), and board-certified in addiction medicine or psychiatry (58%). Practice sizes were generally 100 patients or fewer (71%); many providers (64%) individually prescribed buprenorphine <25% of total practice time to a median 23 patients (mean 31, range 0-102). Unobserved (home) induction for new patients was a common practice: 49% predominantly prescribed unobserved induction; 16% mixed unobserved and observed inductions. Adjunctive psychosocial counseling was routinely recommended (46%) or considered on a case-by-case basis (17%) versus mandated (37%). Medication prior authorization requirements were the highest rated barriers to practice, followed by inadequate clinic space, limited clinic time and/or support staff, and inadequate psychiatric services for dual diagnoses. Buprenorphine diversion was not rated as an important practice barrier. In conclusion, this targeted survey of buprenorphine prescribers in NYC treating primarily underserved populations showed a consistent pattern of part-time prescribing to modest volumes of patients, routine use of unobserved buprenorphine induction, and primarily elective referrals to psychosocial counseling. Barriers to prescribing included prior authorization requirements, lack of clinical resources (space, staff) and psychiatric services. Federal and local efforts to reduce such barriers may improve buprenorphine access among the underserved.

BACKGROUND: Buprenorphine maintenance for opioid dependence remains of limited availability among underserved populations, despite increases in US opioid misuse and overdose deaths. Low threshold primary care treatment models including the use of unobserved, "home," buprenorphine induction may simplify initiation of care and improve access. Unobserved induction and long-term treatment outcomes have not been reported recently among large, naturalistic cohorts treated in low threshold safety net primary care settings. METHODS: This prospective clinical registry cohort design estimated rates of induction-related adverse events, treatment retention, and urine opioid results for opioid dependent adults offered buprenorphine maintenance in a New York City public hospital primary care office-based practice from 2006 to 2013. This clinic relied on typical ambulatory care individual provider-patient visits, prescribed unobserved induction exclusively, saw patients no more than weekly, and did not require additional psychosocial treatment. Unobserved induction consisted of an in-person screening and diagnostic visit followed by a 1-week buprenorphine written prescription, with pamphlet, and telephone support. Primary outcomes analyzed were rates of induction-related adverse events (AE), week 1 drop-out, and long-term treatment retention. Factors associated with treatment retention were examined using a Cox proportional hazard model among inductions and all patients. Secondary outcomes included overall clinic retention, buprenorphine dosages, and urine sample results. RESULTS: Of the 485 total patients in our registry, 306 were inducted, and 179 were transfers already on buprenorphine. Post-induction (n = 306), week 1 drop-out was 17%. Rates of any induction-related AE were 12%; serious adverse events, 0%; precipitated withdrawal, 3%; prolonged withdrawal, 4%. Treatment retention was a median 38 weeks (range 0-320) for inductions, compared to 110 (0-354) weeks for transfers and 57 for the entire clinic population. Older age, later years of first clinic visit (vs. 2006-2007), and baseline heroin abstinence were associated with increased treatment retention overall. CONCLUSIONS: Unobserved "home" buprenorphine induction in a public sector primary care setting appeared a feasible and safe clinical practice. Post-induction treatment retention of a median 38 weeks was in line with previous naturalistic studies of real-world office-based opioid treatment. Low threshold treatment protocols, as compared to national guidelines, may compliment recently increased prescriber patient limits and expand access to buprenorphine among public sector opioid use disorder patients.