Office-based Buprenorphine Treatment Research Articles

Effects of live-online, group mindfulness training on opioid use and anxiety during buprenorphine treatment: A comparative effectiveness RCT

BackgroundOffice-based opioid treatment with buprenorphine has emerged as a popular evidence-based treatment for opioid use disorder. Unfortunately, psychosocial stress, anxiety, pain, and co-morbid substance use increase patients' risk for relapse. We designed this study to compare the effects of complementing buprenorphine treatment with 24 weeks of a live-online Mindful Recovery Opioid Care Continuum (M-ROCC) group to a time and attention-matched, live-online Recovery Support Group (RSG) active control condition. MethodsWe plan to enroll a maximum of N = 280 and randomize at least N = 192 patients prescribed buprenorphine through referrals from office-based and telemedicine buprenorphine treatment providers and social media advertisements. Participants will be randomly assigned to M-ROCC or RSG and will be blinded to their treatment condition. The primary outcome for this study will be biochemically confirmed periods of abstinence from illicit opioids, as measured by self-reported use and randomly collected, video-observed oral fluid toxicology testing during the final 12 weeks of study participation. Secondary outcomes include changes in Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) anxiety and pain interference scores between baseline and week 24. ResultsThe trial was funded by the National Institutes of Health, HEAL Initiative through NCCIH (R33AT010125). Data collection is projected to end by September 2023, and we expect publication of results in 2024. ConclusionIf the M-ROCC intervention is found to be effective in this format, it will demonstrate that live-online mindfulness groups can improve outcomes and address common co-morbidities like anxiety and pain during buprenorphine treatment.

Nonopioid Substance Use among Patients Who Recently Initiated Office-based Buprenorphine Treatment.

Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUDs) like buprenorphine are a first-line treatment for individuals who have opioid use disorder (OUD); however, these medications are not designed to impact the use of other classes of drugs. This descriptive study provides up-to-date information about nonopioid substance use among patients who recently initiated office-based buprenorphine treatment for OUD using data from 2 ongoing clinical trials. The study sample was composed of 257 patients from 6 federally qualified health centers in the mid-Atlantic region who recently (i.e., within the past 28 days) initiated office-based buprenorphine treatment between July 2020 and May 2022. After the screening and informed consent processes, participants completed a urine drug screen and psychosocial interview as a part of the study baseline assessment. Descriptive analyses were performed on urine drug screen results to identify the prevalence and types of substances detected. More than half of participants provided urine specimens that were positive for nonopioid substances, with marijuana (37%, n = 95), cocaine (22%, n = 56), and benzodiazepines (11%, n = 28) detected with the highest frequencies. A significant number of participants used nonopioid substances after initiating buprenorphine treatment, suggesting that some patients receiving MOUDs could potentially benefit from adjunctive psychosocial treatment and supports to address their nonopioid substance use.

"I'm Clean and Sober, But Not Necessarily Free": Perceptions of Buprenorphine Among Patients in Long-Term Treatment.

Patients receiving buprenorphine for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) experience a roughly 50% reduction in mortality risk relative to those not receiving medication. Longer periods of treatment are also associated with improved clinical outcomes. Despite this, patients often express desires to discontinue treatment and some view taper as treatment success. Little is known about the beliefs and medication perspectives of patients engaged in long-term buprenorphine treatment that may underlie motivations to discontinue. This study was conducted at the VA Portland Health Care System (2019-2020). Qualitative interviews were conducted with participants prescribed buprenorphine for ≥2 years. Coding and analysis were guided by directed qualitative content analysis. Fourteen patients engaged in office-based buprenorphine treatment completed interviews. While patients expressed strong enthusiasm for buprenorphine as a medication, the majority expressed the desire to discontinue, including patients actively tapering. Motivations to discontinue fell into 4 categories. First, patients were troubled by perceived side effects of the medication, including effects on sleep, emotion, and memory. Second, patients expressed unhappiness with being "dependent" on buprenorphine, framed in opposition to personal strength/independence. Third, patients expressed stigmatized beliefs about buprenorphine, describing it as "illicit," and associated with past drug use. Finally, patients expressed fears about buprenorphine unknowns, including potential long-term health effects and interactions with medications required for surgery. Despite recognizing benefits, many patients engaged in long-term buprenorphine treatment express a desire to discontinue. Findings from this study may help clinicians anticipate patient concerns and can be used to inform shared decision-making conversations regarding buprenorphine treatment duration.

Cost-effectiveness of office-based buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder

AimTo assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of office-based buprenorphine treatment (OBBT) in the U.S. Design setting and participantsWe performed a model-based analysis of buprenorphine treatment provided in a primary care setting for the U.S. population with OUD. InterventionBuprenorphine treatment provided in a primary care setting. MeasurementsFatal and nonfatal overdoses and deaths over five years, discounted lifetime quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs. FindingsFor a cohort of 100,000 untreated individuals who enter OBBT, approximately 9350 overdoses would be averted over five years; of these, approximately 900 would have been fatal. OBBT compared to no treatment would yield 1.07 incremental lifetime QALYs per person at an incremental cost of $17,000 per QALY gained when using a healthcare perspective. If OBBT is half as effective and twice as expensive as assumed in the base case, the incremental cost when using a healthcare perspective is $25,500 per QALY gained. Using a limited societal perspective that additionally includes patient costs and criminal justice costs, OBBT is cost-saving compared to no treatment even under pessimistic assumptions about efficacy and cost. ConclusionsExpansion of OBBT would be highly cost-effective compared to no treatment when considered from a healthcare perspective, and cost-saving when reduced criminal justice costs are included. Given the continuing opioid crisis in the U.S., expansion of this care option should be a high priority.

Recruitment challenges for a prospective telehealth cohort study

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic presents challenges in participant recruitment strategies for clinical research involving people with opioid use disorders recently engaged in treatment. We describe challenges to participant recruitment in a trial comparing virtual buprenorphine treatment platform to office-based buprenorphine treatment. MethodsThe parent study was a cohort trial of telehealth delivered buprenorphine treatment compared to office-based buprenorphine treatment, however, due to the pandemic potential participant recruitment for both arms became virtual. Between 9/27/2021 and 7/11/2022, telephone, email, flyers, and word-of-mouth were used to recruit study participants from each treatment setting. Recruitment tracking documents recorded the primary outcomes: number of outreach attempts and most effective contact methods. ResultsTreatment settings provided contact information for 1485 potential study participants. Information was incorrect or disconnected for 282 (19%) individuals, 695 (47%) did not respond to outreach, and 508 (34%) responded to outreach. Of these responders, 369 were interested in study participation, 259 completed the online informed consent and screening assessment, and 148 met eligibility criteria and enrolled in the study. A total of 3804 virtual outreach attempts across 1485 potential participants were made, resulting in an average of 2.7 attempts per contact and a mean of 25.7 attempts per enrolled participant (n = 148). ConclusionConducting research during the COVID-19 pandemic required shifting from in-person to virtual recruitment strategies to contact and engage potential study participants. Virtual recruitment for this population during a pandemic appears to be less efficient and hindered efforts to meet recruitment goals.

Cascade of care for office-based buprenorphine treatment in Bronx community clinics

IntroductionThe cascade of care for opioid use disorder (OUD) has been described at the population level to inform health policy and in health care systems, programs, and communities to guide targeted interventions. Office-based buprenorphine treatment is essential for expanding access to OUD treatment; however, few studies examine the cascade of care specifically for office-based buprenorphine treatment. Our objective was to describe a cascade of care for patients referred for office-based buprenorphine treatment in the primary care setting. MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with OUD who were referred for office-based buprenorphine treatment within a large, urban health care system between 2018 and 2019. Our primary outcomes included completion of each step of the buprenorphine treatment cascade of care: 1) referred for treatment, 2) scheduled initial visit, 3) completed initial visit, 4) initiated buprenorphine treatment, and 5) retained in treatment at 90 days. We constructed a cascade of care by calculating proportions of patients identified at every step, starting with the total number of patients referred for treatment as the first step. We extracted data from the program's referral database and electronic medical record system. We compared characteristics of patients referred who initiated buprenorphine to those referred who did not initiate buprenorphine treatment using chi-squared tests and t-tests. To account for the hierarchical nature of the data, we conducted a Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) modeling to test the differences in attrition rates among the steps of the cascade of care. ResultsIn the 24-month period between 2018 and 2019, 226 patients were referred for office-based buprenorphine treatment at Montefiore's Buprenorphine Treatment Network. Patients' mean age at referral was 47 years, and most were male (68.6%), Hispanic (49.6%), and publicly insured (75.7%). Among all patients, 182 (80.5%) were scheduled for an initial visit, 142 (62.8%) completed the initial visit, 134 (59.3%) initiated buprenorphine treatment, and 95 (42.0%) were retained in treatment at 90 days. 37.2% of all patients referred did not complete the initial visit. A GEE model showed that attrition is significantly steeper in the first two steps of the cascade of care, compared to the later three steps (AOR = 1.95, 95% CI = 1.31–2.91, p < 0.05). Compared to referred patients who did not initiate treatment, those referred who initiated treatment were more likely to be using non–prescribed buprenorphine at time of referral (19.4% vs. 5.4%, p < 0.05) and be self-referred (22.4% vs. 9.8%, p < 0.05). ConclusionOur study is the first to describe a cascade of care for office-based buprenorphine treatment in a large health care system. The study observed the steepest attrition in the first two steps of the cascade of care, where more than a third of patients referred did not complete the initial visit. Patients who were self-referred, or using non–prescribed buprenorphine were more likely to initiate treatment. A cascade of care specific for office-based buprenorphine can inform future efforts to improve linkage to care.

A comparison of office-based buprenorphine treatment outcomes in Bronx community clinics before versus during the COVID-19 pandemic

IntroductionIn 2020, the US and New York City experienced unprecedented deaths due to the COVID-19 pandemic and drug overdoses. Policy changes reduced burdensome regulations for medication treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD). Despite these policy changes, few studies examined buprenorphine treatment outcomes during the pandemic. We compared treatment outcomes among Bronx patients referred to office-based buprenorphine treatment before versus during the pandemic. MethodsIn a retrospective cohort study, we compared patients referred to buprenorphine treatment in a Bronx community clinic before (March–August 2019) versus during (March–August 2020) the pandemic. We describe changes to buprenorphine treatment during the pandemic, including telehealth and prioritizing harm reduction. Using data from medical records and program logs, main outcomes included steps of the OUD treatment cascade of care—initial visit scheduled and completed, treatment initiated, and retained in treatment at 90 days. Using chi square and t-tests, we examined differences in patient characteristics and OUD treatment cascade steps before versus during the pandemic. ResultsBefore and during the pandemic, 72 and 35 patients were referred to buprenorphine treatment, respectively. Patients' mean age was 46 years, most were male (67.3%) or Hispanic (52.3%), and few had private insurance (19.6%). Patients referred during (vs. before) the pandemic were more likely to have private insurance (31.4% vs. 13.9%, p < 0.05) and be referred from acute care settings (37.1% vs. 19.4%, p < 0.05). No significant differences in OUD cascade of care outcomes existed between those referred during versus before the pandemic. However, among patients who initiated buprenorphine treatment, those referred during (vs. before) the pandemic were more likely to be retained in treatment at 90 days (68.0% vs. 42.9%, p < 0.05). ConclusionsDespite the COVID-19 pandemic's unprecedented devastation to the Bronx, along with worsening drug overdose deaths, OUD cascade of care outcomes were similar among patients referred to buprenorphine treatment before versus during the pandemic. Among patients who initiated buprenorphine treatment, treatment retention was better during (versus before) the pandemic. During a public health emergency, incorporating telehealth and prioritizing harm reduction are key strategies to maintain optimal OUD treatment outcomes.

Toward a Typology of Office-based Buprenorphine Treatment Laws: Themes From a Review of State Laws.

Buprenorphine is a gold standard treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD). Some US states have passed laws regulating office-based buprenorphine treatment (OBBT) for OUD, with requirements beyond those required in federal law. We sought to identify themes in state OBBT laws. Using search terms related to medications for OUD, we searched Westlaw software for state regulations and statutes in 51 US jurisdictions from 2005 to 2019. We identified and inductively analyzed OBBT laws for themes. Since 2005, 10 states have passed a total of 181 OBBT laws. We identified the following themes: (1) provider credentials: state licensure for OBBT providers and continuing medical education requirements; (2) new patients: objective symptoms patients must have before receiving OBBT and exceptions for special populations; (3) educating patients: general informed consent requirements, and specific information to provide; (4) counseling: minimum counselor credentials, minimum counseling frequency, counseling alternatives; (5) patient monitoring: required prescription drug monitoring checks, frequency of drug screening, and responses to lost/stolen medications; (6) enhanced clinician monitoring: evidence-based treatment protocols, minimum clinician-patient contact frequency, health assessment requirements, and individualized treatment planning; and (7) patient safety: reconciling prescriptions, dosage limitations, naloxone coprescribing, tapering, and office closures. Some laws codify practices for which scientific consensus is lacking. Additionally, some OBBT laws resemble opioid treatment programs and pain management regulations. Results could serve as the basis for a typology of office-based treatment laws, which could facilitate empirical examination of policy impacts on treatment access and quality.

Access to medication-assisted treatment in the United States: Comparison of travel time to opioid treatment programs and office-based buprenorphine treatment

ObjectivesDisparities in access to medication-assisted treatment are a major problem. This study estimated and compared drive time to the nearest opioid treatment program (OTP) and office-based buprenorphine treatment (OBBT) across the urban-rural continuum in the U.S. MethodsDrive time was calculated between the longitude and latitude of population weighted block group centroids and the longitude and latitude of the nearest OTP and OBBT. Rural-Urban Commuting Area (RUCA) codes were used for defining rurality. The Integrated Nested Laplace Approximation approach was used for statistical analysis. ResultsThe mean travel time to the nearest OBBT compared to OTP decreased by 7.18 min (95 % CI = 7.23−7.14) in metropolitan cores, 36.63 min (95 % CI = 37.12−36.15) in micropolitan cores, 38.84 min (95 % CI = 39.57−38.10) in small town cores, and 40.16 min (95 % CI = 40.81−39.50) in rural areas. Additionally, travel burden to the nearest OTP would be more than 60 min for 13,526,605 people and more than 90 min for 5,371,852 people. The travel burden to the nearest OBBT would be more than 60 min for 845,991 people and more than 90 min for 149,297 people. ConclusionsThe mean drive time to the closest OBBT was significantly smaller than the mean drive time to the closest OTP. Analysis of barriers to access is necessary to devising creative initiatives to improve access to critical opioid use disorder treatment services.

Implementation of office-based buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder.

Buprenorphine-based medication-assisted treatment (B-MAT) is a powerful, concrete intervention that can be provided by nurse practitioners (NPs) to reduce opioid-related overdoses in patients with opioid use disorder (OUD). However, multiple barriers exist to provide and access this therapy. A rural Midwestern county struggled with increasing OUD and scant access to B-MAT. A nurse-led, community clinic had the potential to expand access to treatment but no support structure to provide it. In this quality improvement project, a one-group posttest-only design was used to assess treatment access, care quality, and patient characteristics. An evidence-based, nurse led weekly B-MAT clinic using a low-threshold, chronic-care model for treatment of OUD. The B-MAT clinic expanded county-wide access by 34% over seven months. A total of 23 patients were seen with 21 eligible for treatment with B-MAT. All nine patients with at least 90-day continuous treatment were retained in the program. Three quarters of patients had at least 30 days of active buprenorphine-naloxone coverage and 17% of all patients were lost to follow up. There were no induction-related adverse events, no fatalities, and one nonfatal overdose. In a chart review, 85% of patients met at least six of eight quality criteria. This low-barrier approach to OUD expanded access to treatment and demonstrated a model stable enough to continue delivering care throughout the first 5 months of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. NPs in primary care settings can effectively provide B-MAT in a low-threshold, office-based setting.

Barriers and perceived usefulness of an ECHO intervention for office-based buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder in North Carolina: A qualitative study

Background Medication treatment for opioid use disorder (M-OUD) is underutilized, despite research demonstrating its effectiveness in treating opioid use disorder (OUD). The UNC Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes for Rural Primary Care Medication Assisted Treatment (UNC ECHO for MAT) project was designed to evaluate interventions for reducing barriers to delivery of M-OUD by rural primary care providers in North Carolina. A key element was tele-conferenced sessions based on the University of New Mexico Project ECHO model, comprised of case discussions and didactic presentations using a “hub and spoke” model, with expert team members at the hub site and community-based providers participating from their offices (i.e., spoke sites). Although federal funders have promoted use of the model, barriers for providers to participate in ECHO sessions are not well documented. Methods: UNC ECHO for MAT included ECHO sessions, provider-to-provider consultations, and practice coaching. We conducted 20 semi-structured interviews to assess perceived usefulness of the UNC ECHO for MAT intervention, barriers to participation in the intervention, and persistent barriers to prescribing M-OUD. Results: Participants were generally satisfied with ECHO sessions and provider-to-provider consultations; however, perceived value of practice support was less clear. Primary barriers to participating in ECHO sessions were timing and length of sessions. Participants recommended recording ECHO sessions for viewing later, and some thought incentives for either the practice or provider could facilitate participation. Providers who had participated in ECHO sessions valued the expertise on the expert team; the team’s ability to develop a supportive, collegial environment; and the value of a community of providers interested in learning from each other, particularly through case discussions. Conclusions: Despite the perceived value of ECHO, barriers may prevent consistent participation. Also, barriers to M-OUD delivery remain, including some that ECHO alone cannot address, such as Medicaid and private-insurer policies and availability of psychosocial resources.

Disparities in Access to Opioid Treatment Programs and Office-Based Buprenorphine Treatment Across the Rural-Urban and Area Deprivation Continua: A US Nationwide Small Area Analysis

ObjectivesTo measure access to opioid treatment programs (OTPs) and office-based buprenorphine treatment (OBBTs) at the smallest geographic unit for which the Census Bureau publishes demographic and socioeconomic data (ie, block group) and to explore disparities in access to treatment across the rural-urban and area deprivation continua across the United States. MethodsAccess to OTPs and OBBTs at the block group in 2019 was quantified using an innovative 2-step floating catchment area technique that accounts for the supply of treatment facilities relative to the population size, proximity of facilities relative to the location of population in block groups, and time as a barrier within catchments. Block groups were stratified into tertiles based on the rural-urban continuum codes (metropolitan, micropolitan, small town, or rural) and area deprivation index (least-deprived, middle-deprived, most-deprived). The Integrated Nested Laplace Approximation approach was used for statistical analysis. ResultsAcross the United States, 3329 block groups corresponding to 2 915 949 adults lacked access to OTPs within a 2-hour drive of their community and 130 block groups corresponding to 86 605 adults did not have access to OBBTs. Disparities in access to treatment were observed across the urban-rural and area deprivation continua including (1) lowest mean access score to OBBTs were found among most-deprived small towns, and (2) lower mean access score to OTPs were found among micropolitan and small towns. ConclusionsThe results of this study revealed disparities in access to medication-assisted treatment. The findings call for creative initiatives and local and regional policies to develop to mitigate access problems.

Same-day vs. delayed buprenorphine prescribing and patient retention in an office-based buprenorphine treatment program

BackgroundBuprenorphine is a safe and effective treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD), yet a small fraction of people with OUD receive it, and rates of retention in treatment are suboptimal. Dropout most commonly occurs within 30 days of treatment initiation. Therefore, research needs to investigate modifiable factors contributing to early dropout. Requiring multiple visits for evaluation prior to providing an initial buprenorphine prescription (delayed prescription) may lead to more early dropout when compared with prescribing at the first medical visit (same-day prescription). Our objective was to determine whether same-day (vs. delayed) buprenorphine prescription was associated with 30-day retention in treatment. MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of 237 patients who initiated buprenorphine treatment at an urban federally qualified community health center (FQHC) between June 1, 2015, and December 31, 2017. We measured prescription delays by determining the time between patients' first request for buprenorphine treatment (by calling, presenting to the FQHC in-person, or requesting treatment during a visit) and when providers wrote buprenorphine prescriptions. We included only patients with prescription delays less than or equal to 30 days in the analysis. We defined same-day prescription as the patient experiencing no delays in starting treatment and receiving a prescription during the first medical visit. We examined whether patients who received same-day prescriptions had different sociodemographic and clinical characteristics than patients who received delayed prescriptions. We also evaluated whether there was an association between the initial provider who made the decision about same-day vs. delayed buprenorphine prescribing and same-day prescription. We built a multivariable logistic regression model to evaluate the independent association between same-day vs. delayed prescription receipt and odds of 30-day retention in treatment. ResultsOf the 237 patients who initiated buprenorphine treatment from June 1, 2015, to December 31, 2017, 222 had delays less than or equal to 30 days and we included them in the analysis. Of the 222 patients, the mean age was 46 (SD 10.4), the majority were Hispanic (n = 160, 72%), male (n = 175, 79%), and publicly insured (n = 165, 74%). The majority of patients experienced delayed buprenorphine prescription receipt (n = 133, 60%). The median time to buprenorphine prescription was 5 days (IQR 0–11). Of those who experienced a delay (n = 133), the median delay time was 8 days (IQR 5–20). Compared to those with same-day prescription receipt, more patients with delayed prescription receipt were non-Hispanic white (11% vs. 2%, p = 0.01), had a history of alcohol use (43% vs. 21%, p < 0.01) or benzodiazepine use (22% vs. 9%, p = 0.01), and had the buprenorphine coordinator as their initial provider (57 vs. 13%, p < 0.01). Same-day prescription receipt was not significantly associated with 30-day treatment retention in the adjusted analysis (AOR 1.92, 95% CI 0.81–4.56). ConclusionPatients who received buprenorphine prescriptions on the same day as their initial evaluation differed from those who received delayed prescriptions. After adjustment for these differences, same-day prescription was not significantly associated with higher 30-day treatment retention. Providers may be delaying treatment when there is concern about alcohol and/or benzodiazepine use; however, providers could institute enhanced monitoring based on clinical concern for sedation or overdose risk without delaying buprenorphine prescription. Prospective studies of same-day vs. delayed buprenorphine receipt would elucidate the association between delays and retention more definitively.

Video directly observed therapy intervention using a mobile health application among opioid use disorder patients receiving office-based buprenorphine treatment: protocol for a pilot randomized controlled trial

BackgroundOffice-based buprenorphine treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) does not typically include in-person directly observed therapy (DOT), potentially leading to non-adherence. Video DOT technologies may safeguard against this issue and thus enhance likelihood of treatment success. We describe the rationale and protocol for the Trial of Adherence Application for Buprenorphine treatment (TAAB) study, a pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate the effects of video DOT delivered via a smartphone app on office-based buprenorphine treatment outcomes, namely illicit opioid use and retention.MethodsParticipants will be recruited from office-based opioid addiction treatment programs in outpatient clinics at two urban medical centers and randomized to either video DOT (intervention) delivered via a HIPAA-compliant, asynchronous, mobile health (mHealth) technology platform, or treatment-as-usual (control). Eligibility criteria are: 18 years or older, prescribed sublingual buprenorphine for a cumulative total of 28 days or less from the office-based opioid treatment program, and able to read and understand English. Patients will be considered ineligible if they are unable or unwilling to use the intervention, provide consent, or complete weekly study visits. All participants will complete 13 in-person weekly visits and be followed via electronic health record data capture at 12- and 24-weeks post-randomization. Data gathered include the following: demographics; current and previous treatment for OUD; self-reported diversion of prescribed buprenorphine; status of their mental and physical health; and self-reported lifetime and past 30-day illicit substance use. Participants provide urine samples at each weekly visit to test for illicit drugs and buprenorphine. The primary outcome is percentage of weekly urines that are negative for opioids over the 12-weeks. The secondary outcome is engagement in treatment at week 12.DiscussionVideo DOT delivered through mHealth technology platform offers possibility of improving patients’ buprenorphine adherence by providing additional structure and accountability. The TAAB study will provide important preliminary estimates of the impact of this mHealth technology for patients initiating buprenorphine, as well as the feasibility of study procedures, thus paving the way for further research to assess feasibility and generate preliminary data for design of a future Phase III trial.Trial Registration ClinicalTrails.gov, NCT03779997, Registered on December 19, 2018.

2020 Annual Meeting Course Section: Why a Course?

Back to table of contents Next article APA & MeetingsFull Access2020 Annual Meeting Course Section: Why a Course?Catherine Crone, M.D.Catherine CroneSearch for more papers by this author, M.D.Published Online:10 Jan 2020https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.pn.2020.1b50AbstractWant an option for an intensive learning experience? Don’t want to fight the crowds when you head to a popular talk by a national or international expert? Want a chance to ask more than one brief question at the end of one of the many general sessions? Want an opportunity to talk to an expert, learn a new skill, or sharpen your current skills with the latest information? If you answer “yes” to any of these questions, then consider taking a course at APA’s Annual Meeting! These are four-hour, in-depth offerings on a wide variety of subjects including psychotherapy, cannabis, neuropsychiatry, global mental health, technology, forensic psychiatry, transcranial magnetic stimulation, and public speaking.Want something more? Try a master course, an eight-hour intensive learning experience that will hone your skills in areas such as psychopharmacology, motivation interviewing, suicide assessment, management of first-episode psychosis, and office-based buprenorphine treatment. Each of these includes receipt of an APPI-published book on the course’s topic by the experts teaching the master courses.Due to their popularity, courses fill fast, so don’t delay. Register for the Annual Meeting today and be sure to get a seat in your first-choice courses. ■Download the 2020 Annual Meeting Course Guide.Catherine Crone, M.D., is the vice chair in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Inova Fairfax Hospital. She is also a member of the Scientific Program Committee. ISSUES NewArchived

Office-Based Buprenorphine Treatment: Identifying Factors That Promote Retention in Opioid-Dependent Patients.

Opiate addiction is a serious global health issue that profoundly impacts the welfare of populations around the world. Opioid addiction affects an estimated 1.9 million individuals in the United States alone, stimulating a rise in treatment options such as medication-assisted treatment with buprenorphine. When combined with counseling and relapse prevention groups, medication-assisted treatment has proven to be an effective office-based opioid treatment for opiate dependence. Office-based opioid treatment has broadened access to treatment of opioid dependence, has decreased the risk for overdose, and is effective for reducing cravings and opioid use at proper dosing levels. However, treatment retention and relapse remain significant challenges. The purpose of this study was to identify characteristics predictive of retention in treatment time of opioid-dependent individuals receiving office-based buprenorphine treatment. The records of individuals enrolled in a public health office buprenorphine clinic (n = 350) were analyzed to determine retention time in treatment and whether retention time varied by selected individual variables. Participants in the study had a cumulative predicted retention time on buprenorphine of 65% at 30 days, 35% at 6 months, 25% at 12 months, and 18% at 18 months.

Initiating buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder during short‐term in‐patient ‘detoxification’: a randomized clinical trial

The effectiveness of linking people from short-term in-patient managed withdrawal programs ('detoxification') to long-term, primary care-based buprenorphine is unknown. We tested whether buprenorphine initiation during an opioid withdrawal program and linkage to office-based buprenorphine (LINK) after discharge would increase engagement with office-based buprenorphine and decrease illicit opioid use during the ensuing 6months compared with standard withdrawal management (WM). Single-site randomized controlled trial. Short-term in-patient detoxification program in Massachusetts, USA. People with opioid use disorder (n=115) who averaged 32.4years of age, 68.2% male, 79.1% white, using illicit opioids on 27.3 of the last 30days, were randomly assigned to WM (n=59) versus LINK (n=56). Intervention was buprenorphine induction, in-patient dose stabilization and post-discharge transition to maintenance buprenorphine at an affiliated primary care clinic (LINK). Comparator was 5-day buprenorphine managed withdrawal protocol (WM). Mean 30-day rate of use of illicit opioids (primary aim) and prescribed buprenorphine (secondary aim) at 1, 3 and 6months. Compared with WM, participants in the LINK condition had lower illicit opioid use rates at days 12 [b=-6.81, 95% confidence interval (CI)=-9.69; -3.92, P<0.001], 35 (b=-8.55, 95% CI-11.63; -5.47, P<0.001), 95 (b=-7.34, 95% CI=-10.59; -4.11, P<0.001) and 185 (b=-3.52, 95% CI=-7.07; 0.27, P=0.052). The LINK arm had higher prescription buprenorphine use rates (P<0.001) at all assessments. Among people with opioid use disorder, initiation of, and linkage to, office-based buprenorphine treatment post-discharge reduced illicit opioid use and increased days of buprenorphine treatment for up to 6months post-discharge compared with an in-patient detoxification protocol.

Contingency Management to Enhance Office-Based Buprenorphine Treatment

Contingency Management to Enhance Office-Based Buprenorphine Treatment

Annals for Educators - 2 July 2019.

Annals for Educators - 2 July 2019.

Impact of Fentanyl Use on Buprenorphine Treatment Retention and Opioid Abstinence.

There has been a rapid increase in the presence of illicitly manufactured fentanyl in the heroin drug supply. Buprenorphine is an effective treatment for heroin and prescription opioid use disorder; however, little is known about treatment outcomes among people using fentanyl. We compared 6-month treatment retention and opioid abstinence among people initiating buprenorphine treatment who had toxicology positive for heroin compared to fentanyl at baseline. Retrospective cohort study of 251 adult patients initiating office-based buprenorphine treatment who had available toxicology testing across an academic health system between August 2016 and July 2017. Exposure was assessed at baseline before initiating buprenorphine and was categorized as negative toxicology (n = 184) versus fentanyl positive toxicology (n = 48) versus heroin positive toxicology (n = 19). Six-month treatment retention rates were not different between the fentanyl positive and heroin positive groups [38% (n = 18) vs 47% (n = 9); P = 0.58], or between the fentanyl positive and the negative toxicology group [38% (n = 18) vs 51% (n = 93); P = 0.14]. Opioid abstinence at 6 months among those who had testing did not differ between the fentanyl positive and the heroin positive group [55% (n = 6) vs 60% (n = 6); P = 0.99]. The fentanyl positive group had a lower abstinence rate at 6 months compared to those with negative toxicology at baseline [55% (n = 6) vs 93% (n = 63); P = 0.004]. Mean initial buprenophine dosage did not differ between groups. Buprenorphine treatment retention and abstinence among those retained in treatment is not worse between people using fentanyl compared to heroin at treatment initiation. Both groups have lower abstinence rates at 6 months compared to individuals with negative toxicology at baseline. These findings suggest that people exposed to fentanyl still benefit from buprenorphine treatment.