Treatment and Prevention of Opioid Use Disorder: Challenges and Opportunities

Treatment for opioid use disorder in the United States evolved in response to changing federal policy and advances in science. Inpatient care began in 1935 with the US Public Health Service Hospitals in Lexington, Kentucky, and Fort Worth, Texas. Outpatient clinics emerged in the 1960s to provide aftercare. Research advances led to opioid agonist and opioid antagonist therapies. When patients complete opioid withdrawal, return to use is often rapid and frequently deadly. US and international authorities recommend opioid agonist therapy (i.e., methadone or buprenorphine). Opioid antagonist therapy (i.e., extended-release naltrexone) may also inhibit return to use. Prevention efforts emphasize public and prescriber education, use of prescription drug monitoring programs, and safe medication disposal options. Overdose education and naloxone distribution promote access to rescue medication and reduce opioid overdose fatalities. Opioid use disorder prevention and treatment must embrace evidence-based care and integrate with physical and mental health care

Patients Reasons for Choosing Office-based Buprenorphine: Preference for Patient-Centered Care

Objectives - To explore HIV-infected patients\u27 attitudes about buprenorphine treatment in office-based and opioid treatment program (OTP) settings. Methods - We conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with 29 patients with co-existing HIV infection and opioid dependence seeking buprenorphine maintenance therapy in office-based and OTP settings. We used thematic analysis of transcribed audiorecorded interviews to identify themes. Results - Patients voiced a strong preference for office-based treatment. Four themes emerged to explain this preference. First, patients perceived the greater convenience of office-based treatment as improving their ability to address HIV and other healthcare issues. Second, they perceived a strong patient-focused orientation in patient-provider relationships underpinning their preference for office-based care. This was manifest as increased trust, listening, empathy, and respect from office-based staff and providers. Third, they perceived shared power and responsibility in officebased settings. Finally, patients viewed office-based treatment as a more supportive environment for sobriety and relapse prevention. This was partly due to strong therapeutic alliances with office-based staff and providers who prioritized a harm reduction approach, but also due to the perception that the office-based settings were safer for sobriety, compared with increased opportunities for purchasing and using illicit opiates in OTP settings. Conclusions - HIV-infected patients with opioid dependence preferred office-based buprenorphine because they perceived it as offering a more patient-centered approach to care compared with OTP referral. Office-based buprenorphine may facilitate engagement in care for patients with co-existing opioid dependence and HIV infection

Predictors of Opioid and Alcohol Pharmacotherapy Initiation at Hospital Discharge Among Patients Seen by an Inpatient Addiction Consult Service

Background: Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) and alcohol use disorder (MAUD) are effective and under-prescribed. Hospital-based addiction consult services can engage out-of-treatment adults in addictions care. Understanding which patients are most likely to initiate MOUD and MAUD can inform interventions and deepen understanding of hospitals’ role in addressing substance use disorders (SUD). Objective: Determine patient- and consult-service level characteristics associated with MOUD/MAUD initiation during hospitalization. Methods: We analyzed data from a study of the Improving Addiction Care Team (IMPACT), an interprofessional hospital-based addiction consult service at an academic medical center. Researchers collected patient surveys and clinical data from September 2015 to May 2018. We used logistic regression to identify characteristics associated with medication initiation among participants with OUD, AUD, or both. Candidate variables included patient demographics, social determinants, and treatment-related factors. Results: Three hundred thirty-nine participants had moderate to severe OUD, AUD, or both and were not engaged in MOUD/MAUD care at admission. Past methadone maintenance treatment (aOR 2.07, 95%CI (1.17, 3.66)), homelessness (aOR 2.63, 95%CI (1.52, 4.53)), and partner substance use (aOR 2.05, 95%CI (1.12, 3.76) were associated with MOUD/MAUD initiation. Concurrent methamphetamine use disorder (aOR 0.32, 95%CI (0.18, 0.56)) was negatively associated with MOUD/MAUD initiation. Conclusions: The association of MOUD/MAUD initiation with homelessness and partner substance use suggests that hospitalization may be an opportunity to reach highly-vulnerable people, further underscoring the need to provide hospital-based addictions care as a health-system strategy. Methamphetamine\u27s negative association with MOUD/MAUD warrants further study

Lessons Learned from the Implementation of a Medically Enhanced Residential Treatment (Mert) Model Integrating Intravenous Antibiotics and Residential Addiction Treatment

BACKGROUND: Hospitalizations for severe infections associated with substance use disorder (SUD) are increasing. People with SUD often remain hospitalized for many weeks instead of completing intravenous antibiotics at home; often, they are denied skilled nursing facility admission. Residential SUD treatment facilities are not equipped to administer intravenous antibiotics. We developed a medically enhanced residential treatment (MERT) model integrating residential SUD treatment and long-term IV antibiotics as part of a broader hospital-based addiction medicine service. MERT had low recruitment and retention, and ended after six months. The goal of this study was to describe the feasibility and acceptability of MERT, to understand implementation factors, and explore lessons learned. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods evaluation. We included all potentially eligible MERT patients, defined by those needing ≥2 weeks of intravenous antibiotics discharged from February 1 to August 1, 2016. We used chart review to identify diagnoses, antibiotic treatment location, and number of recommended and actual IV antibiotic-days completed. We audiorecorded and transcribed key informant interviews with patients and staff. We conducted an ethnographic analysis of interview transcripts and implementation field notes. RESULTS: Of the 45 patients needing long-term intravenous antibiotics, 18 were ineligible and 20 declined MERT. 7 enrolled in MERT and three completed their recommended intravenous antibiotic course. MERT recruitment barriers included patient ambivalence towards residential treatment, wanting to prioritize physical health needs, and fears of untreated pain in residential. MERT retention barriers included high demands of residential treatment, restrictive practices due to PICC lines, and perceptions by staff and other residents that MERT patients “stood out” as “different.” Despite the challenges, key informants felt MERT was a positive construct. CONCLUSIONS: Though MERT had many possible advantages; it proved more challenging to implement than anticipated. Our lessons may be applicable to future models integrating posthospital intravenous antibiotics and SUD care

Perspectives on Extended-Release Naltrexone Induction among Patients Living with HIV and Opioid Use Disorder: A Qualitative Analysis

BACKGROUND: The CHOICES study randomized participants with HIV and opioid use disorder (OUD) to HIV clinic-based extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX), which requires complete cessation of opioid use, versus treatment-as-usual (i.e., buprenorphine, methadone). Study participants randomized to XR-NTX were interviewed to assess their experiences with successful and unsuccessful XR-NTX induction. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were completed with a convenience sample of study participants with HIV and OUD (n = 37) randomized to XR-NTX in five HIV clinics between 2018 and 2019. All participants approached agreed to be interviewed. Interviews were digitally recorded, professionally transcribed, and analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Participants included women (43%), African Americans (62%) and Hispanics (16%), between 27 to 69 years of age. Individuals who completed XR-NTX induction (n = 20) reported experiencing (1) readiness for change, (2) a supportive environment during withdrawal including comfort medications, and (3) caring interactions with staff. Four contrasting themes emerged among participants (n = 17) who did not complete induction: (1) concern and anxiety about withdrawal including past negative experiences, (2) ambivalence about or reluctance to stop opioids, (3) concerns about XR-NTX effects, and (4) preferences for other medications. CONCLUSIONS: The results highlight opportunities to improve initiation of XR-NTX in high-need groups. Addressing expectations regarding induction may enhance XR-NTX initiation rates. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03275350. Registered September 7, 2017. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03275350?term=extended+release+naltrexone&cond=Opioid+Use

A Cross-Sectional Survey of Potential Factors, Motivations, and Barriers Influencing Research Participation and Retention among People Who Use Drugs in the Rural USA

BACKGROUND: Despite high morbidity and mortality among people who use drugs (PWUD) in rural America, most research is conducted within urban areas. Our objective was to describe influencing factors, motivations, and barriers to research participation and retention among rural PWUD. METHODS: We recruited 255 eligible participants from community outreach and community-based, epidemiologic research cohorts from April to July 2019 to participate in a cross-sectional survey. Eligible participants reported opioid or injection drug use to get high within 30 days and resided in high-needs rural counties in Oregon, Kentucky, and Ohio. We aggregated response rankings to identify salient influences, motivations, and barriers. We estimated prevalence ratios to assess for gender, preferred drug use, and geographic differences using log-binomial models. RESULTS: Most participants were male (55%) and preferred methamphetamine (36%) over heroin (35%). Participants reported confidentiality, amount of financial compensation, and time required as primary influential factors for research participation. Primary motivations for participation include financial compensation, free HIV/HCV testing, and contribution to research. Changed or false participant contact information and transportation are principal barriers to retention. Respondents who prefer methamphetamines over heroin reported being influenced by the purpose and use of their information (PR = 1.12; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.26). Females and Oregonians (versus Appalachians) reported knowing and wanting to help the research team as participation motivation (PR = 1.57; 95% CI: 1.09, 2.26 and PR = 2.12; 95% CI: 1.51, 2.99). CONCLUSIONS: Beyond financial compensation, researchers should emphasize confidentiality, offer testing and linkage with care, use several contact methods, aid transportation, and accommodate demographic differences to improve research participation and retention among rural PWUD

A delayed injection-site reaction in a patient receiving extended-release naltrexone

BACKGROUND: Pharmacotherapy, such as oral naltrexone, has proven effective in treating alcohol use disorder, although medication adherence has presented challenges. Although a formulation of extended-release naltrexone for intramuscular injection has been developed to counter daily adherence issues, injection-site reactions can occur within days of depot injection. CASE: The authors report a case of an individual with alcohol use disorder who had a previously undescribed delayed injection-site reaction that occurred 11 days after injection. Subsequent challenge with the medication resulted in recurrence of the reaction. DISCUSSION: Although extended-release naltrexone is generally well tolerated, injection-site reactions can complicate treatment and can appear more than 10 days after medication administration

Recent Incarceration, Substance Use, Overdose, and Service Use Among People Who Use Drugs in Rural Communities

Importance: Drug use and incarceration have a substantial impact on rural communities, but factors associated with the incarceration of rural people who use drugs (PWUD) have not been thoroughly investigated. Objective: To characterize associations between recent incarceration, overdose, and substance use disorder (SUD) treatment access among rural PWUD. Design, setting, and participants: For this cross-sectional study, the Rural Opioid Initiative research consortium conducted a survey in geographically diverse rural counties with high rates of overdose across 10 US states (Illinois, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Oregon, Kentucky, West Virginia, Ohio, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont) between January 25, 2018, and March 17, 2020, asking PWUD about their substance use, substance use treatment, and interactions with the criminal legal system. Participants were recruited through respondent-driven sampling in 8 rural US regions. Respondents who were willing to recruit additional respondents from their personal networks were enrolled at syringe service programs, community support organizations, and through direct community outreach; these so-called seed respondents then recruited others. Of 3044 respondents, 2935 included participants who resided in rural communities and reported past-30-day injection of any drug or use of opioids nonmedically via any route. Data were analyzed from February 8, 2022, to September 15, 2023. Exposure: Recent incarceration was the exposure of interest, defined as a report of incarceration in jail or prison for at least 1 day in the past 6 months. Main outcomes and measures: The associations between PWUD who were recently incarcerated and main outcomes of treatment use and overdose were examined using logistic regression. Results: Of 2935 participants, 1662 (56.6%) were male, 2496 (85.0%) were White; the mean (SD) age was 36 (10) years; and in the past 30 days, 2507 (85.4%) reported opioid use and 1663 (56.7%) reported injecting drugs daily. A total of 1224 participants (41.7%) reported recent incarceration, with a median (IQR) incarceration of 15 (3-60) days in the past 6 months. Recent incarceration was associated with past-6-month overdose (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.38; 95% CI, 1.12-1.70) and recent SUD treatment (AOR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.36-1.93) but not recent medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD; AOR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.82-1.28) or currently carrying naloxone (AOR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.86-1.21). Conclusions and relevance: In this cross-sectional study of PWUD in rural areas, participants commonly experienced recent incarceration, which was not associated with MOUD, an effective and lifesaving treatment. The criminal legal system should implement effective SUD treatment in rural areas, including MOUD and provision of naloxone, to fully align with evidence-based SUD health care policies.</p

Houselessness and syringe service program utilization among people who inject drugs in eight rural areas across the USA: A cross-sectional analysis

Background: Research conducted in urban areas has highlighted the impact of housing instability on people who inject drugs (PWID), revealing that it exacerbates vulnerability to drug-related harms and impedes syringe service program (SSP) use. However, few studies have explored the effects of houselessness on SSP use among rural PWID. This study examines the relationship between houselessness and SSP utilization among PWID in eight rural areas across 10 states. Methods: PWID were recruited using respondent-driven sampling for a cross-sectional survey that queried self-reported drug use and SSP utilization in the prior 30 days, houselessness in the prior 6 months and sociodemographic characteristics. Using binomial logistic regression, we examined the relationship between experiencing houselessness and any SSP use. To assess the relationship between houselessness and the frequency of SSP use, we conducted multinomial logistic regression analyses among participants reporting any past 30-day SSP use. Results: Among 2394 rural PWID, 56.5% had experienced houselessness in the prior 6 months, and 43.5% reported past 30-day SSP use. PWID who had experienced houselessness were more likely to report using an SSP compared to their housed counterparts (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.24 [95% confidence intervals [CI] 1.01, 1.52]). Among those who had used an SSP at least once (n = 972), those who experienced houselessness were just as likely to report SSP use two (aOR = 0.90 [95% CI 0.60, 1.36]) and three times (aOR = 1.18 [95% CI 0.77, 1.98]) compared to once. However, they were less likely to visit an SSP four or more times compared to once in the prior 30 days (aOR = 0.59 [95% CI 0.40, 0.85]). Conclusion: This study provides evidence that rural PWID who experience houselessness utilize SSPs at similar or higher rates as their housed counterparts. However, housing instability may pose barriers to more frequent SSP use. These findings are significant as people who experience houselessness are at increased risk for drug-related harms and encounter additional challenges when attempting to access SSPs.</p