Accessibility to Medication for Opioid Use Disorder After Interventions to Improve Prescribing Among Nonaddiction Clinics in the US Veterans Health Care System

Pharmacological and behavioral pain treatment strategies for patients with opioid use disorder

INTRODUCTION

A critical challenge in providing effective medical care for individuals in opioid agonist treatment (OAT) for opioid use disorder is the effective management of acute and chronic pain. While pain commonly co-occurs with opioid use disorder, there is limited research to guide effective management of pain in this population.

AREAS COVERED

We first provide an overview of the etiology and treatment of acute and chronic pain, highlighting areas of complexity for patients receiving OAT. We then describe the search strategy, which involved a date-inclusive search for relevant terms in PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. After summarizing the results of this search on the evidence for pharmacological and behavioral treatments of acute and chronic pain for individuals on OAT, we conclude with a discussion of these finding and a summarized expert opinion on the state of the evidence.

EXPERT OPINION

The evidence suggests that while research on effective treatment of acute and chronic pain in individuals in OAT is limited, promising work is ongoing to translate existing treatments, particularly behavioral treatments for chronic pain, to support this population. However, further research is warranted, particularly regarding pharmacological options.

Implementing buprenorphine for opioid use disorder in veterans health administration primary care: a qualitative analysis

BACKGROUND

Medications for opioid use disorder are evidence-based, guideline-recommended treatments. While buprenorphine can be prescribed in nonspecialized office-based settings, it is underutilized. Using a multifaceted implementation initiative, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) sought to expand access to buprenorphine in nonspecialized office-based settings, including primary care clinics. The purpose of this qualitative evaluation was to assess and describe primary care clinicians' perspectives on delivering buprenorphine care during the first year of the initiative.

METHODS

Using a snowball sampling approach, individualized emails were sent to primary care clinicians participating in a VHA initiative (n = 43) inviting them to be interviewed. Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted September 2019 through January 2020, and were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using thematic analysis. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), a meta-theoretical framework of five domains associated with successful adoption of interventions, was used to organize findings.

RESULTS

Of 43 clinicians invited, 19 responded and were interviewed (44.2%). Findings represented two CFIR domains: Inner Setting and Characteristics of Individuals. For Inner Setting, three themes were identified as influencing implementation during the first year of the initiative. Clinicians reported a shared receptivity to implement buprenorphine, organizational support from pharmacy services and leadership, as well as cohesive relationships among implementation team members and collaboration with outside clinics. Noted barriers included fit within primary care workflows and lack of staff, time and access to onsite laboratory services and buprenorphine. For Characteristics of Individuals, two themes were identified that may facilitate clinicians' willingness to provide buprenorphine care. Namely, clinicians reported positive attitudes about and experiences delivering opioid use disorder care and a willingness to learn/do something new.

CONCLUSIONS

While implementation strategies should be tailored to individual clinic needs, prioritizing factors identified in this evaluation may support successful implementation of buprenorphine delivery in primary care.

Impact of an opioid use disorder medication implementation intervention on hospitalization and emergency department utilization in the Veterans Health Administration

BACKGROUND

It is important to evaluate how medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) implementation interventions impact downstream outcomes, however little is known about impact on hospitalization and emergency department (ED) utilization. Stepped Care for Opioid Use Disorder Train the Trainer (SCOUTT) is a national United States Veterans Health Administration (VHA) effort initially implemented at 18 facilities that increased MOUD receipt in primary care, mental health, and pain clinics. This evaluation assessed SCOUTT's impact on hospitalization and ED utilization.

METHODS

This evaluation used a controlled interrupted time series analysis. We extracted electronic health record data for patients with OUD and ≥ 1 visit in an intervention clinic (N = 35) or matched comparison clinic (N = 35) in the post-implementation year. We examined monthly measures of hospitalization and ED utilization in the pre-implementation (9/1/2017-8/31/2018) and post-implementation (9/1/2018-8/31/2019) years. Segmented regression models estimated pre-post immediate and trend changes in intervention relative to comparison clinics, adjusting for pre-implementation trends and patient characteristics. Sensitivity analyses were conducted among patients with ≥ 1 visit in both the pre-/post-implementation years, and post-hoc secondary analyses were conducted among patients with OUD and ≥ 1 other SUD vs. OUD only.

RESULTS

Patients with OUD in both intervention (N = 7,488) and comparison (N = 7,558) clinics had a mean age of 53 years, and the majority were male, White, and not married. During the pre-implementation period, hospitalization and ED utilization increased over time in both intervention and comparison clinics; during the post-implementation period, hospitalization and ED utilization decreased over time in intervention clinics and remained stable in comparison clinics. There was no significant difference in pre-post changes between intervention and comparison clinics for most analyses. In sensitivity analyses the pre-to-post decrease in monthly trend for ED visits was larger in intervention clinics and, in secondary analyses, the pre-to-post decrease in monthly trend for hospitalizations was larger in intervention clinics among patients with OUD and ≥ 1 other SUD.

CONCLUSIONS

This evaluation did not find evidence that SCOUTT substantially impacted hospitalization or ED utilization relative to comparison clinics, though there may have been positive impacts for patients with longer engagement in SCOUTT clinics and patients with OUD and ≥ 1 other SUD.

Factors affecting waiting times to enter opioid use disorder treatment in the United States with a particular focus on potential biological sex disparity

Aim

Opioid use disorder (OUD) is the problematic use of licit or illicit opioids. Thus far, the literature on biological sex differences in accessing treatment is scarce. Hence, we hypothesize that biological sex has a moderating effect on OUD treatment accessibility. We aim to explore biological sex differences in treatment disparities and its role in wait time to enter OUD treatment.

Method

Using the 2018 Treatment Episode Data Set Discharge, the national sample representative of OUD patients in the substance use disorder treatment facilities within the 50 states of the United States was 382,547. Univariate and multivariable logistic analysis of the independent variables and other covariates with the dependent variables were explored to estimate the adjusted odds relationship.

Results

Medications for OUD (MOUD) use among males was significantly different, with waiting 1-7 days (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.300, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.208-1.399) and >7 days (AOR = 0.676, 95% CI = 0.600-0.763) to enter OUD treatment compared to waiting less than a day. For females, MOUD was significantly different, with waiting 1-7 days (AOR = 1.366, 95% CI = 1.244-1.499) and >7 days (AOR = 0.834, 95% CI = 0.721-0.965) to enter OUD treatment compared to waiting less than a day.

Conclusion

Both females and males who received MOUD had lower odds of waiting >7 days to enter treatment than those who received no MOUD. The findings of this study will ensure equity in allocating resources to both males and females.

Cross sectional analysis of an addiction consultation service, substance co-use patterns, and receipt of medications for opioid use disorder during hospitalization

INTRODUCTION

Despite effective medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), treatment engagement remains low. As the overdose crisis is increasingly characterized by opioids co-used with other substances, it is important to understand whether existing models effectively support treatment for patients who use multiple substances. Hospital-based addiction consultation services (ACS) have shown promise at increasing MOUD initiation and treatment engagement, but the effectiveness for patients with specific co-use patterns remains unknown.

METHODS

Using 2016-2023 admissions data from a large safety net hospital, we estimated a random-effects logistic regression model to determine whether specific co-use (methamphetamine, cocaine, alcohol, sedative, and other) moderated the effect of being seen by ACS on the receipt of MOUD. Adjusting for patient sociodemographic, health, and admission characteristics we estimated the proportion of patients who received MOUD across specific co-use groups.

RESULTS

Of 7679 total admissions indicating opioid use, of which 5266 (68.6 %) indicated co-use of one or more substances and 2387 (31.1 %) were seen by the ACS. Among admissions not seen by the ACS, a smaller proportion of admissions with any co-use received MOUD (23.5 %; 95 % CI: 21.9-25.1) compared to admissions with opioid use alone (34.0 %; 95 % CI: 31.9-36.1). However, among admissions seen by the ACS a similar proportion of admissions with any co-use received MOUD (57.8 %; 95 % CI: 55.5-60.1) as admissions with opioid use alone (56.2 %; 95 % CI: 52.2-60.2). The increase in proportion of admissions receiving MOUD associated with being seen by the ACS was larger for admissions with methamphetamine (38.6 percentage points; 95 % CI: 34.6-42.6) or cannabis co-use (39.0 percentage points; 95 % CI: 32.9-45.1) compared to admissions without methamphetamine (25.7 percentage points; 95 % CI: 22.2-29.2) or cannabis co-use (29.1 percentage points; 95 % CI: 26.1-32.1).

CONCLUSIONS

The ACS is an effective hospital-based treatment model for increasing the proportion of admissions which receive MOUD. This study shows that ACSs are also able to support increased receipt of MOUD for patients who use other substances in addition to opioids. Future research is needed to further understand what transition strategies best support treatment linkage for patients who use multiple substances.

Barriers and facilitators to implementing treatment for opioid use disorder in community hospitals

INTRODUCTION

Methadone and buprenorphine are effective treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD), yet they are vastly under-utilized across US hospitals. To inform a national trial assessing the effectiveness of implementation strategies to increase adoption of an inpatient hospital-based opioid treatment (HBOT) model (NCT04921787), we explored barriers and facilitators to expanding medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) within community hospitals across the United States.

METHODS

From November 2021 to March 2022, we used purposeful and snowball sampling to identify and interview participants involved in inpatient care of patients with OUD from twelve community hospitals. We conducted semi-structured interviews on providers' experiences and perspectives on current treatment approaches as well as potential influences on MOUD expansion in their hospitals. We used thematic analysis to identify key barriers and facilitators that could impact implementation of an HBOT model, and organized these findings based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

RESULTS

From qualitative interviews with 57 participants (30 physicians, 7 pharmacists, 6 nurses, and 14 professionals involved in the care of patients with OUD), we identified key barriers and facilitators mapped to CFIR's internal and outer settings. The most salient inner setting domains included tension for change and relative priority, compatibility, available resources, organizational culture, access to knowledge and information, relational connections and communications, and information technology infrastructure. Outer setting domains included policies and laws, financing, and partnerships and connections.

CONCLUSIONS

Identifying potential barriers and facilitators can inform hospital-specific strategies to support implementation of HBOT. Implementation strategies that address barriers such as staff availability, knowledge, and attitudes may support increased HBOT adoption. On a broader scale, national policy changes such as increased financing and public reporting of quality metrics would address other barriers we identified and may also encourage hospitals to adopt HBOT models.

A novel rural hospital/clinic-system practice-based research network: the Rural Addiction Implementation Network (RAIN) initiative and its goals, implementation, and early results

Background: Rural and frontier communities face high rates of opioid use disorders (OUDs). In 2021, the Rural Addiction Implementation Network (RAIN) sought to establish a rural hospital/clinic-system practice-based research network (RH-PBRN) to facilitate implementation of evidence-based addiction-related prevention, treatment, and recovery (PTR) services to reduce the morbidity of OUD and substance use disorder (SUD) in rural communities.Objective: To describe the goals and implementation of PTR activities of RAIN, a novel RH-PBRN.Methods: RAIN identified teams of external/internal facilitators at four rural hospitals/clinic-networks to achieve at least 15 PTR activities involving OUD and other SUDs. RAIN utilized an implementation-facilitation approach: facilitators assessed the implementation environment and promoted interventions to overcome barriers to PTR implementation. Other interventions included site visits, community of learning calls, and e-communication. RAIN assessed and recorded facilitators and barriers to implementation, milestone attainment, and outcomes of PTR activities. At 18 months, we queried facilitators about the fidelity and implementation of RAIN activities.Results: RAIN established an HP-PBRN in four sites (Idaho, Montana, Utah, and Wyoming). Within the HP-PBRN, 20 PTR activities were established (p = 7, T = 10, R = 3; range 3-7 per site). Barriers to implementation of PTR activities included competing clinical demands, especially due to COVID-19, lack of dedicated effort for staff at sites, and stigma of addiction and its treatment. Facilitators of implementation included the use of trained expert facilitators and communication between the sites.Conclusions: RAIN implemented 20 addiction-related PTR activities in four rural hospitals/clinic-networks. RAIN's intervention model could be replicated to address addiction-related harms in other rural communities.

Buprenorphine Receipt and Retention for Opioid Use Disorder Following an Initiative to Increase Access in Primary Care

OBJECTIVES

Buprenorphine, a medication for opioid use disorder (OUD), is underutilized in general medical settings. Further, it is inequitably received by racialized groups and persons with comorbidities. The Veterans Health Administration launched an initiative to increase buprenorphine receipt in primary care. The project's objective was to identify patient-related factors associated with buprenorphine receipt and retention in primary care clinics (n = 18) participating in the initiative.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort quality improvement evaluation of patients 18 years or older with 2 or more primary care visits in a 1-year period and an OUD diagnosis in the year before the first primary care visit (index date). Buprenorphine receipt was the proportion of patients with OUD who received 1 or more buprenorphine prescriptions from primary care providers during the post-index year and retention the proportion who received buprenorphine for 180 days or longer.

RESULTS

Of 2880 patients with OUD seen in primary care, 11.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 10.6%-12.9%) received buprenorphine in primary care, 58.2% (95% CI, 52.8%-63.3%) of whom were retained on buprenorphine for 180 days or longer. Patients with alcohol use disorder (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.39; 95% CI, 0.27-0.57), nonopioid drug use disorder (AOR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.45-0.93), and serious mental illness (AOR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37-0.97) had lower buprenorphine receipt. Those with an anxiety disorder had higher buprenorphine receipt (AOR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.04-1.95). Buprenorphine receipt (AOR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.35-0.87) and 180-day retention (AOR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.19-0.84) were less likely among non-Hispanic Black patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Further integration of addiction services in primary care may be needed to enhance buprenorphine receipt for patients with comorbid substance use disorders, and interventions are needed to address disparities in receipt and retention among non-Hispanic Black patients.

"The Only Reason I Am Willing to Do It at All": Evaluation of VA's SUpporting Primary care Providers in Opioid Risk reduction and Treatment (SUPPORT) Center

OBJECTIVES

Medication treatment for opioid use disorder (MOUD) is effective and recommended for outpatient settings. We implemented and evaluated the SUpporting Primary care Providers in Opioid Risk reduction and Treatment (SUPPORT) Center-a quality improvement partnership to implement stepped care for MOUD in 2 Veterans Health Administration (VA) primary care (PC) clinics.

METHODS

SUPPORT provided a dedicated clinical team (nurse practitioner prescriber and social worker) and stepped care ([1] identification, assessment, referral; [2] MOUD induction; [3] stabilization; and [4] maintenance supporting PC providers [PCPs] to initiate and/or sustain treatment) coupled with ongoing internal facilitation (consultation, trainings, informatics support). Qualitative interviews with stakeholders (PCPs and patients) and meeting notes identified barriers and facilitators to implementation. Electronic health record and patient tracking data measured reach, adoption, and implementation outcomes descriptively.

RESULTS

SUPPORT's implementation barriers included the need for an X-waiver, VA's opioid tapering policies, patient and PCP knowledge gaps and PCP discomfort, and logistical compatibility and sustainability challenges for clinics. SUPPORT's dedicated clinical staff, ongoing internal facilitation, and high patient and PCP satisfaction were key facilitators. SUPPORT (January 2019 to September 2021) trained 218 providers; 63 received X-waivers, and 23 provided MOUD (10.5% of those trained). SUPPORT provided care to 167 patients, initiated MOUD for 33, and provided education and naloxone to 72 (all = 0 in year before launch).

CONCLUSIONS

SUPPORT reached many PCPs and patients and resulted in small increases in MOUD prescribing and high levels of stakeholder satisfaction. Dedicated clinical staff was key to observed successes. Although resource-intensive, SUPPORT offers a potential model for outpatient MOUD provision.

Providers' Experiences and Perspectives in Treating Patients With Co-Occurring Opioid and Stimulant Use Disorders in the Hospital

BACKGROUND

The overdose crisis is increasingly characterized by opioid and stimulant co-use. Despite effective pharmacologic treatment for both opioid use disorder (OUD) and contingency management for stimulant use disorders, most individuals with these co-occurring conditions are not engaged in treatment. Hospitalization is an important opportunity to engage patients and initiate treatment, however existing hospital addiction care is not tailored for patients with co-use and may not meet the needs of this population.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with hospital providers about their experiences and perspectives treating patients with opioid and stimulant co-use. We used directed content analysis to identify common experiences and opportunities to improve hospital-based treatment for patients with co-use.

RESULTS

From qualitative interviews with 20 providers, we identified 4 themes describing how co-use complicated hospital-based substance use treatment: (1) patients' unstable circumstances impacting the treatment plan, (2) co-occurring withdrawals are difficult to identify and treat, (3) providers holding more stigmatizing views of patients with co-use, and (4) stimulant use is often "ignored" in the treatment plans. Participants also described a range of potential opportunities to improve hospital-based treatment of co-use that fall into 3 categories: (1) provider practice changes, (2) healthcare system changes, and (3) development and validation of clinical tools and treatment approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified unique challenges providing hospital addiction medicine care to patients who use both opioids and stimulants. These findings inform the development, implementation, and testing of hospital-based interventions for patients with co-use.

Expanding access to medication treatment for opioid use disorders: Findings from the Washington State hub and spoke effort

BACKGROUND

Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a leading cause of preventable death and injury nationwide. Efforts to increase the use of medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) are needed. In 2017, Washington State implemented a Hub and Spoke (HS) model of care with the primary goal of expanding access to MOUD. We examined changes in MOUD utilization among Washington State Medicaid beneficiaries before and after HS implementation.

METHODS

We used Medicaid claims data to examine longitudinal changes in MOUD use for beneficiaries with OUD. We conducted a comparative interrupted time series analysis to examine the association between HS policy implementation and rates of MOUD utilization, overall and by type of medication.

RESULTS

Between 2016 and 2019, a period of increasing OUD prevalence, rates of MOUD utilization among Washington Medicaid beneficiaries increased overall from 39.7 to 50.5. Following HS implementation, rates of MOUD use grew at a significantly greater rate in the HS cohort than in the non-HS cohort (β=0.54, SE=0.02, p< 0.0001, 95% CI 0.49, 0.59). Analyses by medication type show that this rate increase was primarily due to buprenorphine use (β= 0.61, SE= 0.02, p< 0.0001, 95% CI 0.57, 0.65).

CONCLUSION

Improved systems of care are needed to make MOUD accessible to all patients in need. The Washington HS model is one strategy that may facilitate and expand MOUD use, particularly buprenorphine. Over the study period, Washington State saw increased use of buprenorphine, which was an emphasis of their HS model.

Impact of Potential Case Misclassification by Administrative Diagnostic Codes on Outcome Assessment of Observational Study for People Who Inject Drugs

Introduction

Initiation of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) within the hospital setting may improve outcomes for people who inject drugs (PWID) hospitalized because of an infection. Many studies used International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes to identify PWID, although these may be misclassified and thus, inaccurate. We hypothesized that bias from misclassification of PWID using ICD codes may impact analyses of MOUD outcomes.

Methods

We analyzed a cohort of 36 868 cases of patients diagnosed with Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia at 124 US Veterans Health Administration hospitals between 2003 and 2014. To identify PWID, we implemented an ICD code-based algorithm and a natural language processing (NLP) algorithm for classification of admission notes. We analyzed outcomes of prescribing MOUD as an inpatient using both approaches. Our primary outcome was 365-day all-cause mortality. We fit mixed-effects Cox regression models with receipt or not of MOUD during the index hospitalization as the primary predictor and 365-day mortality as the outcome.

Results

NLP identified 2389 cases as PWID, whereas ICD codes identified 6804 cases as PWID. In the cohort identified by NLP, receipt of inpatient MOUD was associated with a protective effect on 365-day survival (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.48; 95% confidence interval, .29-.81; P < .01) compared with those not receiving MOUD. There was no significant effect of MOUD receipt in the cohort identified by ICD codes (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, .77-1.30; P = .99).

Conclusions

MOUD was protective of all-cause mortality when NLP was used to identify PWID, but not significant when ICD codes were used to identify the analytic subjects.

Impact of an intervention to implement provision of opioid use disorder medication among patients with and without co-occurring substance use disorders

INTRODUCTION

Co-occurring substance use disorders (SUDs) are common among people with opioid use disorder (OUD) and known to hinder receipt of medications for OUD (MOUD). It is important to understand how MOUD care implemented outside of SUD specialty settings impacts access for patients with co-occurring SUDs. The Veterans Health Administration's (VA) Stepped Care for Opioid Use Disorder Train the Trainer (SCOUTT) initiative was implemented in primary care, mental health, and pain clinics in 18 VA facilities, and was found to increase MOUD receipt. This study assessed the SCOUTT initiative's impact among patients with and without co-occurring SUDs.

METHODS

This study used a controlled interrupted time series design. We extracted electronic health record data for patients with OUD with visits in SCOUTT intervention or matched comparison clinics during the post-implementation year (9/1/2018-8/31/2019). We examined the monthly proportion of patients who received MOUD in SCOUTT intervention or comparison clinics (primary care, mental health, and pain clinics), or in a VA SUD specialty clinic (where patients may have been referred), during the pre- and post-implementation years. Segmented logistic regression models estimated pre-post changes in outcomes (immediate level change from the final month of the pre-implementation period to the first month of the post-implementation period, change in trend/slope) in intervention vs. comparison facilities, adjusting for patient characteristics and pre-implementation trends. We stratified analyses by the presence of co-occurring SUDs.

RESULTS

Among patients without co-occurring SUDs, the pre-post trend/slope change in MOUD received in SCOUTT intervention or comparison clinics was greater in intervention vs. comparison facilities (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.06, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02-1.10), and the immediate increase in MOUD received in SUD clinics was greater in intervention vs. comparison facilities (aOR: 1.12, 95% CI: 1.02-1.22). These changes did not significantly differ in intervention vs. comparison facilities among patients with co-occurring SUDs.

CONCLUSIONS

The SCOUTT initiative may have increased MOUD receipt primarily among patients without co-occurring SUDs. Focusing on increasing MOUD receipt for patients with co-occurring SUDs may improve the overall effectiveness of MOUD implementation efforts.

Costs of implementing a multi-site facilitation intervention to increase access to medication treatment for opioid use disorder

BACKGROUND

The United States has been grappling with the opioid epidemic, which has resulted in over 75,000 opioid-related deaths between April 2020 and 2021. Evidence-based pharmaceutical interventions (buprenorphine, methadone, and naltrexone) are available to reduce opioid-related overdoses and deaths. However, adoption of these medications for opioid use disorder has been stifled due to individual- and system-level barriers. External facilitation is an evidence-based implementation intervention that has been used to increase access to medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD), but the implementation costs of external facilitation have not been assessed. We sought to measure the facility-level direct costs of implementing an external facilitation intervention for MOUD to provide decision makers with estimates of the resources needed to implement this evidence-based program.

METHODS

We performed a cost analysis of the pre-implementation and implementation phases, including an itemization of external facilitation team and local site labor costs. We used labor estimates from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, and sensitivity analyses were performed using labor estimates from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Financial Management System general ledger data.

RESULTS

The average total costs for implementing an external facilitation intervention for MOUD per site was $18,847 (SD 6717) and ranged between $11,320 and $31,592. This translates to approximately $48 per patient with OUD. Sites with more encounters and participants with higher salaries in attendance had higher costs. This was driven mostly by the labor involved in planning and implementation activities. The average total cost of the pre-implementation and implementation activities were $1031 and $17,816 per site, respectively. In the sensitivity analysis, costs for VHA were higher than BLS estimates likely due to higher wages.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementing external facilitation to increase MOUD prescribing may be affordable depending on the payer's budget constraints. Our study reported that there were variations in the time invested at each phase of implementation and the number and type of participants involved with implementing an external facilitation intervention. Participant composition played an important role in total implementation costs, and decision makers will need to identify the most efficient and optimal number of stakeholders to involve in their implementation plans.

Clinician Perspectives on Delivering Medication Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Evaluation

OBJECTIVE

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic necessitated changes in opioid use disorder care. Little is known about COVID-19's impact on general healthcare clinicians' experiences providing medication treatment for opioid use disorder (MOUD). This qualitative evaluation assessed clinicians' beliefs about and experiences delivering MOUD in general healthcare clinics during COVID-19.

METHODS

Individual semistructured interviews were conducted May through December 2020 with clinicians participating in a Department of Veterans Affairs initiative to implement MOUD in general healthcare clinics. Participants included 30 clinicians from 21 clinics (9 primary care, 10 pain, and 2 mental health). Interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The following 4 themes were identified: overall impact of the pandemic on MOUD care and patient well-being, features of MOUD care impacted, MOUD care delivery, and continuance of telehealth for MOUD care. Clinicians reported a rapid shift to telehealth care, resulting in few changes to patient assessments, MOUD initiations, and access to and quality of care. Although technological challenges were noted, clinicians highlighted positive experiences, including treatment destigmatization, more timely visits, and insight into patients' environments. Such changes resulted in more relaxed clinical interactions and improved clinic efficiency. Clinicians reported a preference for in-person and telehealth hybrid care models.

CONCLUSIONS

After the quick shift to telehealth-based MOUD delivery, general healthcare clinicians reported few impacts on quality of care and highlighted several benefits that may address common barriers to MOUD care. Evaluations of in-person and telehealth hybrid care models, clinical outcomes, equity, and patient perspectives are needed to inform MOUD services moving forward.

Increasing Access to Buprenorphine for Opioid Use Disorder in Primary Care: an Assessment of Provider Incentives

BACKGROUND

Primary care providers (PCPs) are essential to increasing access to office-based buprenorphine medication treatment for opioid use disorder (B-MOUD). Barriers to B-MOUD prescribing are well-documented, but there is little information regarding incentives to overcome these barriers.

OBJECTIVE

To identify optimal incentives for PCPs to promote B-MOUD prescribing and compare incentive preferences across provider and practice characteristics.

DESIGN

We surveyed PCPs using best-worst scaling (BWS) to prioritize seven potential incentives for B-MOUD prescribing (monetary compensation, paid vacation, protected time, professional development, reduced workload, service recognition, clinical resources). We then used a direct elicitation approach to determine preferred incentive levels (e.g., monetary thresholds) and types (e.g., specific clinical resources).

PARTICIPANTS

Primary care physicians and advanced practice providers (APPs) at a large Department of Veterans Affairs healthcare system.

MAIN MEASURES

B-MOUD prescribing incentive preferences and relative preference levels using descriptive statistics and conditional logistic regression with relative importance scale transformation (coefficients sum to 100, higher coefficient=greater importance).

KEY RESULTS

Fifty-three PCPs responded (73% response), including 47% APPs and 36% from community-based clinics. Reduced workload (relative importance score=26.8), protected time (18.7), and clinical resources (16.8) were significantly more preferred (Ps < 0.001) than professional development (10.5), paid vacation (10.3), or service recognition (1.5). Relative importance of monetary compensation varied between physicians (12.6) and APPs (17.5) and between PCPs located at a medical center (11.4) versus community clinic (22.3). APPs were more responsive than physicians to compensation increases of $5000 and $12,000 but less responsive to $25,000; trends were similar for medical center versus community clinic PCPs. The most frequently requested clinical resource was on-demand consult access to an addiction specialist.

CONCLUSIONS

Interventions promoting workload reductions, protected time, and clinical resources could increase access to B-MOUD in primary care. Monetary incentives may be additionally needed to improve B-MOUD prescribing among APPs and within community clinics.

Buprenorphine use and courses of care for opioid use disorder treatment within the Veterans Health Administration

BACKGROUND

Retention of patients in buprenorphine medication treatment for opioid use disorder (B-MOUD) reduces harms associated with opioid use disorder (OUD). We sought to characterize the patients receiving B-MOUD and courses of B-MOUD in a large healthcare system.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective, open cohort study of patients with OUD who either did or did not receive B-MOUD courses within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) from January 2006 through July 2019, using VHA clinical data. We compared patients receiving or not receiving B-MOUD, characterized B-MOUD courses (e.g., length and doses), and examined persistence, across patient characteristics, over time. We used analyses for normally or non-normally distributed continuous variables, categorical data, and persistence over time (Kaplan-Meier persistence curves).

RESULTS

We identified 255,726 Veterans with OUD; 40,431 (15.8%) had received 63,929 B-MOUD courses. Compared to patients with OUD without B-MOUD, patients with B-MOUD were younger, more often of white race, and had more co-morbidities. The frequency of new B-MOUD starts and prevalent B-MOUD patients ranged from 1550 and 1989 in 2007 to 8146 and 16,505 in 2018, respectively. The median duration of B-MOUD was 157 (IQR: 37-537) days for all courses and 33.8% patients had more than one course. The average proportion days covered was 90% (SD: 0.15), and the average prescribed daily dose was 13.44 (SD: 6.5).

CONCLUSIONS

Within a VHA B-MOUD cohort, courses increased more than 10-fold from 2006 to 2016 with nearly half of patients experiencing multiple courses. Patient demographics seem to dictate the length of courses.

Access to Medications for Opioid Use Disorder in Rural Versus Urban Veterans Health Administration Facilities

BACKGROUND

For patients with opioid use disorder (OUD), medications for OUD (MOUD) reduce morbidity, mortality, and return to use. Nevertheless, a minority of patients receive MOUD, and underutilization is pronounced among rural patients.

OBJECTIVE

While Veterans Health Administration (VHA) initiatives have improved MOUD access overall, it is unknown whether access has improved in rural VA health systems specifically. How "Community Care," healthcare paid for by VHA but received from non-VA providers, has affected rural access is also unknown.

DESIGN

Data for this observational study were drawn from the VHA Corporate Data Warehouse. Facility rurality was defined by rural-urban commuting area code of the primary medical center. International Classification of Diseases codes identified patients with OUD within each year, 2015-2020. We included MOUD (buprenorphine, methadone, extended-release naltrexone) received from VHA or paid for by VHA but received at non-VA facilities through Community Care. We calculated average yearly MOUD receipt; linear regression of outcomes on study years identified trends; an interaction between year and rural status evaluated trend differences over time.

PARTICIPANTS

All 129 VHA Health Systems, a designation that encompasses one or more medical centers and their affiliated community-based outpatient clinics MAIN MEASURES: The average proportion of patients diagnosed with OUD that receive MOUD within rural versus urban VHA health care systems.

KEY RESULTS

From 2015 to 2020, MOUD access increased substantially: the average proportion of patients receiving MOUD increased from 34.6 to 48.9%, with a similar proportion of patients treated with MOUD in rural and urban systems in all years. Overall, a small proportion (1.8%) of MOUD was provided via Community Care, and Community Care did not disproportionately benefit rural health systems.

CONCLUSIONS

Strategies utilized by VHA could inform other health care systems seeking to ensure that, regardless of geographic location, all patients are able to access MOUD.

Association of Selected State Policies and Requirements for Buprenorphine Treatment With Per Capita Months of Treatment

Importance

Expanding the use of buprenorphine for treating opioid use disorder is a critical component of the US response to the opioid crisis, but few studies have examined how state policies are associated with buprenorphine dispensing.

Objective

To examine the association of 6 selected state policies with the rate of individuals receiving buprenorphine per 1000 county residents.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study used 2006 to 2018 US retail pharmacy claims data for individuals dispensed buprenorphine formulations indicated for treating opioid use disorder.

Exposures

State implementation of policies requiring additional education for buprenorphine prescribers beyond waiver training, continuing medical education related to substance misuse and addiction, Medicaid coverage of buprenorphine, Medicaid expansion, mandatory prescriber use of prescription drug monitoring programs, and pain management clinic laws were examined.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcome was buprenorphine treatment months per 1000 county residents as measured using multivariable longitudinal models. Statistical analyses were conducted from September 1, 2021, through April 30, 2022, with revised analyses conducted through February 28, 2023.

Results

The mean (SD) number of months of buprenorphine treatment per 1000 persons nationally increased steadily from 1.47 (0.04) in 2006 to 22.80 (0.55) in 2018. Requiring that buprenorphine prescribers receive additional education beyond that required to obtain the federal X-waiver was associated with significant increases in the number of months of buprenorphine treatment per 1000 population in the 5 years following implementation of the requirement (from 8.51 [95% CI, 2.36-14.64] months in year 1 to 14.43 [95% CI, 2.61-26.26] months in year 5). Requiring continuing medical education for physician licensure related to substance misuse or addiction was associated with significant increases in buprenorphine treatment per 1000 population in each of the 5 years following policy implementation (from 7.01 [95% CI, 3.17-10.86] months in the first year to 11.43 [95% CI, 0.61-22.25] months in the fifth year). None of the other policies examined was associated with a significant change in buprenorphine months of treatment per 1000 county residents.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cross-sectional study of US pharmacy claims, state-mandated educational requirements beyond the initial training required to prescribe buprenorphine were associated with increased buprenorphine use over time. The findings suggest requiring education for buprenorphine prescribers and training in substance use disorder treatment for all controlled substance prescribers as an actionable proposal for increasing buprenorphine use, ultimately serving more patients. No single policy lever can ensure adequate buprenorphine supply; however, policy maker attention to the benefits of enhancing clinician education and knowledge may help to expand buprenorphine access.

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

BACKGROUND

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.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSIONS

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.

Use of and Retention on Video, Telephone, and In-Person Buprenorphine Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder During the COVID-19 Pandemic

IMPORTANCE

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic prompted policy changes to allow increased telehealth delivery of buprenorphine, a potentially lifesaving medication for opioid use disorder (OUD). It is unclear how characteristics of patients who access different treatment modalities (in-person vs telehealth, video vs telephone) vary, and whether modality is associated with retention-a key indicator of care quality.

OBJECTIVES

To compare patient characteristics across receipt of different treatment modalities and to assess whether modality was associated with retention during the year following COVID-19-related policy changes.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional study was conducted in the national Veterans Health Administration. Participants included patients who received buprenorphine for OUD during March 23, 2020, to March 22, 2021. Analyses examining retention were stratified by buprenorphine initiation time (year following COVID-19-related changes; prior to COVID-19-related changes).

EXPOSURES

Patient characteristics; treatment modality (at least 1 video visit, at least 1 telephone visit but no video, only in-person).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Treatment modality; 90-day retention.

RESULTS

Among 17 182 patients, 7094 (41.3%) were aged 30 to 44 years and 6251 (36.4%) were aged 45 to 64 years; 15 835 (92.2%) were male, 14 085 (82.0%) were White, and 16 292 (94.8%) were non-Hispanic; 6547 (38.1%) had at least 1 video visit, 8524 (49.6%) had at least 1 telephone visit but no video visit, and 2111 (12.3%) had only in-person visits. Patients who were younger, male, Black, unknown race, Hispanic, non-service connected, or had specific mental health/substance use comorbidities were less likely to receive any telehealth. Among patients who received telehealth, those who were older, male, Black, non-service connected, or experiencing homelessness and/or housing instability were less likely to have video visits. Retention was significantly higher for patients with telehealth compared with only in-person visits regardless of initiation time (for initiated in year following COVID-19-related changes: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.31; 95% CI, 1.12-1.53; for initiated prior to COVID-19-related changes: aOR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.08-1.39). Among patients with telehealth, higher retention was observed in those with video visits compared with only telephone for patients who initiated in the year following COVID-19 (aOR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.26-1.71).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cross-sectional study, many patients accessed buprenorphine via telephone and some were less likely to have any video visits. These findings suggest that discontinuing or reducing telephone access may disrupt treatment for many patients, particularly groups with access disparities such as Black patients and those experiencing homelessness. Telehealth was associated with increased retention for both new and continuing patients.

Effects of Buprenorphine Dose and Therapeutic Engagement on Illicit Opiate Use in Opioid Use Disorder Treatment Trials

The impact of agonist dose and of physician, staff and patient engagement on treatment have not been evaluated together in an analysis of treatment for opioid use disorder. Our hypotheses were that greater agonist dose and therapeutic engagement would be associated with reduced illicit opiate use in a time-dependent manner. Publicly-available treatment data from six buprenorphine efficacy and safety trials from the Federally-supported Clinical Trials Network were used to derive treatment variables. Three novel predictors were constructed to capture the time weighted effects of buprenorphine dosage (mg buprenorphine per day), dosing protocol (whether physician could adjust dose), and clinic visits (whether patient attended clinic). We used time-in-trial as a predictor to account for the therapeutic benefits of treatment persistence. The outcome was illicit opiate use defined by self-report or urinalysis. Trial participants (N = 3022 patients with opioid dependence, mean age 36 years, 33% female, 14% Black, 16% Hispanic) were analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model. Treatment variables dose, Odds Ratio (OR) = 0.63 (95% Confidence Interval (95%CI) 0.59−0.67), dosing protocol, OR = 0.70 (95%CI 0.65−0.76), time-in-trial, OR = 0.75 (95%CI 0.71−0.80) and clinic visits, OR = 0.81 (95%CI 0.76−0.87) were significant (p-values < 0.001) protective factors. Treatment implications support higher doses of buprenorphine and greater engagement of patients with providers and clinic staff.