Buprenorphine prescription dispensing rates and characteristics following federal changes in prescribing policy, 2017-2018: A cross-sectional study

Medication for Opioid Use Disorder in Federally Qualified Health Centers

This cross-sectional study examines changes in and factors associated with rates of patients with substance use disorder receiving medication for opioid use at federally qualified health centers.

Policy priorities to improve access to advanced practice nursing care for mental health and substance use problems: An American Academy of Nursing manuscript

Nearly 50% of the U.S. population struggles with a mental health or substance use disorder in their lifetime, yet a substantial number are unable to receive treatment or are undertreated due to significant shortages and disparities in the mental health workforce. These shortages and disparities contribute to health inequities that leave already-vulnerable populations at increased risk for detrimental consequences. Access to mental health and substance use treatment could be improved by better utilizing the Advanced Practice nursing workforce providing care in mental health and substance use treatment, and by better defining Advanced Practice nursing roles, including those with specialty certifications in mental health and substance-related care. This paper makes policy recommendations to better define, grow, and more fully utilize the Advanced Practice nursing workforce providing mental health and substance-related services.

Evaluation of medications used for opioid use disorder in emergency departments: A cross-sectional analysis of the 2020 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey

INTRODUCTION

Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a significant health issue impacting millions in the United States (US). Medications used for OUD (MOUD) (e.g., buprenorphine, methadone, naltrexone) and medications for overdose and symptom management (e.g., naloxone, clonidine) have been shown to be safe and effective tools in clinical management. MOUD therapy in Emergency Departments (EDs) improves patient outcomes and enhances engagement with formal addiction treatment; however, provider factors and institutional barriers have created hurdles to ED-based MOUD treatment and heterogeneity in ED based OUD care. We used a nationally representative dataset, the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) to characterize MOUD prescribing practices across patient demographics, geographic regions, payers, providers, and comorbidities in EDs.

METHODS

NHAMCS is a survey conducted by the US Census Bureau assessing utilization of ambulatory healthcare services nationally. Survey staff compile encounter records from a nationally representative sample of EDs. We conducted a cross-sectional study using this data to assess visits in 2020 among patients aged 18-64 presenting with an opioid overdose or OUD. We estimated the proportion of patients who had any MOUD, clonidine, or naloxone treatment and 95% confidence intervals (CI). We modeled the association between patient demographic, location, comorbidities, and provider characteristics with receipt of MOUD treatment as unadjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% CI.

RESULTS

There was a weighted frequency of 469,434 patients who were discharged from EDs after being seen for OUD or overdose. Naloxone, clonidine, and buprenorphine were the most frequent treatments administered and/or prescribed for OUDs or overdose. Overall, 54,123 (11.5%, 95%CI 0-128,977) patients who were discharged from the ED for OUDs or overdose received at least one type of MOUD. Hispanic race, (OR 17.9, 95%CI 1.33-241.90) and Western region (OR43.77, 95%CI 2.97-645.27) were associated with increased odds of receiving MOUDs, while arrival by ambulance was associated with decreased odds of receiving MOUDs (OR0.01, 95%CI 0.001-0.19). Being seen by an APP or physician assistant was associated with MOUD treatment (OR 16.68, 95%CI: 1.41-152.33; OR: 13.84, 95%CI: 3.58-53.51, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Our study findings suggest that MOUD and other medications for opioid overdose are infrequently used in the ED setting. This finding was especially notable in race, geographic region, mode of arrival, and those seen by APP, underscoring the need for further study into the root causes of these disparities. Our study provides a foundational understanding of MOUD patterns, guiding future research as the landscape of OUD treatment continues to shift.

Federal Impacts on Buprenorphine Prescribing in Washington State, 2012 to 2022

Objectives. To evaluate changes in monthly buprenorphine dispensation associated with federal prescribing policies in Washington State from 2012 to 2022. Methods. We conducted an interrupted time series analysis comparing monthly buprenorphine prescriptions dispensed per 1000 population after the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act (CARA), Substance Use-Disorder Prevention That Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment for Patients and Communities Act (SUPPORT), and new prescribing rules during the COVID-19 pandemic. Buprenorphine formulated for opioid use disorder was included from the Washington State Prescription Monitoring Program. A log-linear autoregressive model measured linear trend changes. Results. Physician prescribing increased by 1.63% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.41%, 1.85%) per month after CARA with sustained declines after SUPPORT. Nurse practitioner (NP) prescribing increased by 19.48% (95% CI = 18.8%, 20.16%) per month after CARA with physician assistants (PAs) showing similar trends. Following the implementation of SUPPORT, NP and PA trends continued to increase at a reduced growth rate of 3.96% (95% CI = 2.01%, 5.94%) and 1.87% (95% CI = 0.56%, 3.19%), respectively. No prescribers experienced increases during the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusions. CARA nearly tripled the buprenorphine prescribing rate. The SUPPORT Act initiated sustained declines for physician prescribing, and the COVID-19 period reversed gains for PAs and NPs. The current opioid crisis requires expanded efforts in Washington State. (Am J Public Health. 2024;114(7):696-704. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2024.307649).

Preventable Premature Deaths from the Five Leading Causes of Death in Nonmetropolitan and Metropolitan Counties, United States, 2010-2022

Problem/Condition

A 2019 report quantified the higher percentage of potentially excess (preventable) deaths in U.S. nonmetropolitan areas compared with metropolitan areas during 2010-2017. In that report, CDC compared national, regional, and state estimates of preventable premature deaths from the five leading causes of death in nonmetropolitan and metropolitan counties during 2010-2017. This report provides estimates of preventable premature deaths for additional years (2010-2022).

Period Covered

2010-2022.

Description of System

Mortality data for U.S. residents from the National Vital Statistics System were used to calculate preventable premature deaths from the five leading causes of death among persons aged <80 years. CDC's National Center for Health Statistics urban-rural classification scheme for counties was used to categorize the deaths according to the urban-rural county classification level of the decedent's county of residence (1: large central metropolitan [most urban], 2: large fringe metropolitan, 3: medium metropolitan, 4: small metropolitan, 5: micropolitan, and 6: noncore [most rural]). Preventable premature deaths were defined as deaths among persons aged <80 years that exceeded the number expected if the death rates for each cause in all states were equivalent to those in the benchmark states (i.e., the three states with the lowest rates). Preventable premature deaths were calculated separately for the six urban-rural county categories nationally, the 10 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services public health regions, and the 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Results

During 2010-2022, the percentage of preventable premature deaths among persons aged <80 years in the United States increased for unintentional injury (e.g., unintentional poisoning including drug overdose, unintentional motor vehicle traffic crash, unintentional drowning, and unintentional fall) and stroke, decreased for cancer and chronic lower respiratory disease (CLRD), and remained stable for heart disease. The percentages of preventable premature deaths from the five leading causes of death were higher in rural counties in all years during 2010-2022. When assessed by the six urban-rural county classifications, percentages of preventable premature deaths in the most rural counties (noncore) were consistently higher than in the most urban counties (large central metropolitan and fringe metropolitan) for the five leading causes of death during the study period.During 2010-2022, preventable premature deaths from heart disease increased most in noncore (+9.5%) and micropolitan counties (+9.1%) and decreased most in large central metropolitan counties (-10.2%). Preventable premature deaths from cancer decreased in all county categories, with the largest decreases in large central metropolitan and large fringe metropolitan counties (-100.0%; benchmark achieved in both county categories in 2019). In all county categories, preventable premature deaths from unintentional injury increased, with the largest increases occurring in large central metropolitan (+147.5%) and large fringe metropolitan (+97.5%) counties. Preventable premature deaths from CLRD decreased most in large central metropolitan counties where the benchmark was achieved in 2019 and increased slightly in noncore counties (+0.8%). In all county categories, preventable premature deaths from stroke decreased from 2010 to 2013, remained constant from 2013 to 2019, and then increased in 2020 at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Percentages of preventable premature deaths varied across states by urban-rural county classification during 2010-2022.

Interpretation

During 2010-2022, nonmetropolitan counties had higher percentages of preventable premature deaths from the five leading causes of death than did metropolitan counties nationwide, across public health regions, and in most states. The gap between the most rural and most urban counties for preventable premature deaths increased during 2010-2022 for four causes of death (cancer, heart disease, CLRD, and stroke) and decreased for unintentional injury. Urban and suburban counties (large central metropolitan, large fringe metropolitan, medium metropolitan, and small metropolitan) experienced increases in preventable premature deaths from unintentional injury during 2010-2022, leading to a narrower gap between the already high (approximately 69% in 2022) percentage of preventable premature deaths in noncore and micropolitan counties. Sharp increases in preventable premature deaths from unintentional injury, heart disease, and stroke were observed in 2020, whereas preventable premature deaths from CLRD and cancer continued to decline. CLRD deaths decreased during 2017-2020 but increased in 2022. An increase in the percentage of preventable premature deaths for multiple leading causes of death was observed in 2020 and was likely associated with COVID-19-related conditions that contributed to increased mortality from heart disease and stroke.

Public Health Action

Routine tracking of preventable premature deaths based on urban-rural county classification might enable public health departments to identify and monitor geographic disparities in health outcomes. These disparities might be related to different levels of access to health care, social determinants of health, and other risk factors. Identifying areas with a high prevalence of potentially preventable mortality might be informative for interventions.

Real-World Dispensing of Buprenorphine in California during Prepandemic and Pandemic Periods

INTRODUCTION

The opioid overdose crisis in the United States has become a significant national emergency. Buprenorphine, a primary medication for individuals coping with opioid use disorder (OUD), presents promising pharmacokinetic properties for use in primary care settings, and is often delivered as a take-home therapy. The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated the scarcity of access to buprenorphine, leading to dire consequences for those with OUD. Most existing studies, primarily focused on the immediate aftermath of the COVID-19 outbreak, highlight the challenges in accessing medications for opioid use disorder (MOUDs), particularly buprenorphine. However, these studies only cover a relatively short timeframe.

METHODS

To bridge this research gap, in our study, we utilized 33 months of California's prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) data to provide insights into real-world buprenorphine dispensing trends since the onset of the pandemic from 2018 to 2021, focusing on outcomes such as patient counts, prescription volumes, prescriber involvement, days' supply, and dosage. Statistical analysis employed interrupted time series analysis to measure changes in trends before and during the pandemic.

RESULTS

We found no significant impact on patient counts or prescription volumes during the pandemic, although it impeded the upward trajectory of prescriber numbers that was evident prior to the onset of the pandemic. An immediate increase in days' supply per prescription was observed post-pandemic.

CONCLUSION

Our findings differ in comparison to previous data regarding the raw monthly count of patients and prescriptions. The analysis encompassed uninsured patients, offering a comprehensive perspective on buprenorphine prescribing in California. Our study's insights contribute to understanding the impact of COVID-19 on buprenorphine access, emphasizing the need for policy adjustments.

Racial/ethnic disparities in timely receipt of buprenorphine among Medicare disability beneficiaries

BACKGROUND

Medicare disability beneficiaries (MDBs) have disproportionately high risk of opioid use disorder (OUD) and related harms given high rates of comorbidities and high-dose opioid prescribing. Despite this increased risk, little is known about timely receipt of medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD), including potential disparities by patient race/ethnicity or moderation by county-level characteristics.

METHODS

National Medicare claims for a sample of MDBs with incident OUD diagnosis between March 2016 and June 2019 were linked with county-level data. Multivariable mixed effects Cox proportional hazards models estimated time (in days) to buprenorphine receipt within 180 days of incident OUD diagnosis. Primary exposures included individual-level race/ethnicity and county-level buprenorphine prescriber availability, percent non-Hispanic white (NHW) residents, and Social Deprivation Index (SDI) score.

RESULTS

The sample (n=233,079) was predominantly White (72.3%), ≥45 years old (76.3%), and male (54.8%). Black (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]=0.50; 95% CI, 0.47-0.54), Asian/Pacific Islander (aHR=0.54; 95% CI, 0.41-0.72), Hispanic/Latinx (aHR=0.81; 95% CI, 0.76-0.87), and Other racial/ethnic groups (aHR=0.75; 95% CI, 0.58-0.97) had a lower likelihood of timely buprenorphine than non-Hispanic white beneficiaries after adjusting for individual and county-level confounders. Timely buprenorphine receipt was positively associated with county-level buprenorphine prescriber availability (aHR=1.05; 95% CI, 1.04-1.07), percent non-Hispanic white residents (aHR=1.01; 95% CI, 1.00-1.01), and SDI (aHR=1.06; 95% CI, 1.01-1.10).

CONCLUSIONS

Racial/ethnic disparities highlight the need to improve access to care for underserved groups. Implementing equity-focused quality and performance measures and developing interventions to increase office-based buprenorphine prescribing in predominantly minority race/ethnicity counties may reduce disparities in timely access to medication for OUD.

Trends in Characteristics of Prescription Opioid-related Poisonings among Older Adults in the United States, 2015-2021

OBJECTIVES

Few studies have considered how trends in opioid poisonings have changed among older adults. The objective of this study was to examine trends in fatal and nonfatal opioid-related poisonings ("exposures") among older adults.

METHODS

National poison center data were used to examine trends in characteristics of reported exposures to commonly prescribed opioids between 2015 and 2021 among adults 60 years or older. We estimated the proportion of opioid exposures by demographic characteristics, the specific opioid(s) involved, exposure type, route of administration, other substances co-used, and medical outcomes for each calendar year. We estimated whether there were linear changes in prevalence by year using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Although there was a decrease in the number of opioid exposures within the study population from 7706 in 2015 to 7337 in 2021 (a 4.8% decrease, P = 0.04), exposures increased for adults aged 70 to 79 years (a 14.0% increase, P < 0.001). The proportion classified as "abuse" increased by 63.3% ( P < 0.001). There were significant decreases in the proportion involving hydromorphone (a 23.3% decrease, P < 0.001) and morphine (a 22.0% decrease, P < 0.001), with an increase involving buprenorphine (a 216.0% increase, P < 0.001). The proportion increased for co-use of cocaine (a 488.9% increase, P < 0.001) and methamphetamine (a 220.0% increase, P = 0.02), with a decrease in co-use of benzodiazepines (a 25.5% decrease, P < 0.001). The proportion of major medical outcomes increased by 93.9% ( P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

National patterns of opioid-related poisonings are shifting among older adults, including the types of opioids involved and co-use of other drugs. These results can inform prevention and harm reduction efforts aimed at older adults.

Closing the Opioid Treatment Gap Through Advance Practice Nursing Activation: Curricular Design and Initial Outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Buprenorphine, an effective medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD), reduces opioid-related harms including overdose, but a significant gap exists between MOUD need and treatment, especially for marginalized populations. Historically, low MOUD treatment capacity is rising, driven by advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs). A graduate nursing course was designed to increase equitable buprenorphine treatment delivery by APRNs. We report on baseline findings of a curriculum evaluation study with a pretest-posttest design.

DESIGN

Computerized surveys assessed trainee satisfaction with the course, trainee knowledge for providing MOUD, and trainee satisfaction in working with people who use drugs.

METHODS

Quantitative survey results utilizing Likert scales are presented.

RESULTS

Baseline precourse surveys revealed less than half (44%) of APRN students agreed/strongly agreed that they had a working knowledge of drugs and drug-related problems and 37% agreed/strongly agreed that they knew enough about the causes of drug problems to carry out their roles when working with people who use drugs. Approximately two thirds of APRN students agreed/strongly agreed that they want to work with people who use drugs (63%), that it is satisfying to work with people who use drugs (66%), and that it is rewarding to work with people who use drugs (63%). Nearly all students reported high satisfaction with the course.

CONCLUSION

APRN students reported high satisfaction with a novel course grounded in health equity that has potential to reduce health disparities and accelerate the closure of the MOUD treatment gap, particularly for racial/ethnic minorities, rural populations, and transition-age youth.

Nurse prescribing practices across the globe for medication-assisted treatment of the opioid use disorder (MOUD): a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Despite the dramatic increase in opioid-related deaths in recent years, global access to treatment remains poor. A major barrier to people accessing Medication-assisted treatment of the opioid use disorder (MOUD) is the lack of providers who can prescribe and monitor MOUD. According to the World Drug Report, more young people are using drugs compared with previous generations and people in need of treatment cannot get it, women most of all. Nurse prescribers have the potential to enhance both access and treatment outcomes. Nurse prescribing practices do, however, vary greatly internationally. The aim of this scoping review is to explore nurse prescribing practices for MOUD globally with a view to informing equitable access and policies for people seeking MOUD.

METHODS

This scoping review was informed by the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Electronic searches from 2010 to date were conducted on the following databases: PsycInfo, PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL. Only studies that met the eligibility criteria and described nurse prescribing policies and/or behaviours for MOUD were included.

RESULTS

A total of 22 articles were included in the review which found several barriers and enablers to nurse prescribing of MOUD. Barriers included legislation constraints, lack of professional education and training and the presence of stigmatizing attitudes. Enablers included the presence of existing supportive services, prosocial messaging, and nurse prescriber autonomy.

CONCLUSION

The safety and efficacy of nurse prescribing of MOUD is well established, and its expansion can provide a range of advantages to people who are dependent on opiates. This includes increasing access to treatment. Nurse prescribing of MOUD can increase the numbers of people in treatment from 'hard to reach' cohorts such as rural settings, or those with less financial means. It holds significant potential to reduce a wide range of harms and costs associated with high-risk opiate use. To reduce drug-related death and the global burden of harm to individuals, families, and communities, there is an urgent need to address the two key priorities of nurse prescriber legislation and education. Both of which are possible given political and educational commitment.

Reducing Drug Overdose Deaths: Significant Changes Needed in U.S. Drug Treatment Policy

Slow and incremental changes in federal and state drug policies are neither meeting treatment needs nor reversing yearly increases in drug-related mortality. U.S. drug policies convey confounding messages that non-sanctioned substance use leads to health problems that need treatment while simultaneously being legal problems that must be punished. As a result, drug treatments remain a sequestered component of health care, with onerous treatment requirements for patients and providers that act as barriers to the treatment that policies seek to allow. A new direction in drug policy is needed that broadens rather than restricts access to care and that also focuses on prevention. Policies must consider the totality of health and wellness, not just "last resort" safety nets for urgent needs. For substantive change in drug-related morbidity and mortality, forward-thinking policy must focus more on addiction prevention and address the known risks of developing a substance use disorder. [Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services, 61(6), 7-10.].

Change in opioid and buprenorphine prescribers and prescriptions by specialty, 2016-2021

BACKGROUND

Safer opioid analgesic prescribing and increasing use of medications for opioid use disorder, including buprenorphine, are strategies prioritized to reduce opioid overdose deaths in the United States. Specialty-specific trends in the number of prescribers and prescriptions for opioid analgesics and buprenorphine are not well characterized.

METHODS

We used data from the IQVIA Longitudinal Prescription database for January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2021. We identified opioid and buprenorphine prescriptions based on NDC codes. We classified prescribers into one of 14 mutually exclusive specialty groups. We calculated the number of prescribers and number of prescriptions for opioids and buprenorphine by specialty and year.

RESULTS

From 2016 to 2021, the total number of opioid analgesic prescriptions dispensed decreased by 32% to 121,693,308 and the number of unique opioid analgesic prescribers decreased 7% to 966,369. Over the same time period, the number of buprenorphine prescriptions dispensed increased 36% to 13,909,724 and unique number of buprenorphine prescribers increased 86% to 59,090. Across most specialties we identified a contraction in the number of opioid prescriptions dispensed and opioid prescribers and an expansion in the number of buprenorphine prescriptions dispensed. Among high-volume opioid prescribing specialties, the largest decrease in opioid prescribers was 32% among Pain Medicine clinicians. By 2021, Advanced Practice Practitioners overtook Primary Care clinicians as the highest volume buprenorphine prescribers.

CONCLUSIONS

More work is needed to understand the impact of clinicians who stop prescribing opioids. While the trend in buprenorphine prescribing is encouraging, further expansion is warranted to meet the underlying need.

Buprenorphine Utilization and Prescribing Among New Jersey Medicaid Beneficiaries After Adoption of Initiatives Designed to Improve Treatment Access

Importance

Buprenorphine is underutilized as a treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD); state policies may improve buprenorphine access and utilization.

Objective

To assess buprenorphine prescribing trends following New Jersey Medicaid initiatives designed to improve access.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional interrupted time series analysis included New Jersey Medicaid beneficiaries who were prescribed buprenorphine and had 12 months continuous Medicaid enrollment, OUD diagnosis, and no Medicare dual eligibility, as well as physician or advanced practitioners who prescribed buprenorphine to Medicaid beneficiaries. The study used Medicaid claims data from 2017 to 2021.

Exposure

Implementation of New Jersey Medicaid initiatives in 2019 that removed prior authorizations, increased reimbursement for office-based OUD treatment, and established regional Centers of Excellence.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Rate of buprenorphine receipt per 1000 beneficiaries with OUD; percentage of new buprenorphine episodes lasting at least 180 days; buprenorphine prescribing rate per 1000 Medicaid prescribers, overall and by specialty.

Results

Of 101 423 Medicaid beneficiaries (mean [SD] age, 41.0 [11.6] years; 54 726 [54.0%] male; 30 071 [29.6%] Black, 10 143 [10.0%] Hispanic, and 51 238 [50.5%] White), 20 090 filled at least 1 prescription for buprenorphine from 1788 prescribers. Policy implementation was associated with an inflection point in buprenorphine prescribing trend; after implementation, the trend increased by 36%, from 1.29 (95% CI, 1.02-1.56) prescriptions per 1000 beneficiaries with OUD to 1.76 (95% CI, 1.46-2.06) prescriptions per 1000 beneficiaries with OUD. Among beneficiaries with new buprenorphine episodes, the percentage retained for at least 180 days was stable before and after initiatives were implemented. The initiatives were associated with an increase in the growth rate of buprenorphine prescribers (0.43 per 1000 prescribers; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.51 per 1000 prescribers). Trends were similar across specialties, but increases were most pronounced among primary care and emergency medicine physicians (eg, primary care: 0.42 per 1000 prescribers; 95% CI, 0.32-0.53 per 1000 prescribers). Advanced practitioners accounted for a growing percentage of buprenorphine prescribers, with a monthly increase of 0.42 per 1000 prescribers (95% CI, 0.32-0.52 per 1000 prescribers). A secondary analysis to test for changes associated with non-state-specific secular trends in prescribing found that quarterly trends in buprenorphine prescriptions increased in New Jersey relative to all other states following initiative implementation.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cross-sectional study of state-level New Jersey Medicaid initiatives designed to expand buprenorphine access, implementation was associated with an upward trend in buprenorphine prescribing and receipt. No change was observed in the percentage of new buprenorphine treatment episodes lasting 180 or more days, indicating that retention remains a challenge. Findings support implementation of similar initiatives but highlight the need for efforts to support long-term retention.

Opioid Use Disorder Practice by Licensure Category in North Carolina

Background

Nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and certified nurse midwives, collectively known as advanced practice providers (APPs), are critical members of the opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment workforce. Few studies compare the OUD treatment practice patterns of APPs relative to physicians.

Methods

In this cross-sectional study, we distributed a survey examining general substance use disorder (SUD) and OUD-specific treat-ment practices to all licensed physicians and APPs in North Carolina, resulting in a sample of 332 respondents. Respondents were asked about screening, referrals, and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) X-waiver status. Waivered providers were asked about prescribing buprenorphine. Differences in practice patterns by provider type were examined using descriptive statistics and chi-squared tests.

Results

Practice patterns were similar between APPs and physicians; however, more APPs reported screening their patients for SUDs (83.3% versus 69.4%, p = .0045). Of the providers who were waivered to prescribe buprenorphine, APPs and physicians were equally likely to be currently prescribing buprenorphine (75.8% versus 77.1%, p = .8900).

Limitations

This was a descriptive cross-sectional study using self-report data from a purposive sample and may not be representative of all providers.

Conclusions

Our results describe practice patterns for APPs and physicians and differences that may be reflective of regulations and therapeutic approaches. Similarities in obtaining an X-waiver and prescribing buprenorphine suggest that reducing restrictions on APPs may result in a larger treatment workforce.

Building medication for opioid use disorder prescriber capacity during the opioid epidemic: Prescriber recruitment trends and methods

INTRODUCTION

Physicians are a critical clinical resource for patient care. Yet physician recruitment has been considerably understudied, particularly in substance use disorder (SUD) settings. This study proposes a conceptual model called the "Physician Recruitment Descriptive Factors Framework" to investigate the role of environmental, organizational, and individual factors in the use of physician recruitment strategies.

METHODS

The study setting was 75 sites that provided outpatient SUD treatment services in Florida, Ohio, and Wisconsin from 2016 to 2019. Central to the analysis is the use of five targeted physician recruitment strategies. The study investigated whether financial conditions, location (urban v. non-urban), external implementation coaching, and recruiters' roles influenced use of the targeted physician recruitment strategies.

RESULTS

During the study period, a formal plan to recruit physicians was the most common strategy used (n = 67.6 %). The director or chief executive officer (CEO) was most likely to conduct physician recruitment (n = 58.7 %). During the study, use of four of the five recruitment strategies significantly declined (at p ≤ 0.01), while the perceived need for new prescribing capacity significantly declined (p ≤ 0.01), and prescribers per site increased from 1.54 to 3.21. Sixty-four percent of this increase in prescribers was due to more physician prescribers, while 36 % was due to the onset of the ability of advanced nurse practitioners and physician assistants to prescribe buprenorphine. In year 3 of the study, the strategies most closely aligned with the current number of prescribers were conducting weekly outreach to prescriber candidates (p = .018), having a dedicated prescriber recruiter (p = .011), and having a dedicated budget for prescriber recruiting (p = .002).

CONCLUSIONS

The study describes which physician recruitment strategies SUD treatment sites used and how the need to recruit physicians for specialty treatment SUD clinics declined as prescriber capacity increased. The proposed multi-level framework provides the scaffolding for future physician recruitment research and practice.

Effects of buprenorphine on opioid craving in comparison to other medications for opioid use disorder: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Craving is a distressing symptom of opioid use disorder (OUD) that can be alleviated with medications for OUD (MOUD). Buprenorphine is an effective MOUD that may suppress craving; however, treatment discontinuation and resumed opioid use is common during the early phases of treatment. More information on the craving response through the high-risk period of initiating buprenorphine may provide meaningful information on how to better target craving, which in turn may enhance outcomes. This systematic review investigated buprenorphine doses and formulations on craving during the induction and maintenance phases of treatment, and for context also compared the craving response to other MOUD (i.e., methadone, extended-release naltrexone [XR-NTX]).

METHODS

PubMed, PsycInfo, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases were searched for randomized trials of buprenorphine versus placebo, various buprenorphine formulations/doses, or other MOUD that included a measure of opioid craving.

RESULTS

A total of 10 studies were selected for inclusion. Buprenorphine and buprenorphine/naloxone (BUP/NAL) were each associated with lower craving than placebo over time. Craving was greater among those prescribed lower versus higher buprenorphine doses. In comparison to other MOUD, buprenorphine or BUP/NAL was linked to greater craving than methadone in 3 of the 6 studies. BUP/NAL was associated with greater reported craving than XR-NTX.

DISCUSSION

Craving is reduced over time with buprenorphine and BUP/NAL, although other MOUD may provide greater reductions in craving. Although there is currently considerable variability in the measurement of craving, it may be a valuable concept to address with individuals receiving MOUD, especially early in treatment.

Buprenorphine Dispensing Among Youth Aged ≤19 Years in the United States: 2015-2020

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Opioid related overdose among adolescents and young adults in the United States is rising. Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), including buprenorphine can reduce the risk of overdose, however they are underutilized. A better understanding of buprenorphine prescribing to youth will help inform interventions to expand access to treatment.

METHODS

We used IQVIA data to examine buprenorphine dispensing trends among youth aged ≤19 years from 2015 to 2020. Dispensing was examined by prescriber specialty, age, and sex. Data were weighted to provide national estimates.

RESULTS

The rate of buprenorphine dispensed to youth decreased 25% over the study period, from 0.84 to 0.63 prescriptions per 1000 youth per year. The proportion of youth dispensed buprenorphine also decreased 45%, from 7.6 to 4.2 persons per 100 000 per year. Over the same time, the proportion of adults aged ≥20 years dispensed buprenorphine increased 47%, from 378 to 593 persons per 100 000. Differences in dispensing by sex and temporal trends were also noted. Pediatricians accounted for less-than 2% of all prescriptions dispensed.

CONCLUSIONS

Buprenorphine dispensing to youth is low and declining in recent years. Given rates of opioid use disorder among youth, these findings suggest that many youth who could benefit from MOUD are not receiving it. Pediatricians could play a role in expanding access to MOUD for this high-risk population. Efforts to expand access to MOUD for adolescents could include improving training in opioid use disorder treatment of pediatricians and encouraging all clinicians who care for adolescents and young adults to obtain waivers to prescribe buprenorphine for MOUD.

Characterization of Unintentional Deaths Among Buprenorphine Users

OBJECTIVE

Medications used to treat opioid use disorder (OUD) reduce drug overdose risk. Buprenorphine is often the preferred treatment for OUD because of its high safety profile. Given expanding buprenorphine use, this study sought to examine buprenorphine-involved deaths (BIDs) and compare them with other drug-related deaths.

METHOD

West Virginia drug-related deaths from 2005 to early 2020 were identified. Study data included decedent demographics, toxicology, autopsy findings, and medical and prescription histories. Characteristics of BIDs compared with other drug-related deaths were statistically analyzed.

RESULTS

Among 11,764 drug-related deaths, only 564 (4.8%) involved buprenorphine. Buprenorphine alone was present in 32 deaths, of which 20 were considered the direct cause of death (0.2% of all drug-related deaths). Significantly more BIDs involved five or more drugs (23%) compared with other opioid deaths (14.9%). Co-intoxicants found most frequently in BIDs were benzodiazepines (47.3%), methamphetamine (27.1%), and fentanyl (22.9%). Cardiovascular and pulmonary comorbidities were identified in 43% and 21% of BIDs, respectively. Of the 564 BIDs, a current buprenorphine prescription was present in 132 deaths (23.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite increasing buprenorphine use, BIDs comprised less than 5% of overall West Virginia drug-related deaths. Seldom was it the only drug found, and most decedents did not have current prescriptions for buprenorphine. Although buprenorphine is effective, with a wide safety margin, clinicians and patients should be aware that buprenorphine can be involved in overdose deaths, especially when buprenorphine is taken in combination with drugs such as benzodiazepines, methamphetamine, or fentanyl, and in persons with underlying cardiovascular or pulmonary comorbidities.

Top Ten Tips Palliative Care Clinicians Should Know About Buprenorphine

Pain management in palliative care (PC) is becoming more complex as patients survive longer with life-limiting illnesses and population-wide trends involving opioid misuse become more common in serious illness. Buprenorphine, a generally safe partial mu-opioid receptor agonist, has been shown to be effective for both pain management and opioid use disorder. It is critical that PC clinicians become comfortable with indications for its use, strategies for initiation while understanding risks and benefits. This article, written by a team of PC and addiction-trained specialists, including physicians, nurse practitioners, social workers, and a pharmacist, offers 10 tips to demystify buprenorphine use in serious illness.

Exploring county-level spatio-temporal patterns in opioid overdose related emergency department visits

Opioid overdoses within the United States continue to rise and have been negatively impacting the social and economic status of the country. In order to effectively allocate resources and identify policy solutions to reduce the number of overdoses, it is important to understand the geographical differences in opioid overdose rates and their causes. In this study, we utilized data on emergency department opioid overdose (EDOOD) visits to explore the county-level spatio-temporal distribution of opioid overdose rates within the state of Virginia and their association with aggregate socio-ecological factors. The analyses were performed using a combination of techniques including Moran's I and multilevel modeling. Using data from 2016-2021, we found that Virginia counties had notable differences in their EDOOD visit rates with significant neighborhood-level associations: many counties in the southwestern region were consistently identified as the hotspots (areas with a higher concentration of EDOOD visits) whereas many counties in the northern region were consistently identified as the coldspots (areas with a lower concentration of EDOOD visits). In most Virginia counties, EDOOD visit rates declined from 2017 to 2018. In more recent years (since 2019), the visit rates showed an increasing trend. The multilevel modeling revealed that the change in clinical care factors (i.e., access to care and quality of care) and socio-economic factors (i.e., levels of education, employment, income, family and social support, and community safety) were significantly associated with the change in the EDOOD visit rates. The findings from this study have the potential to assist policymakers in proper resource planning thereby improving health outcomes.

The impact of CARA mandates on nurse practitioner controlled substance prescribing in Oregon: a cohort study

Background

In 2017, the United States Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act (CARA) expanded authorization to prescribe buprenorphine for opioid use disorder (OUD) to nurse practitioners (NPs). Compared to physicians, NPs were required to complete 16 additional hours of training on controlled substance prescribing before a buprenorphine waiver application. As this differential additional education mandate was seen as a potential barrier, we evaluated the impact of this requirement on both NP waiver acquisition and prescribing of controlled substances, comparing NPs who obtained waivers to those who had not.

Methods

Through 2016–2018 Oregon Prescription Drug Monitoring Program and linked NP licensure data, we identified factors associated with waiver acquisition at baseline (2016) and evaluated changes in controlled substance prescribing before (2016) and after waiver acquisition (2018). Using chi-square and Mann-Whitney U testing, we calculated and described controlled substance prescribing types, rates, and patient level quantities including co-prescribing of benzodiazepines and opioids by NPs. Multivariable linear regression compared prescribing by waivered and non-waivered NPs for significant changes in non-buprenorphine controlled substance prescribing.

Results

Waivered NPs were more likely to have a psychiatric certification, have prior disciplinary action, and have generally higher levels of non-buprenorphine controlled substance prescribing than their non-waivered counterparts. While there was a significant increase in opioid prescriptions per patient among waivered NPs, following CARA implementation, co-prescribing of benzodiazepines and opioids significantly declined among waivered NPs relative to non-waivered NPs.

Conclusions

Although educational requirements were rescinded in 2021 for most applicants, enhanced opioid prescribing training should be incorporated into professional educational offerings regardless of regulatory mandate. We recommended continued focus on education regarding avoidance of high risk prescribing such as co-prescribing of opioids and benzodiazepines. NPs who acquire waivers may take on higher risk patients already using opioids, and these findings may represent transitions in practice and patient setting.

Perceptions of buprenorphine barriers and efficacy among nurse practitioners and physician assistants

Background

Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUDs), including methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone, decrease mortality and morbidity for people with opioid use disorder (OUD). Buprenorphine and methadone have the strongest evidence base among MOUDs. Unlike methadone, buprenorphine may be prescribed in office-based settings in the U.S., including by nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) who have a federal waiver and adhere to federal patient limits. Buprenorphine is underutilized nationally, particularly in rural areas, and NPs/PAs could help address this gap. Therefore, we sought to identify perceptions of buprenorphine efficacy and perceptions of prescribing barriers among NPs/PAs. We also sought to compare perceived buprenorphine efficacy and perceived prescribing barriers between waivered and non-waivered NPs/PAs, as well as to compare perceived buprenorphine efficacy to perceived naltrexone and methadone efficacy.

Methods

We disseminated an online survey to a random national sample of NPs/PAs. We used Mann–Whitney U tests to compare between waivered and non-waivered respondents. We used non-parametric Friedman tests and post-hoc Wilcoxon signed-rank tests to compare perceptions of medication types.

Results

240 respondents participated (6.5% response rate). Most respondents agreed buprenorphine is efficacious and believed counseling and peer support should complement buprenorphine. Buprenorphine was generally perceived as more efficacious than both naltrexone and methadone. Perceived buprenorphine efficacy and prescribing barriers differed by waiver status. Non-waivered practitioners were more likely than waivered practitioners to have concerns about buprenorphine affecting patient mix. Among waivered NPs/PAs, key buprenorphine prescribing barriers were insurance prior authorization and detoxification access.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that different policies should target perceived barriers affecting waivered versus non-waivered NPs/PAs. Concerns about patient mix suggest stigmatization of patients with OUD. NP/PA education is needed about comparative medication efficaciousness, particularly regarding methadone. Even though many buprenorphine treatment patients benefits from counseling and/or peer support groups, NPs/PAs should be informed that such psychosocial treatment methods are not necessary for all buprenorphine patients.

County-level sociodemographic differences in availability of two medications for opioid use disorder: United States, 2019

BACKGROUND

Differences in availability of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) buprenorphine and methadone exist. Factors that may influence such differences in availability include sociodemographic characteristics but research in this area is limited. We explore the association between county-level sociodemographic factors and MOUD treatment availability.

METHODS

County-level Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) data were used to determine the presence or absence of buprenorphine treatment or opioid treatment programs (OTPs) and the level of availability of these types of treatment in a county. Hurdle models were used to examine the associations of our covariates with any MOUD treatment availability and level of available treatment.

RESULTS

The odds of a county having OTP availability were higher for counties with higher percentages of non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic populations and higher drug overdose death rates. Counties with higher percentages of persons in poverty and drug overdose death rates had higher odds of maximum potential buprenorphine treatment capacity, while counties with high percentages of persons without health insurance, with disability, and rural counties had lower odds.

CONCLUSIONS

There are significant differences in the county-level availability of OTPs and buprenorphine treatment. Our findings expand on prior studies illustrating that barriers to accessing treatment persist and are not evenly distributed among sociodemographic groups, further study is needed to examine if barriers of availability translate to barriers in receiving treatment. Given the escalating overdose crisis in the U.S., expanding equitable availability of MOUD is critical. Informed strategies are needed to reach areas and populations in greatest need.

The Association Between Scope of Practice Regulations and Nurse Practitioner Prescribing of Buprenorphine After the 2016 Opioid Bill

This article examines the relationship between federal regulations, state scope-of-practice regulations on nurse practitioners (NPs), and buprenorphine prescribing patterns using pharmacy claims data from Optum's deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart between January 2015 and September 2018. The county-level proportion of patients filling prescriptions written by NPs was low even after the 2016 Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act (CARA), 2.7% in states that did not require physician oversight of NPs, and 1.1% in states that did. While analyses in rural counties showed higher rates of buprenorphine prescriptions written by NPs, rates were still considerably low: 3.7% in states with less restrictive regulations and 1.1% in other states. These results indicate that less restrictive scope-of-practice regulations are associated with greater NP prescribing following CARA. The small magnitude of the changes indicates that federal attempts to expand treatment access through CARA have been limited.

The effect of Medicaid expansion on state-level utilization of buprenorphine for opioid use disorder in the United States

BACKGROUND

Research on the impact of Medicaid expansion on buprenorphine utilization has largely focused on the Medicaid program. Less is known about its associations with total buprenorphine utilization and non-Medicaid payers.

METHODS

Monthly prescription data (June 2013-May 2018) for proprietary and generic sublingual as well as buccal buprenorphine products were purchased from IQVIA®. Population-adjusted state-level utilization measures were constructed for Medicaid, commercial insurance, Medicare, cash, and total utilization. A difference-in-differences (DID) approach with population weights estimated the association between Medicaid expansion and buprenorphine utilization, while controlling for treatment capacity.

RESULTS

Monthly total buprenorphine prescriptions increased by 68% overall and increased 283% for Medicaid, 30% for commercial insurance, and 143% for Medicare. Cash prescriptions decreased by 10%. The DID estimate for Medicaid expansion was not statistically significant for total utilization (-19.780, 95% CI = -45.118, 5.558, p = .123). For Medicaid buprenorphine utilization, there was a significant increase of 27.120 prescriptions per 100,000 total state residents (95% CI = 9.458, 44.782, p = .003) in expansion states versus non-expansion states post-Medicaid expansion. Medicaid expansion had a negative effect on commercial insurance (DID estimate = -37.745, 95% CI = -62.946, -12.544, p = .004), cash utilization (DID estimate = -6.675, 95% CI = -12.627, -0.723, p = .029), and Medicare utilization (DID estimate = -1.855, 95% CI = -3.697, -0.013, p = .048).

DISCUSSION

The associations between Medicaid expansion and buprenorphine utilization varied across different types of payers, such that the overall impact of Medicaid expansion on buprenorphine utilization was not significant.

Low-dose Buprenorphine Initiation in Hospitalized Adults With Opioid Use Disorder: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis

OBJECTIVES

Patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) can initiate buprenorphine without requiring a withdrawal period through a low-dose (sometimes referred to as "micro-induction") approach. Although there is growing interest in low-dose buprenorphine initiation, current evidence is limited to case reports and small case series.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients with OUD seen by a hospital-based addiction medicine consult service who underwent low-dose buprenorphine initiation starting during hospital admission. We then integrated our practice-based experiences with results from the existing literature to create practice considerations.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight individuals underwent 72 low-dose buprenorphine initiations between July 2019 and July 2020. Reasons for low-dose versus standard buprenorphine initiation included co-occurring pain (91.7%), patient anxiety around the possibility of withdrawal (69.4%), history of precipitated withdrawal (9.7%), opioid withdrawal intolerance (6.9%), and other reason/not specified (18.1%). Of the 72 low-dose buprenorphine initiations, 50 (69.4%) were completed in the hospital, 9 (12.5%) transitioned to complete as an outpatient, and 13 (18.1%) were terminated early. We apply our experiences and findings from literature to recommendations for varied clinical scenarios, including acute illness, co-occurring pain, opioid withdrawal intolerance, transition from high dose methadone to buprenorphine, history of precipitated withdrawal, and rapid hospital discharge. We share a standard low-dose initiation protocol with potential modifications based on above scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS

Low-dose buprenorphine initiation offers a well-tolerated and versatile approach for hospitalized patients with OUD. We share lessons from our experiences and the literature, and provide practical considerations for providers.

Perioperative Buprenorphine Management: A Multidisciplinary Approach

Buprenorphine formulations (including buprenorphine/naloxone) are effective treatments of pain and opioid use disorder (OUD). Historically, perioperative management of patients prescribed buprenorphine involved abstinence from buprenorphine sufficient to allow for unrestricted mu-opioid receptor availability to full agonist opioid (FAO) treatment. Evidence is mounting that a multimodal analgesic strategy, including simultaneous administration of buprenorphine and FAO, nonopioid adjuncts such as acetaminophen and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and regional anesthesia, is a safe and effective perioperative strategy for the patient prescribed long-term buprenorphine treatment of OUD. This strategy will likely simplify management and more seamlessly provide continuous buprenorphine treatment of OUD after hospital discharge.

Trends in and Characteristics of Buprenorphine Misuse Among Adults in the US

IMPORTANCE

There is a lack of empirical research regarding misuse of buprenorphine hydrochloride.

OBJECTIVE

To identify prescription opioids that are most frequently misused, assess differences in motivations for misuse between buprenorphine and nonbuprenorphine prescription opioids, and examine trends in and factors associated with buprenorphine misuse among individuals with or without opioid use disorder (OUD).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This survey study used nationally representative data on past-year prescription opioid use, misuse, OUD, and motivations for the most recent misuse from the 2015-2019 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH). Participants included 214 505 civilian, noninstitutionalized adult NSDUH respondents. Data were collected from January 2015 to December 2019 and analyzed from February 15 to March 15, 2021.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Buprenorphine use, misuse, and OUD. Misuse was defined as use "in any way that a doctor [physician] did not direct you to use them, including (1) use without a prescription of your own; (2) use in greater amounts, more often, or longer than you were told to take them; or (3) use in any other way a doctor did not direct you to use them."

RESULTS

The 214 505 respondents included in the analysis represented an estimated annual average 246.7 million US adults during 2015-2019 (51.7% [95% CI, 51.4%-52.0%] women; 13.9% [95% CI, 13.7%-14.1%] aged 18-25 y; 40.6% [95% CI, 40.3%-41.0%] aged 26-49 y; 45.5% [95% CI, 45.0-45.9%] aged ≥50 y). In 2019, an estimated 2.4 (95% CI, 2.2-2.7) million US adults used buprenorphine, and an estimated 0.7 (95% CI, 0.5-0.9) million misused buprenorphine compared with an estimated 4.9 (95% CI, 4.4-5.4) million and an estimated 3.0 (95% CI, 2.7-3.2) million who misused hydrocodone and oxycodone, respectively. Prevalence of OUD with buprenorphine misuse trended downward during the period from 2015 to 2019. "Because I am hooked" (27.3% [95% CI, 21.6%-33.8%]) and "to relieve physical pain" (20.5% [95% CI, 14.0%-29.0%]) were the most common motivations for the most recent buprenorphine misuse among adults with OUD. Adults who misused buprenorphine were more likely to report using prescription opioids without having their own prescriptions than those who misused nonbuprenorphine prescription opioids (with OUD: 71.8% [95% CI, 66.4%-76.6%] vs 53.2% [95% CI, 48.5%-57.8%], P < .001; without OUD: 74.7% [95% CI, 68.7%-79.9%] vs 60.0% [58.1%-61.8%], P < .001). Among adults with past-year OUD who used buprenorphine, multivariable multinomial logistic regression results indicated that buprenorphine misuse was associated with being 24 to 34 (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 2.9 [95% CI, 1.4-5.8]) and 35 to 49 (AOR, 2.3 [95% CI, 1.2-4.5]) years of age, residing in nonmetropolitan areas (AOR, 1.8 [95% CI, 1.0-3.0]), and polysubstance use (eg, past-year prescription stimulant use disorder; AOR, 3.9 [95% CI, 1.3-11.2]) but was negatively associated with receiving treatment for drug use only (AOR, 0.4 [95% CI, 0.3-0.7]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that among adults with OUD, prevalence of buprenorphine misuse trended downward from 2015 to 2019. In 2019, nearly three-fourths of US adults reporting past-year buprenorphine use did not misuse their prescribed buprenorphine, and most who misused reported using prescription opioids without having their own prescriptions. These findings underscore the need to pursue actions that expand access to buprenorphine-based OUD treatment, to develop strategies to monitor and reduce buprenorphine misuse, and to address associated conditions (eg, suicide risk, co-occurring mental illness, and polysubstance use).

What Your Death Certificate Says About You May Be Wrong: A Narrative Review on CDC's Efforts to Quantify Prescription Opioid Overdose Deaths

Mortality data in most countries are reported using the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), managed by the WHO. In this paper, we show how the ICD is ill-suited for classifying drug-involved deaths, many of which involve polysubstance abuse and/or illicitly manufactured fentanyl (IMF). Opioids identified in death certificates are categorized according to six ICD T-codes: opium (T40.0), heroin (T40.1), methadone (T40.3), other synthetic narcotics (T40.4), and other and unspecified narcotics (T40.6). Except for opium, heroin, and methadone, all other opioids except those that are unspecified are aggregated in two T-codes (T40.2 and T40.4), depending upon whether they are natural/semisynthetic or synthetic opioids other than methadone. The result is a system that obscures the actual cause of most drug overdose deaths and, instead, just tallies the number of times each drug is mentioned in an overdose situation. We examined the CDC's methodology for coding other controlled substances according to the ICD and found that, besides fentanyl, the ICD does not distinguish between other licit and illicitly manufactured controlled substances. Moreover, we discovered that the CDC codes all methadone-related deaths as resulting from the prescribed form of the drug. These and other anomalies in the CDC's mortality reporting are discussed in this report. We conclude that the CDC was at fault for failing to correct the miscoding of IMF. Finally, we briefly discuss some of the public policy consequences of this error, the misguided focus by public health and safety officials on pharmaceutical opioids, their prescribers and users, and the pressing necessity for the CDC to reassess how it measures and reports drug-involved mortality.

Availability of buprenorphine/naloxone films and naloxone nasal spray in community pharmacies in Texas, USA

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) must be able to obtain prescribed buprenorphine/naloxone films (BUP/NX) and naloxone nasal spray (NNS) from a pharmacy promptly to reduce risk for a recurrence of use and subsequent morbidity and mortality. Telephone audits have identified concerning gaps in availability of NNS within US pharmacies, but the availability of BUP/NX has not been rigorously evaluated. This study estimated the availability of BUP/NX and NNS in the US state of Texas and compared availability by pharmacy type and metropolitan status.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional telephone audit with a secret shopper approach conducted from 18 May 2020 to 7 June 2020. Setting and Participants A random sample of 800 of 5078 (16%) community pharmacies licensed with the Texas State Board of Pharmacy.

MEASUREMENTS

Primary outcomes included availability of a 1-week supply of generic BUP/NX 8/2 mg films and a single unit of NNS 4 mg, overall and by pharmacy type. Secondary outcomes included willingness and estimated time-frame to order BUP/NX if unavailable.

FINDINGS

Data from 704 pharmacies (471 chain, 233 independent) were included for analyses. Of these, 34.1% of pharmacies (45.0% of chains versus 12.0% of independents, P < 0.0001) were willing and able to dispense a 1-week supply of generic BUP/NX and a single unit of NNS. BUP/NX alone was available in 42.2% of pharmacies (52.4% of chains versus 21.5% of independents, P < 0.0001). NNS alone was available in 60.1% of pharmacies (77.9% of chains versus 24.0% of independents, P < 0.0001). Of the 397 pharmacies with generic BUP/NX unavailable, 62.2% of pharmacies (73.9% of chains versus 48.0% of independents, P < 0.0001) indicated willingness to order.

CONCLUSIONS

Most pharmacies in Texas do not appear to be willing and able to dispense prescribed buprenorphine/naloxone films and naloxone nasal spray to patients with opioid use disorder in a timely manner. Deficiencies in availability are markedly more pronounced in independent pharmacies compared with chain pharmacies.

Impact of a pharmacist-led substance use disorder transitions of care clinic on postdischarge medication treatment retention

BACKGROUND

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has made significant improvements in increasing prescribing of medication treatment for opioid use disorder (MOUD) and medication treatment for alcohol use disorder (MAUD); however, several barriers to treatment retention remain. In an effort to improve MOUD/MAUD retention, a Veterans Affairs (VA) facility established a pharmacist-led substance use disorder (SUD) transitions of care telephone clinic for patients discharged from an inpatient hospitalization on MOUD/MAUD, including buprenorphine/naloxone (BUP/NAL) and extended-release (ER) naltrexone injections. Pharmacists within the clinic assess aspects of treatment retention such as medication tolerability, perceived barriers to continuing treatment, status of current prescriptions, and appointment coordination.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of a pharmacist-led SUD transitions of care telephone clinic on MOUD/MAUD retention following inpatient initiation in patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) and/or alcohol use disorder (AUD). Secondary objectives included subanalyses of clinic impact on MOUD/MAUD retention based on study medication or diagnoses, health care utilization, and characterization of pharmacist interventions.

METHODS

The study identified patients for inclusion from inpatient units at a VA hospital. The study included patients if they were >18 years of age, had a diagnosis of AUD and/or OUD, and were initiated on ER naltrexone or BUP/NAL during admission and continued at discharge from August 1, 2018, to December 31, 2019. The study excluded patients if they declined clinic involvement, transferred facilities, moved beyond the VA catchment area, or were unable to be reached for initial contact after 3 telephone attempts. The intervention group included patients enrolled in the pharmacist-led SUD transitions of care telephone clinic, while the control group included patients initiated on MOUD/MAUD during admission who were eligible but not referred for clinic enrollment.

RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS

The study identified a total of 150 patients for inclusion (n = 54 intervention group; n = 96 control group). The study observed a statistically significant difference for the primary endpoint of combined 1- and 3-month MOUD/MAUD retention rates as measured by a continuous, multiple-interval measure of medication acquisition (CMA) of ER naltrexone and BUP/NAL for the intervention group vs. control group (1-month: 77.3% vs. 56.8%, p = 0.004; 3-month: 71.4% vs. 48%, p = 0.0002). When analyzed by study medication, we also observed a statistically significant improvement in continuous use of ER naltrexone for those enrolled in the clinic (1-month: 71.4% vs. 45.9%, p = 0.01; 3-month: 66.7% vs. 34.4%, p = 0.0003). The study did not observe any statistically significant improvements for BUP/NAL (1-month: 87.1% vs. 75.8%, p = 0.13; 3-month: 79.4% vs. 68.5%, p = 0.24) or establishment with a BUP/NAL clinic (90.5% vs. 80% patients established, p = 0.46). Likewise, the study did not observe any statistically significant differences for combined emergency department (ED) visits (1-month: 24.1% vs.17.1% patients with ED visit, p = 0.40; 3-month: 31.5% vs. 29.2% patients with ED visit, p = 0.85) or hospitalizations (1-month: 9.3% vs. 14.6% re-hospitalization, p = 0.45; 3-month: 14.8% vs. 26% re-hospitalization, p = 0.15) for those in the intervention group vs. the control group. Overall, the study observed statistically and clinically significant improvements in MOUD/MAUD retention rates for patients enrolled in a pharmacist-led SUD transitions of care telephone clinic.

CDC's Efforts to Quantify Prescription Opioid Overdose Deaths Fall Short

In a 2018 report titled, Quantifying the Epidemic of Prescription Opioid Overdose Deaths, four senior analysts of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), including the head of the Epidemiology and Surveillance Branch, acknowledged for the first time that the number of prescription opioid overdose deaths reported by the CDC in 2016 was erroneous. The error, they said, was caused by miscoding deaths involving illicitly manufactured fentanyl (IMF) as deaths involving prescribed fentanyl. To understand what caused this error, the authors examined the CDC’s methodology for compiling drug-related mortality data, beginning with the source data obtained from approximately 2.8 million death certificates received each year from state vital statistics registrars. Systemic problems often begin outside the CDC, with a surprisingly high rate of errors and omissions in the source data. Using the CDC’s explanation for what caused the error, the authors show why an international program used by the CDC for reporting mortality is ill-suited for compiling and reporting drug overdose deaths. Except for heroin, methadone, and opium, each of which has an individual program code, all other opioids are separated in just two program codes according to whether they are synthetic or semisynthetic/opiates. Methadone-involved deaths pose a special problem for the CDC because methadone has dual indications for treating pain and for treating opioid use disorder (OUD). In 2019, more than seven times more methadone was administered or dispensed for OUD treatment than was prescribed for pain, yet all methadone-involved deaths are coded by the CDC as involving the prescribed form of the drug. The authors conclude that the CDC was at fault for failing to recognize and correct this problem before 2016. Public policy consequences of this failure are briefly mentioned.

Methodological Challenges and Proposed Solutions for Evaluating Opioid Policy Effectiveness

Opioid-related mortality increased by nearly 400% between 2000 and 2018. In response, federal, state, and local governments have enacted a heterogeneous collection of opioid-related policies in an effort to reverse the opioid crisis, producing a policy landscape that is both complex and dynamic. Correspondingly, there has been a rise in opioid-policy related evaluation studies, as policymakers and other stakeholders seek to understand which policies are most effective. In this paper, we provide an overview of methodological challenges facing opioid policy researchers when evaluating the effects of opioid policies using observational data, as well as some potential solutions to those challenges. In particular, we discuss the following key challenges: (1) Obtaining high-quality opioid policy data; (2) Appropriately operationalizing and specifying opioid policies; (3) Obtaining high-quality opioid outcome data; (4) Addressing confounding due to systematic differences between policy and non-policy states; (5) Identifying heterogeneous policy effects across states, population subgroups, and time; (6) Disentangling effects of concurrent policies; and (7) Overcoming limited statistical power to detect policy effects afforded by commonly-used methods. We discuss each of these challenges and propose some ways forward to address them. Increasing the methodological rigor of opioid evaluation studies is imperative to identifying and implementing opioid policies that are most effective at reducing opioid-related harms.

The Geographic Impact of Buprenorphine Expansion to Nurse Practitioner Prescribers in Oregon

PURPOSE

We examined the impact on geographic distribution of medications to treat opioid use disorder (MOUD) in Oregon after the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act (CARA) was implemented in February 2017 to include nurse practitioner (NP) prescribers.

METHODS

We conducted interrupted time series analysis with linear regression on prescriptions dispensed for buprenorphine used for MOUD in the Oregon Prescription Drug Monitoring Database written by physician (MD/DO) and NP prescribers January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2018. We analyzed total prescriptions by prescriber type and pharmacy ZIP Code using STATA 16.1.

FINDINGS

From January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2018, 420,765 eligible prescriptions were written by waivered MD/DO and/or NP prescribers. Prior to CARA, buprenorphine use was increasing steadily at 140 prescriptions per month (95% CI: 78-201; P < .01). Following CARA, dispensing increased by 88 prescriptions per month (95% CI: 23-152; P = .01). The absolute number increased in rural areas immediately after CARA implementation (368 prescriptions; 95% CI: 124-613; P < .01). NP contribution to total buprenorphine prescribing increased significantly in both urban and rural areas (0.44% per month [95% CI: 0.30%-0.57%; P < .01] and 0.74% per month [95% CI: 0.62%-0.85%; P < .01]). The contribution of NPs had a particularly large impact for very rural (frontier) areas, where NPs provided 36% of all buprenorphine prescriptions by the end of 2018.

CONCLUSION

Changes in federal law regarding MOUD had a positive impact on both supply and geographic distribution in Oregon, particularly in frontier areas comprising 10 of 36 counties (27%).