Retention in the Austrian opioid agonist treatment system: a national prospective cohort study

Opioid agonist treatment in transition: A cross-country comparison between Austria, Germany and Switzerland

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

OAT is a well developed and successful treatment strategy for opioid dependent patients in Europe. It has significantly contributed to the fight against the HIV and HCV pandemics, leading to an increased life expectancy in this population. Building on the OAT experiences in Austria, Germany, and Switzerland and their models of care, the objective of this study is to analyse experiences and changes in patient structures to identify necessary adaptations for the system of care.

METHODS

We analysed national register-based data from patients receiving OAT during the period spanning from 2010 to 2020 in Austria, Germany (cases), and Switzerland. We examined and compared OAT policies and practice at national levels through a review of literature and publicly available policy documents.

RESULTS

Across these three countries, the life expectancy of OAT patients increased substantially. The mean age increased from 33.0 in 2010 to 39.1 in 2020 in Austria, from 35.6 years to 41.5 years in Germany (cases), and from 39.6 to 47.1 in Switzerland, respectively. In all three countries, the percentage of patients/cases aged 60 years and older increased more than tenfold between 2010 and 2020.

CONCLUSIONS

Integrated support models, reliable care structures, internationally comparable high treatment coverage, flexible prescribing practices, and a wide range of available OAT medications are successful strategies. The experiences in these countries indicate that it is possible to address the complex and chronic nature of opioid dependence and its concurrent mental and physical health challenges, resulting in an increasing life expectancy of OAT patients.

Changes in opioid agonist treatment initiation among people prescribed opioids for pain following voluntary and mandatory prescription drug monitoring program implementation: A time series analysis

INTRODUCTION

Prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMP) are increasingly used to identify people prescribed high-dose opioids. However, little is known about whether PDMPs impact opioid agonist treatment (OAT) uptake, the gold standard for opioid use disorder. This study examined the impact of PDMP implementation on OAT initiation among people prescribed opioids, in Victoria, Australia.

METHODS

De-identified electronic records from all 464 Victorian general practices included in the POLAR database were used. OAT initiation was defined as a new OAT prescription between 1 April 2017 and 31 December 2020, with no OAT prescriptions in the year prior. Interrupted time series analyses were used to compare outcomes before (April 2017 to March 2019) and after (April 2019 to December 2020) PDMP implementation. Binary logistic regression was used to examine differences in patients' characteristics associated with OAT initiation prior to and after PDMP implementation.

RESULTS

In total, 1610 people initiated OAT, 946 before and 664 after PDMP implementation. No significant immediate (step) or longer-term (slope) changes in the rates of OAT initiation were identified following PDMP implementation, after adjusting for seasonality. A high opioid dose (>100 mg oral morphine equivalent) in the 6-months prior to OAT initiation was the only significant characteristic associated with reduced odds of OAT initiation post-PDMP implementation (odds ratio 0.29; 0.23-0.37).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

PDMP implementation did not have a significant impact on OAT initiation among people prescribed opioids. Findings suggest additional clinical initiatives that support OAT initiation are required to ensure PDMPs meet their intended target of reducing opioid-related harms.

Buprenorphine versus methadone for the treatment of opioid dependence: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised and observational studies

BACKGROUND

Opioid dependence is associated with substantial health and social burdens, and opioid agonist treatment (OAT) is highly effective in improving multiple outcomes for people who receive this treatment. Methadone and buprenorphine are common medications provided as OAT. We aimed to examine buprenorphine compared with methadone in the treatment of opioid dependence across a wide range of primary and secondary outcomes.

METHODS

We did a systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with GATHER and PRISMA guidelines. We searched Embase, MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and PsycINFO from database inception to Aug 1, 2022; clinical trial registries and previous relevant Cochrane reviews were also reviewed. We included all RCTs and observational studies of adults (aged ≥18 years) with opioid dependence comparing treatment with buprenorphine or methadone. Primary outcomes were retention in treatment at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months, treatment adherence (measured through doses taken as prescribed, dosing visits attended, and biological measures), or extra-medical opioid use (measured by urinalysis and self-report). Secondary outcomes were use of benzodiazepines, cannabis, cocaine, amphetamines, and alcohol; withdrawal; craving; criminal activity and engagement with the criminal justice system; overdose; mental and physical health; sleep; pain; global functioning; suicidality and self-harm; and adverse events. Single-arm cohort studies and RCTs that collected data on buprenorphine retention alone were also reviewed. Data on study, participant, and treatment characteristics were extracted. Study authors were contacted to obtain additional data when required. Comparative estimates were pooled with use of random-effects meta-analyses. The proportion of individuals retained in treatment across multiple timepoints was pooled for each drug. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020205109).

FINDINGS

We identified 32 eligible RCTs (N=5808 participants) and 69 observational studies (N=323 340) comparing buprenorphine and methadone, in addition to 51 RCTs (N=11 644) and 124 observational studies (N=700 035) that reported on treatment retention with buprenorphine. Overall, 61 studies were done in western Europe, 162 in North America, 14 in north Africa and the Middle East, 20 in Australasia, five in southeast Asia, seven in south Asia, two in eastern Europe, three in central Europe, one in east Asia, and one in central Asia. 1 040 827 participants were included in these primary studies; however, gender was only reported for 572 111 participants, of whom 377 991 (66·1%) were male and 194 120 (33·9%) were female. Mean age was 37·1 years (SD 6·0). At timepoints beyond 1 month, retention was better for methadone than for buprenorphine: for example, at 6 months, the pooled effect favoured methadone in RCTs (risk ratio 0·76 [95% CI 0·67-0·85]; I·=74·2%; 16 studies, N=3151) and in observational studies (0·77 [0·68-0·86]; I·=98·5%; 21 studies, N=155 111). Retention was generally higher in RCTs than observational studies. There was no evidence suggesting that adherence to treatment differed with buprenorphine compared with methadone. There was some evidence that extra-medical opioid use was lower in those receiving buprenorphine in RCTs that measured this outcome by urinalysis and reported proportion of positive urine samples (over various time frames; standardised mean difference -0·20 [-0·29 to -0·11]; I·=0·0%; three studies, N=841), but no differences were found when using other measures. Some statistically significant differences were found between buprenorphine and methadone among secondary outcomes. There was evidence of reduced cocaine use, cravings, anxiety, and cardiac dysfunction, as well as increased treatment satisfaction among people receiving buprenorphine compared with methadone; and evidence of reduced hospitalisation and alcohol use in people receiving methadone. These differences in secondary outcomes were based on small numbers of studies (maximum five), and were often not consistent across study types or different measures of the same constructs (eg, cocaine use).

INTERPRETATION

Evidence from trials and observational studies suggest that treatment retention is better for methadone than for sublingual buprenorphine. Comparative evidence on other outcomes examined showed few statistically significant differences and was generally based on small numbers of studies. These findings highlight the imperative for interventions to improve retention, consideration of client-centred factors (such as client preference) when selecting between methadone and buprenorphine, and harmonisation of data collection and reporting to strengthen future syntheses.

FUNDING

Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

Opioid maintenance treatment in the Czech Republic, Norway and Denmark: a study protocol of a comparative registry linkage study

INTRODUCTION

Opioid maintenance treatment (OMT) varies across settings and between countries. We plan to use data from several nationwide health and population registers to further improve the knowledge base established from earlier studies. Our aim is to study OMT adherence trajectories and to identify factors associated with improved outcomes for OMT patients across the Czech Republic, Norway and Denmark, in order to further improve OMT and our understanding of the key elements of treatment success.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The registry-based cohort approach across the three countries allows us to link data from a range of registers on the individual level, by using personal identifiers in nationwide cohorts of OMT and non-OMT patients and the general non-using populations. A total of ~21 500 OMT patients over the last two decades in all three countries will be included in the study. The following outcome variables (based on the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision codes) will be obtained from relevant registers: treatment adherence to OMT, comorbidity (somatic and mental health), and all-cause and cause-specific mortality. Outcomes of the country-specific analyses will be pooled.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The national OMT cohorts have been approved by the ethics committees in the respective countries. Data will be stored according to national and local guidelines and treated confidentially, and all data will be analysed separately for each country and compared across countries. Findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed scientific journals, national and international conferences, and in briefings to inform clinical decision-making.