Core outcomes set for research on the treatment of opioid use disorder (COS-OUD): the National Institute on Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network protocol for an e-Delphi consensus study

Patient experiences with outpatient opioid use disorder treatment before and during COVID-19: results from a survey of Medicaid members

Background: Payers are increasingly interested in quality improvement for opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment, including incorporating patient experiences. Medicaid is the largest payer for OUD treatment, yet we know little about the treatment benefits Medicaid members report, how these vary across members, or changed with the COVID-19 pandemic.Objective: To examine Medicaid members' report of outpatient treatment benefits, employment, and housing outcomes before and during the pandemic.Methods: A representative sample of 1,032 Virginia Medicaid members (52% women) receiving OUD treatment completed a survey of treatment benefits, health status and social needs. A reported treatment benefit index was created based on seven self-reported items. Multivariable linear regression models, pooled and stratified by time (pre-COVID-19/COVID-19), assessed member characteristics associated with reported treatment benefit, employment and housing outcomes.Results: Members reported strong treatment benefit (mean: 21.8 [SD: 5.9] out of 28 points) and improvements in employment (2.4 [1.3] out of 5) and housing (2.8 [1.2] out of 5). After adjustment, mental distress (regression coefficient: -3.00 [95% CI:-3.97;-2.03]), polysubstance use (-1.25 [-1.99;-0.51]), and food insecurity (-1.00 [-1.71;-0.29]), were associated with decreased benefits from treatment. During COVID-19, justice-involved individuals reported decreased benefits (-2.17 [-3.54; -0.80]) compared to before the pandemic (-0.09 [-1.4-;1.24] p < .05).Conclusions: Medicaid members receiving outpatient OUD treatment reported positive treatment benefits, and housing and employment outcomes. However, those with comorbid health and social conditions often benefited the least. As payers move toward quality improvement and value-based purchasing initiatives, collecting and integrating patient reported outcomes into quality metrics is critical.

Empirically contrasting urine drug screening-based opioid use disorder treatment outcome definitions

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

A lack of consensus on the optimal outcome measures to assess opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment efficacy and their precise definition and computation has hampered the pooling of research data for evidence synthesis and meta-analyses. This study aimed to empirically contrast multiple clinical trial definitions of treatment success by applying them to the same dataset.

METHODS

Data analysis used a suite of functions, developed as a software package for the R language, to operationalize 61 treatment outcome definitions based on urine drug screening (UDS) results. Outcome definitions were derived from clinical trials that are among the most influential in the OUD treatment field. Outcome functions were applied to a harmonized dataset from three large-scale National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (CTN) studies, which tested various medication for OUD (MOUD) options (n = 2492). Hierarchical clustering was employed to empirically contrast outcome definitions.

RESULTS

The optimal number of clusters identified was three. Cluster 1, comprising eight definitions focused on detecting opioid-positive UDS, did not include missing UDS in outcome calculations, potentially resulting in inflated rates of treatment success. Cluster 2, with the highest variability, included 10 definitions characterized by strict criteria for treatment success, relying heavily on UDS results from either a brief period or a single study visit. The 43 definitions in Cluster 3 represented a diverse range of outcomes, conceptualized as measuring abstinence, use reduction and relapse. These definitions potentially offer more balanced measures of treatment success or failure, as they avoid the extreme methodologies characteristic of Clusters 1 and 2.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical trials using urine drug screening (UDS) for objective substance use assessment in outcome definitions should consider (1) incorporating missing UDS data in outcome computation and (2) avoiding over-reliance on UDS data confined to a short time frame or the occurrence of a single positive urine test following a period of abstinence.

Methods for Neuroscience Drug Development: Guidance on Standardization of the Process for Defining Clinical Outcome Strategies in Clinical Trials

Neurosciences clinical trials continue to have notoriously high failure rates. Appropriate outcomes selection in early clinical trials is key to maximizing the likelihood of identifying new treatments in psychiatry and neurology. The field lacks good standards for designing outcome strategies, therefore The Outcomes Research Group was formed to develop and promote good practices in outcome selection. This article describes the first published guidance on the standardization of the process for clinical outcomes in neuroscience. A minimal step process is defined starting as early as possible, covering key activities for evidence generation in support of content validity, patient-centricity, validity requirements and considerations for regulatory acceptance. Feedback from expert members is provided, regarding the risks of shortening the process and examples supporting the recommended process are summarized. This methodology is now available to researchers in industry, academia or clinics aiming to implement consensus-based standard practices for clinical outcome selection, contributing to maximizing the efficiency of clinical research.

The opioid use disorder core outcomes set (OUD-COS) for treatment research: findings from a Delphi consensus study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

There is no gold-standard and considerable heterogeneity in outcome measures used to evaluate treatments for opioid use disorder (OUD) along the opioid treatment cascade. The aim of this study was to develop the US National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (CTN) opioid use disorder core outcomes set (OUD-COS).

DESIGN

Four-round, e-Delphi expert panel consensus study and plenary research group discussion and targeted consultation.

SETTING

United States.

PARTICIPANTS

A panel of 25 members including clinical practitioners, clinical researchers and administrative staff from the CTN, the network's affiliated clinical and community sites and the NIDA Centre for the CTN.

MEASUREMENTS

From a pool of 24 candidate items in four domains (biomedical/disease status; behaviors, symptoms and functioning; opioid treatment cascade; and morbidity and mortality), the panel completed an on-line questionnaire to rank items with defined specification on a 9-point scale for importance, with a standard 70% consensus criterion.

FINDINGS

After the fourth round of the questionnaire and subsequent discussion, consensus was reached for five outcomes: two patient-reported (global impression of improvement and incident non-fatal overdose); one clinician-reported (illicit/non-medical drug toxicology); and two from administrative records (duration of treatment and fatal opioid poisoning).

CONCLUSIONS

An e-Delphi consensus study has produced the US National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network opioid use disorder core outcomes set (version 1) for opioid use disorder treatment efficacy and effectiveness research.

Strategic planning for addiction programs within academic medical centers: Examples from the Yale Program in Addiction Medicine

Background Addiction programs at academic medical centers must navigate complex, multidisciplinary environments as they work to advance the field and improve substance use treatment access and outcomes. Programs can employ strategic planning processes to identify goals and strategies for success. Methods: The Yale Program in Addiction Medicine began a series of strategic planning activities in February 2020 with the primary aims of (1) conducting a point-in-time needs assessment for the Program and (2) identifying goals for Program improvement and expansion. Drawing upon a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis framework and the Delphi method for group decision-making, these strategic planning activities were implemented in four steps involving multimodal engagement and iterative feedback amongst Program faculty and selected stakeholders. Results: Primary deliverables included four overarching programmatic goals, associated action items, strategies for success, a proposed implementation timeline, and a revised Mission, Vision, and Values statement for the Program. Conclusion: Methodologic considerations and environmental factors offer insight into the strengths, limitations, and adaptive potential of this approach as well as others described in the literature. Key outputs highlight the benefits and timeliness of strategic planning for addiction programs, as heightened interest and investment in substance use treatment, prevention, and harm reduction paves the way for opportunity and innovation.

Interim opioid agonist treatment for opioid addiction: a systematic review

Background

Opioid use disorder is a public health problem and treatment variability, coverage and accessibility poses some challenges. The study’s objective is to review the impact of interim opioid agonist treatment (OAT), a short-term approach for patients awaiting standard OAT, in terms of treatment retention, access to standard OAT, quality of life and satisfaction with treatment.

Method

We conducted a systematic review searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CENTRAL up to May 2020. Due to variability between studies and outcome measurements, we did not pool effect estimates and reported a narrative synthesis of findings rating their certainty according to GRADE.

Results

We identified 266 unique records and included five randomized trials with some limitations in risk of bias and one observational study limited by selection bias. The studies assessed similar approaches to interim OAT but were compared to three different control conditions. Four studies reported on treatment retention at 4 months or less with no significant differences between interim OAT and waiting list or standard OAT. Two studies reported treatment retention at 12 months with no differences between interim OAT and standard OAT. Two trials assessed access to standard OAT and showed significant differences between interim OAT and waiting list for standard OAT. We rated the quality of evidence for these outcomes as moderate due to the impact of risk of bias. Data on quality of life or satisfaction with treatment was suboptimal.

Conclusions

Interim OAT is likely more effective than a waiting list for standard OAT in access to treatment, and it is probably as effective as standard OAT regarding treatment retention.

PROSPERO registration CRD42018116269.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12954-022-00592-x.

Research priorities for expanding access to methadone treatment for opioid use disorder in the United States: A National Institute on Drug Abuse Center for Clinical Trials Network Task Force report

In the US, methadone treatment can only be provided to patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) through federal and state-regulated opioid treatment programs (OTPs). There is a shortage of OTPs, and racial and geographic inequities exist in access to methadone treatment. The National Institute on Drug Abuse Center for Clinical Trials Network convened the Methadone Access Research Task Force to develop a research agenda to expand and create more equitable access to methadone treatment for OUD. This research agenda included mechanisms that are available within and outside the current regulations. The task force identified 6 areas where research is needed: (1) access to methadone in general medical and other outpatient settings; (2) the impact of methadone treatment setting on patient outcomes; (3) impact of treatment structure on outcomes in patients receiving methadone; (4) comparative effectiveness of different medications to treat OUD; (5) optimal educational and support structure for provision of methadone by medical providers; and (6) benefits and harms of expanded methadone access. In addition to outlining these research priorities, the task force identified important cross-cutting issues, including the impact of patient characteristics, treatment, and treatment system characteristics such as methadone formulation and dose, concurrent behavioral treatment, frequency of dispensing, urine or oral fluid testing, and methods of measuring clinical outcomes. Together, the research priorities and cross-cutting issues represent a compelling research agenda to expand access to methadone in the US.