Current and future options for opioid use disorder: a survey assessing real-world opinion of service users on novel therapies including depot formulations of buprenorphine

Nor-LAAM loaded PLGA microparticles for treating opioid use disorder

The treatment landscape for opioid use disorder (OUD) faces challenges stemming from the limited efficacy of existing medications, poor adherence to prescribed regimens, and a heightened risk of fatal overdose post-treatment cessation. Therefore, there is a pressing need for innovative therapeutic strategies that enhance the effectiveness of interventions and the overall well-being of individuals with OUD. This study explored the therapeutic potential of nor-Levo-α-acetylmethadol (nor-LAAM) to treat OUD. We developed sustained release nor-LAAM-loaded poly (lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) microparticles (MP) using a hydrophobic ion pairing (HIP) approach. The nor-LAAM-MP prepared using HIP with pamoic acid had high drug loading and exhibited minimal initial burst release and sustained release. The nor-LAAM-MP was further optimized for desirable particle size, drug loading, and release kinetics. The lead nor-LAAM-MP (F4) had a relatively high drug loading (11 wt%) and an average diameter (19 μm) and maintained a sustained drug release for 4 weeks. A single subcutaneous injection of nor-LAAM-MP (F4) provided detectable nor-LAAM levels in rabbit plasma for at least 15 days. We further evaluated the therapeutic efficacy of nor-LAAM-MP (F4) in a well-established fentanyl-addiction rat model, and revealed a marked reduction in fentanyl choice and withdrawal symptoms in fentanyl-dependent rats. These findings provide insights into further developing long-acting nor-LAAM-MP for treating OUD. It has the potential to offer a new effective medication to the existing sparse armamentarium of products available to treat OUD.

Monoclonal Antibodies Engineered with Fc Region Mutations to Extend Protection against Fentanyl Toxicity

Fentanyl and other synthetic opioids are the leading cause of drug-related deaths in the United States. mAbs that selectively target fentanyl and fentanyl analogues offer a promising strategy for treating both opioid-related overdoses and opioid use disorders. To increase the duration of efficacy of a candidate mAb against fentanyl, we selected three sets of mutations in the Fc region of an IgG1 anti-fentanyl mAb (HY6-F9DF215, HY6-F9DHS, HY6-F9YTE) to increase binding to the neonatal Fc receptor (FcRn). The mAb mutants were compared against unmodified (wild-type [WT], HY6-F9WT) anti-fentanyl mAb for fentanyl binding, thermal stability, and FcRn affinity in vitro, and for efficacy against fentanyl and mAb half-life in vivo in mice. Biolayer interferometry showed a >10-fold increase in the affinity for recombinant FcRn of the three mutant mAbs compared with HY6-F9WT. During an acute fentanyl challenge in mice, all FcRn-mutated mAbs provided equal protection against fentanyl-induced effects, and all mAbs reduced brain fentanyl levels compared with the saline group. Serum persistence of the mutant mAbs was tested in Tg276 transgenic mice expressing human FcRn. After administration of 40 mg/kg HY6-F9WT, HY6-F9DF215, HY6-F9DHS, and HY6-F9YTE, the mAbs showed half-lives of 6.3, 26.4, 14.7, and 6.9 d, respectively. These data suggest that modification of mAbs against fentanyl to bind to FcRn with higher affinity can increase their half-life relative to WT mAbs while maintaining efficacy against the toxic effects of fentanyl, further supporting their potential role as a therapeutic treatment option for opioid use disorder and overdose.

Prescribing of extended release buprenorphine injection for Medicaid beneficiaries, 2018-2022

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Extended release buprenorphine injection (INJ-BUP) has been available in the United States since 2018. INJ-BUP has the potential to positively impact opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment outcomes by providing additional treatment options . As one of the largest payers of OUD treatment in the US, Medicaid coverage is important for access and uptake of INJ-BUP. Uptake of INJ-BUP among Medicaid beneficiaries has not been described since 2019 and variation in uptake by state has not previously been explored. We aimed to measure prescribing of INJ-BUP for Medicaid beneficiaries since 2018, nationwide and by state.

METHODS

We analyzed State Drug Utilization Data from 2017 to 2022 and calculated the number of prescription fills for INJ-BUP and oral buprenorphine paid by Medicaid. To compare across states, we calculated the number of prescription fills per 100 Medicaid beneficiaries treated for OUD using data from Transformed Medicaid Statistical Information System Substance Use Disorder (T-MSIS SUD) Data Books. Data sources are publicly available.

RESULTS

The number of prescription fills for INJ-BUP paid by Medicaid increased from 4322 (0.1% of all buprenorphine prescription fills) in 2018 to 186 861 (2.0%) in 2022. Each year the increase in fills exceeded the prior year change, indicating accelerating uptake. There was notable variability across states.

CONCLUSIONS

The number of extended release buprenorphine injection prescriptions among US Medicaid beneficiaries treated for opioid use disorder increased from over 4000 prescriptions in 2018 to over 185 000 in 2022 but uptake is much less than observed in other countries over shorter time periods.

Evaluating preferences for medication formulation and treatment model among people who use opioids non-medically: A web-based cross-sectional study

INTRODUCTION

Over the past decade, treatment for opioid use disorder has expanded to include long-acting injectable and implantable formulations of medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD), and integrated treatment models systematically addressing both behavioral and physical health. Patient preference for these treatment options has been underexplored. Gathering data on OUD treatment preferences is critical to guide the development of patient-centered treatment for OUD. This cross-sectional study assessed preferences for long-acting MOUD and integrated treatment using an online survey.

METHODS

An online Qualtrics survey assessed preferences for MOUD formulation and integrated treatment models. The study recruited participants (n = 851) in October and November 2019 through advertisements or posts on Facebook, Google AdWords, Reddit, and Amazon Mechanical Turk (mTurk). Eligible participants scored a two or higher on the opioid pain reliever or heroin scales of the Tobacco, Alcohol Prescription Medication and other Substance Use (TAPS) Tool. Structured survey items obtained patient preference for MOUD formulation and treatment model. Using stated preference methods, the study assessed preference via comparison of preferred options for MOUD and treatment model.

RESULTS

In the past year, 824 (96.8 %) participants reported non-prescribed use of opioid pain relievers (mean TAPS score = 2.72, SD = 0.46) and 552 (64.9 %) reported heroin or fentanyl use (mean TAPS score = 2.73, SD = 0.51). Seventy-four percent of participants (n = 631) reported currently or previously receiving OUD treatment, with 407 (48.4 %) receiving MOUD. When asked about preferences for type of MOUD formulation, 452 (53.1 %) preferred a daily oral formulation, 115 (13.5 %) preferred an implant, 114 (13.4 %) preferred a monthly injection and 95 (11.2 %) preferred a weekly injection. Approximately 8.8 % (n = 75) would not consider MOUD regardless of formulation. The majority of participants (65.2 %, n = 555) preferred receiving treatment in a specialized substance use treatment program distinct from their medical care, compared with receiving care in an integrated model (n = 296, 34.8 %).

CONCLUSIONS

Though most participants expressed willingness to try long-acting MOUD formulations, the majority preferred short-acting formulations. Likewise, the majority preferred non-integrated treatment in specialty substance use settings. Reasons for these preferences provide insight on developing effective educational tools for patients and suggesting targets for intervention to develop a more acceptable treatment system.

Nor-LAAM loaded PLGA Microparticles for Treating Opioid Use Disorder

The treatment landscape for opioid use disorder (OUD) faces challenges stemming from the limited efficacy of existing medications, poor adherence to prescribed regimens, and a heightened risk of fatal overdose post-treatment cessation. Therefore, there is a pressing need for innovative therapeutic strategies that enhance the effectiveness of interventions and the overall well-being of individuals with OUD. This study explored the therapeutic potential of nor-Levo-α-acetylmethadol (nor-LAAM) to treat OUD. We developed sustained release nor-LAAM-loaded poly (lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) microparticles (MP) using a hydrophobic ion pairing (HIP) approach. The nor-LAAM-MP prepared using HIP with pamoic acid had high drug loading and exhibited minimal initial burst release and sustained release. The nor-LAAM-MP was further optimized for desirable particle size, drug loading, and release kinetics. The lead nor-LAAM-MP (F4) had a relatively high drug loading (11 wt.%) and an average diameter (19 µm) and maintained a sustained drug release for 4 weeks. A single subcutaneous injection of nor-LAAM-MP (F4) provided detectable nor-LAAM levels in rabbit plasma for at least 15 days. We further evaluated the therapeutic efficacy of nor-LAAM-MP (F4) in a well-established fentanyl-addiction rat model, and revealed a marked reduction in fentanyl choice and withdrawal symptoms in fentanyl-dependent rats. These findings provide insights into further developing long-acting nor-LAAM-MP for treating OUD. It has the potential to offer a new effective medication to the existing sparse armamentarium of products available to treat OUD.

Evaluating the feasibility of prolonged-release buprenorphine formulations as an alternative to daily opioid agonist therapy regardless of prior treatment adherence: a pilot study

BACKGROUND

Effective opioid agonist therapy (OAT) depends on good patient adherence. However, the daily, supervised administration of standard OAT represents a significant burden to patients and often drives poor adherence. Prolonged-release buprenorphine (PRB) formulations may mitigate some of this burden, enabling clinic visits to be substantially reduced. For treatment guidelines to be effective, the likely benefit of a transition to PRB therapy in different patient populations must be established.

METHODS

The aim was to determine the feasibility of assessing PRB as an alternative to daily OAT in two groups: those currently adhering well to daily OAT (group 1, N = 5) and those not currently showing adherence or a positive response to daily OAT (group 2, N = 10). This open-label, prospective, non-controlled pilot study was conducted at the Kaleidoscope Drug Project in South Wales, UK. Participants were assessed for history, drug use, psychosocial assessment scores, and clinical severity at baseline and after 6 months of treatment. Primary outcomes were the feasibility of assessing PRB as an alternative to daily OAT and the acceptability of PRB therapy in each group. Secondary outcomes were treatment response, on-top drug use, psychosocial measures, and assessment of clinical severity.

RESULTS

Participants from both groups demonstrated high levels of participation with assessment protocols at both baseline and 6-month follow-up, indicating study feasibility. PRB treatment was acceptable to the majority of participants, with all of group 1 and 70% of group 2 adhering to PRB therapy for the duration of the study and opting to persist with PRB therapy over other OAT options after study completion. All participants who remained on treatment demonstrated marked improvements in psychosocial and clinical severity assessment scores, with some returning to employment or education. On-top drug use remained absent in group 1 and was reduced in group 2.

CONCLUSIONS

Evaluation of transition of participants from daily OAT to PRB therapy was shown to be feasible, acceptable, and effective across both groups. A larger randomised controlled trial is warranted, particularly to assess PRB therapy in participants with a history of poor treatment engagement, as the need for therapy is greater in this group and their management is associated with higher costs of care.

'I just thought that was the best thing for me to do at this point': Exploring patient experiences with depot buprenorphine and their motivations to discontinue

INTRODUCTION

Long-acting injectable depot buprenorphine is a recent addition to the suite of opioid agonist therapies (OAT) used to treat opioid use disorder (OUD). However, there has been little research that focuses on the lived experience of people receiving depot buprenorphine treatment and reasons for why people decide to discontinue. The aim of this study was to explore what it is like to receive depot buprenorphine and to understand the motivations behind why people discontinue.

METHODS

Open-ended, semi-structured interviews were conducted between November 2021 and January 2022 with individuals who were either currently receiving depot buprenorphine or had discontinued or were in the process of discontinuing depot buprenorphine. Liberati, et al.'s (2022) adaptation of Dixon-Woods's (2006) candidacy framework was used to analyse the participant experiences.

RESULTS

40 participants (26 male, 13 female, 1 undisclosed; mean age 42 years) were interviewed about their experience with depot buprenorphine. At the time of the interview, 21 were currently receiving depot buprenorphine and 19 had discontinued this treatment or were in the process of discontinuing. Participants cited 4 key reasons why they decided to discontinue depot buprenorphine:1) feeling forced into the program, 2) experiencing negative side-effects, 3) finding the treatment ineffective, and 4) wanting to stop depot buprenorphine/OAT to use opioids again or feeling 'cured' and no longer in need of OAT. Participants were ultimately discussing issues related to clinician-patient power relations, agency and bodily autonomy, and the pursuit of well-being.

CONCLUSION

Depot buprenorphine remains a promising treatment for OUD and offers potential to improve treatment adherence. Instances of restricted OAT choice and consumer concerns regarding a lack of agency must be addressed in order to enhance therapeutic relationships. Clinicians and other healthcare workers in this field also need greater access to information about depot buprenorphine to better address issues patients face during treatment. More research is required to understand patient and treatment choice given the options of these new treatment formulations.

How do patients feel during the first 72 h after initiating long-acting injectable buprenorphine? An embodied qualitative analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Long-acting injectable buprenorphine (LAIB) is a new treatment for opioid use disorder that is generating positive outcomes. Negative effects are typically mild and transient, but can occasionally be serious, resulting in treatment discontinuation/non-adherence. This paper aims to analyse patients' accounts of how they felt during the first 72 h after initiating LAIB.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted (June 2021-March 2022) with 26 people (18 males and 8 females) who had started LAIB within the previous 72 h. Participants were recruited from treatment services in England and Wales and were interviewed by telephone using a topic guide. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and coded. The concepts of embodiment and embodied cognition framed the analyses. Data on participants' substance use, initiation onto LAIB and feelings were tabulated. Next, participants' accounts of how they felt were analysed following the stages of Iterative Categorization.

RESULTS

Participants reported complex combinations of changing negative and positive feelings. Bodily experiences included withdrawal symptoms, poor sleep, injection-site pain/soreness, lethargy and heightened senses inducing nausea ('distressed bodies'), but also enhanced somatic wellbeing, improved sleep, better skin, increased appetite, reduced constipation and heightened senses inducing pleasure ('returning body functions'). Cognitive responses included anxiety, uncertainties and low mood/depression ('the mind in crisis') and improved mood, greater positivity and reduced craving ('feeling psychologically better'). Whereas most negative effects reported are widely recognized, the early benefits of treatment described are less well-documented and may be an overlooked distinctive feature of LAIB.

CONCLUSIONS

During the first 72 h after initiating long-acting injectable buprenorphine, new patients report experiencing a range of interconnected positive and negative short-term effects. Providing new patients with information about the range and nature of these effects can prepare them for what to expect and help them manage feelings and reduce anxiety. In turn, this may increase medication adherence.

Experience and response to a randomised controlled trial of extended-release injectable buprenorphine versus sublingual tablet buprenorphine and oral liquid methadone for opioid use disorder: protocol for a mixed-methods evaluation

INTRODUCTION

Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a debilitating and persistent disorder. The standard-of-care treatment is daily maintenance dosing of sublingual buprenorphine (BUP-SL) or oral methadone (MET). Monthly, extended-release, subcutaneous injectable buprenorphine (BUP-XR) has been developed to enhance treatment effectiveness. This study aims to investigate the experiences of participants who have been offered BUP-XR (evaluation 1), health-related quality-of-life among participants who have opted to receive BUP-XR longer term (evaluation 2) and the experiences of participants allocated to receive BUP-XR or BUP-SL or MET with the offer of adjunctive personalised psychosocial intervention (evaluation 3).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Three qualitative-quantitative (mixed-methods) evaluations embedded in a five-centre, head-to-head, randomised controlled trial of BUP-XR versus BUP-SL and MET in the UK. Evaluation 1 is a four-centre interview anchored on an OUD-related topic guide and conducted after the 24-week trial endpoint. Evaluation 2 is a two-centre interview anchored on medications for opioid use disorder-specific quality-of-life topic guide conducted among participants after 12-24 months. Evaluation 3: single-centre interview after the 24-week trial endpoint. All evaluations include selected trial clinical measures, with evaluation 2 incorporating additional questionnaires. Target participant recruitment for evaluations 1 and 2 is 15 participants per centre (n=60 and n=30, respectively). Recruitment for evaluation 3 is 15 participants per treatment arm (n=30). Each evaluation will be underpinned by theory, drawing on constructs from the behavioural model for health service use or the health-related quality-of-life model. Qualitative data analysis will be by iterative categorisation.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Study protocol, consent materials and questionnaires were approved by the London-Brighton and Sussex research ethics committee (reference: 19/LO/0483) and the Health Research Authority (IRAS project number 255522). Participants will be provided with information sheets and informed written consent will be obtained for each evaluation. Study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed scientific journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

2018-004460-63.

Buprenorphine and its formulations: a comprehensive review

Buprenorphine, a novel long-acting analgesic, was developed with the intention of two purposes: analgesia and opioid use disorder. Regarding its pharmacodynamics, it is a partial agonist at mu receptors, an inverse agonist at kappa receptors, and an antagonist at delta receptors. For the purpose of analgesia, three formulations of buprenorphine were developed: IV/IM injectable formulation (Buprenex®), transdermal patch formulation (Butrans®), and buccal film formulation (Belbuca®). Related to opioid dependence, the formulations developed were subcutaneous extended release (Sublocade®), subdermal implant (Probuphine®), and sublingual tablets (Subutex®). Lastly, in order to avoid misuse of buprenorphine for opioid dependence, two combination formulations paired with naloxone were developed: film formulation (Suboxone®) and tablet formulation (Zubsolv®). In this review, we present details of each formulation along with their similarities and differences between each other and clinical considerations.

Perceptions and experiences toward extended-release buprenorphine among persons leaving jail with opioid use disorders before and during COVID-19: an in-depth qualitative study

Background

Extended-release buprenorphine (XRB) offers a novel approach to sustained monthly treatment for people who use opioids in criminal justice settings (CJS). This study explores the experiences of adults receiving XRB as a jail-to-community treatment.

Methods and findings

In-depth qualitative interviews were conducted among adult participants with opioid use disorder (OUD; n  = 16) who were recently released from NYC jails and maintained on XRB after switching from daily sublingual buprenorphine (SLB). Interviews elaborated on the acceptability and barriers and facilitators of XRB treatment pre- and post-release. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed for content related to factors influencing XRB treatment uptake and community reentry. Important themes were grouped into systems, medication, and patient-level factors. Key systems-level factors influencing initiation of XRB in jail included an alternative to perceived stigmatization and privacy concerns associated with daily in-jail SLB administration and less concerns with buprenorphine diversion. In-jail peer networks positively influenced participant adoption of XRB. XRB satisfaction was attributed to reduced in-jail clinic and medication administration visits, perceived efficacy and blockade effects upon the use of heroin/fentanyl following release, and averting the risk of criminal activities to fund opioid use. Barriers to retention included post-injection withdrawal symptoms and cravings attributed to perceived suboptimal medication dosing, injection site pain, and lack of in-jail provider information about the medication.

Conclusion

Participants were generally favorable to XRB initiation in jail and retention post-release. Further studies are needed to address factors influencing access to XRB in criminal justice settings, including stigma, ensuring patient privacy following initiation on XRB, and patient-, provider-, and correctional staff education pertaining to XRB.

Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identified: NCT03604159.

Perception of a New Prolonged-Release Buprenorphine Formulation in Patients with Opioid Use Disorder: The PREDEPO Study

AIM

The aim of the study was to assess the acceptance of patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) to switching their opioid dependence treatment (ODT) for a prolonged-release buprenorphine (PRB) injection according to their prior ODT (buprenorphine/naloxone [B/N] or methadone).

METHODS

This was an observational, retrospective/cross-sectional, multicentre study of adult patients diagnosed with OUD on ODT. Data collected from diaries were analysed to know their interest and opinion on PRB. Questions with fixed response options were included, and several Likert scales were used.

RESULTS

A total of 98 patients were enrolled (B/N: 50.0%, methadone: 50.0%). The mean age was 46.9 ± 8.43 years and 79.6% were males. PRB was similarly perceived by both groups in most variables analysed, receiving a mean score of 7.2/10 (B/N: 7.4, methadone: 7.0; p = 0.520), and approximately 65% of patients said they were willing to switch to PRB (B/N: 63.3%, methadone: 65.3%; p = 0.833). Of these, a higher percentage in the B/N group considered that switching would be easy/very easy (B/N: 90.3%, methadone: 46.9%; p < 0.001) and that they would start PRB when available (B/N: 64.5%, methadone: 34.3%; p = 0.005). More than 90% would prefer the monthly injection (B/N: 93.6%, methadone: 100%; p = 0.514). One-third of patients in both groups were unsure/would not switch their ODT to PRB (B/N: 36.7%, methadone: 34.7%; p = 0.833). The main reason was administration by injection.

CONCLUSION

Two-thirds of patients would switch their treatment for PRB, and most patients on B/N considered that switching would be easy. PRB could be a suitable alternative for OUD management.

Prolonged-Release Buprenorphine Therapy in Opioid Use Disorder Can Address Stigma and Improve Patient Quality of Life

Treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) including opioid agonist therapy (OAT) is effective. Medication with the oral administration of methadone and buprenorphine has well-known limitations (establishing consistent optimal dosing levels, misuse, diversion, and accidental exposure). Treatment may require attendance at treatment services for collection and consumption of medication; this is associated with stigma and discrimination. Novel therapeutic options include approved, injectable, prolonged-release buprenorphine (PRB) products providing consistently optimal drug levels and less frequent dosing. This work assesses the lived experience of persons currently engaged in OUD therapy to define the potential value of novel therapeutic options in order to inform treatment decisions.

One hundred and twenty-two people engaged with treatment services participated in this assessment. Seventy-two percent of participants believed that novel therapeutic options would improve quality of life and 67% stated it would reduce stigma and discrimination. Participants were neither concerned about the efficacy of (net score negative 30%), or lack of control over (net score negative 36%) treatment, nor about reduced contact with treatment services (net score negative 11%). Results from this assessment indicate that the provision of choice including novel therapeutic options is likely to improve quality of life and reduce the stigma of persons with OUD.

Patterns of clinic switching and continuity of medication for opioid use disorder in a Medicaid-enrolled population

BACKGROUND

Many persons with opioid use disorder (OUD) initiate medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) with one clinic and switch to another clinic during their course of treatment. These switches may occur for referrals or for unplanned reasons. It is unknown, however, what effect switching MOUD clinics has on continuity of MOUD treatment or on overdoses.

OBJECTIVE

To examine patterns of switching MOUD clinics and its association with the proportion of days covered (PDC) by MOUD, and opioid-related overdose.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional retrospective analysis of Pennsylvania Medicaid claims data.

MAIN MEASURES

MOUD clinic switches (i.e., filling a MOUD prescription from a prescriber located in a different clinic than the previous prescriber), PDC, and opioid-related overdose.

RESULTS

Among 14,107 enrollees, 43.2 % switched clinics for MOUD at least once during the 270 day period. In multivariate regression results, enrollees who were Non-Hispanic black (IRR = 1.43; 95 % CI = 1.24-1.65; p < 0.001), had previous methadone use (IRR = 1.32; 95 % CI = 1.13-1.55; p < 0.001), and a higher total number of office visits (IRR = 1.01; CI = 1.01-1.01; p < 0.001) had more switches. The number of clinic switches was positively associated with PDC (OR = 1.12; 95 % CI = 1.10-1.13). In secondary analyses, we found that switches for only one MOUD fill were associated with lower PDC (OR = 0.97; 95 % CI = 0.95-0.99), while switches for more than one MOUD fill were associated with higher PDC (OR = 1.40; 95 % CI = 1.36-1.44). We did not observe a relationship between opioid-related overdose and clinic switches.

CONCLUSIONS

Lack of prescriber continuity for receiving MOUD may not be problematic as it is for other conditions, insofar as it is related to overdose and PDC.

Increased Treatment Engagement and Adherence: Flexible Management with Prolonged-Release Buprenorphine in Treatment of Opioid Dependence

Opioid dependence (OD) is effectively treated with well-evidenced regimens including psychosocial and opioid agonist pharmacotherapy. Many do not engage with treatment services; reasons include the burden of mandatory supervision and stigma. Injectable prolonged-release buprenorphine (PRB) offers choice and flexibility in treatment. Experience reported here demonstrates the potential for PRB to enable wider engagement with treatment services. Treatment was successful in patients unable to attend daily observed therapy due to work commitments, unable to use services for fear of stigma, or having not achieved goals on previous attempts with conventional approaches. PRB therapy was clinically successful without withdrawal signs or evidence of use of other drugs. Patient-reported outcomes were positive including maintained ability to work, manageable detoxification experience, and stigma-free treatment. This work provides evidence of PRB benefit in expanding treatment engagement.

COVID-19 and the health of people who use drugs: What is and what could be?

SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, has changed the world as we know it, and continues to do so. How COVID-19 affects people who use drugs, the environments in which they live, and capacities of response, warrants immediate attention. This special issue begins to map how COVID-19 is altering the health of people who use drugs, including in relation to patterns of drug use, service responses, harms that may relate to drug use, interventions to reduce risk of harms, COVID-19 health, and drug policies. We emphasise the need to envisage COVID-19 and its effects as a matter of intersecting ‘complex adaptive systems’: that is, the impacts of COVID-19 extend beyond the virus and related illness conditions to encompass multiple social, cultural, economic, policy and political effects; and these affect the health of people who use drugs directly as well as indirectly by altering the risk and enabling environments in which they live. We synthesize emergent evidence on the impact of COVID-19 on the health of people who use drugs. A key concern we identify is how to sustain policy and service delivery improvements prompted by COVID-19. We need to maintain an ethos of emergent adaptation and experimentation towards the creation of safer environments in relation to the health of people who use drugs.

Novel Long-Acting Buprenorphine Medications for Opioid Dependence: Current Update

Opioid maintenance treatment with oral methadone or sublingual buprenorphine is the first-line treatment in opioid dependence. Three novel long-acting buprenorphine formulations have been approved or will be available soon: for subcutaneous weekly and monthly application, the depot formulations CAM 2038 (Buvidal^®), the monthly depot formulation RBP-6000 (Sublocade™), and a 6-month buprenorphine implant (Probuphine™). Clinical data available so far on the efficacy of these 3 medications are given, and possible clinical implications are discussed.

Patient-Reported Outcomes, Experiences and Satisfaction with Weekly and Monthly Injectable Prolonged-Release Buprenorphine

Introduction

Prolonged-release buprenorphine (PRB), administered by weekly or monthly injection, for opioid dependence (OD) treatment offers the potential to address some limitations of oral therapy including stigma, difficulty in achieving consistent appropriate dosing, risk of diversion of medications, risk of overdose, and continuing use of other drugs. Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) and experiences are important in the evaluation of OD therapy success. This work aimed to document PRO during PRB therapy to guide future treatment decision-making.

Methods

Qualitative interviews were completed with people on PRB OD treatment. Twenty individuals from four treatment services in England and Wales were asked to participate. A structured interview was developed guided by a person with OD lived experience. Interviews were transcribed, coded and analyzed using iterative categorization.

Results

Fifteen of 20 individuals approached agreed to participate, and 14 completed interviews. The average age of participants was 42 (range 33–54) years, 13 males and 1 woman, the history of problematic opioid use was 14 years (3–25 years), time in treatment was 7 years (1–20 years), and duration on treatment with PRB was 4 months (range 1–8 months). Participants reported treatment experiences leading to coding of 277 unique comments: therapy effectiveness (77% indicated a benefit of, or satisfaction with, PRB therapy, 7% neutral/general, 16% indicated concern or questions about PRB therapy), convenience (81% benefit, 7% neutral/general, 12% concern), and overall satisfaction (81% benefit, 3% neutral/general, 16% concern). Reported benefits include cravings reduction of 10 (71%), self-care improvement of 10 (71%), relationships improvement of 9 (64%), resources management of 6 (43%), positive outlook on life of 12 (86%). Participants reported a range of positive personal experiences; challenges reported included temporary injection discomfort at treatment initiation.

Discussion

In this small, focused population, there was generally a positive level of treatment satisfaction with PRB. These experiences provide insights to explain potential treatment benefit to others and are useful in guiding therapy choices for others in the future.

Perceptions of extended-release buprenorphine injections for opioid use disorder among people who regularly use opioids in Australia

AIMS

To examine perceptions of extended-release (XR) buprenorphine injections among people who regularly use opioids in Australia.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey prior to implementation. XR-buprenorphine was registered in Australia in November 2018.

SETTING

Sydney, Melbourne and Hobart. Participants A total of 402 people who regularly use opioids interviewed December 2017 to March 2018.

MEASUREMENTS

Primary outcome concerned the proportion of participants who believed XR-buprenorphine would be a good treatment option for them, preferred weekly versus monthly injections and perceived advantages/disadvantages of XR-buprenorphine. Independent variables concerned the demographic characteristics and features of current opioid agonist treatment (OAT; medication-type, dose, prescriber/dosing setting, unsupervised doses, out-of-pocket expenses and travel distance).

FINDINGS

Sixty-eight per cent [95% confidence interval (CI) = 63-73%] believed XR-buprenorphine was a good treatment option for them. They were more likely to report being younger [26-35 versus > 55 years; odds ratio (OR) = 3.16, 95% CI = 1.12-8.89; P = 0.029], being female (OR = 1.67, 95% CI = 1.04-2.69; P = 0.034), < 10 years school education (OR = 1.87, 95% CI = 1.12-3.12; P = 0.016) and past-month heroin (OR = 1.81, 95% CI = 1.15-2.85; P = 0.006) and methamphetamine use (OR = 1.90, 95% CI = 1.20-3.01; P = 0.006). Fifty-four per cent reported no preference for weekly versus monthly injections, 7% preferred weekly and 39% preferred monthly. Among OAT recipients (n = 255), believing XR-buprenorphine was a good treatment option was associated with shorter treatment episodes (1-2 versus ≥ 2 years; OR = 3.93, 95% CI = 1.26-12.22; P = 0.018), fewer unsupervised doses (≤ 8 doses past-month versus no take-aways; OR = 0.50; 95% CI = 0.27-0.93; P = 0.028) and longer travel distance (≥ 5 versus < 5 km; OR = 2.10, 95% CI = 1.20-3.65; P = 0.009). Sixty-nine per cent reported 'no problems or concerns' with potential differences in availability, flexibility and location of XR-buprenorphine.

CONCLUSIONS

Among regular opioid users in Australia, perceptions of extended-release buprenorphine as a good treatment option are associated with being female, recent illicit drug use and factors relating to the (in)convenience of current opioid agonist treatment.

Budget Impact Analysis of the Introduction of Injectable Prolonged-Release Buprenorphine on Opioid Use Disorder Care Resource Requirements

Objective

To assess budget impact of the introduction of prolonged-release buprenorphine (PRB) for care of opioid use disorder (OUD) over 1 year in a defined population.

Materials and Methods

A healthcare perspective, decision-tree model analysis of the cost of OUD care for a standard population was prepared to compare two scenarios: treatment of a population under the existing standard of care, or with the addition of PRB. The model assessed OUD-related direct costs (medication, delivery, psychosocial treatment), other services costs (harm reduction, general healthcare, social and justice services) and the impact of behaviors such as engaging with treatment and electing to use additional opioids “on top” of treatment regimens, and “dropping out” from treatment.

Results

Standard population definition (persons offered OUD care services) is based on a typical administrative region in England with general population of 400,000 citizens, 1,777 high-risk opioid users requiring treatment and 909 patients initiating treatment in a year. The cost to provide OUD care for 1 year under the current scenario (70% treated with methadone, 30% sublingual buprenorphine) is £19.7M. In scenarios with increased PRB adoption/reduced sublingual buprenorphine or oral methadone use, the cost reduction ranges from £0.2M to 0.7M.

Conclusion

The assessment showed a reduction of overall costs after introduction of PRB.

Perceptions and preferences for long-acting injectable and implantable medications in comparison to short-acting medications for opioid use disorders

Aim

Treatment for opioid use disorders has recently evolved to include long-acting injectable and implantable formulations of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD). Incorporating patient preferences into treatment for substance use disorders is associated with increased motivation and treatment satisfaction. This study sought to assess treatment preferences for long-acting injectable and implantable MOUD as compared to short-acting formulations among individuals with OUD.

Methods

We conducted qualitative, semi-structured telephone interviews with forty adults recruited from across the United States through Craigslist advertisements and flyers posted in treatment programs. Eligible participants scored a two or greater on the heroin or opioid pain reliever sections of the Tobacco, Alcohol, Prescription Medications, and Other Substances (TAPS) Tool, indicative of a past-year OUD. Interviews were transcribed, coded, and thematically analyzed.

Results

Twenty-four participants (60%) currently or previously had been prescribed MOUD. Sixteen participants (40%) expressed general opposition to MOUD, citing concerns that MOUD is purely financial gain for pharmaceutical companies and/or a "band aid" solution replacing one drug with another, rather than a path to abstinence. Some participants expressed personal preference for long-acting injectable (n = 16/40: 40%) and implantable formulations (n = 12/40: 30%) over short-acting formulations. About half of the participants were not willing to use injectables (n = 19/40: 48%) or implantables (n = 22/40: 55%), preferring short-acting formulations. Mixed evaluations of long- and short-acting MOUD focused on considerations of medication-related beliefs (privacy, concern over an embedded foreign body), the medication-related burden (convenience, provision of structure and support, medication administration, potential side effects), and medication-taking practices (potential for non-prescribed use, control over dosage, and duration of treatment).

Conclusions

Though many participants personally prefer short-acting to long-acting MOUD, some were open to including long-acting formulations in the range of options for those with OUD. Participants felt long-acting formulations may reduce medication-related burden and the risk of diversion. Conversely, participants expressed concern about invasive administration and loss of control over their treatment. Results suggest support for expanded access to a variety of formulations of MOUD. The use of shared decision making may also help patients select the formulation best aligned with their experiences, values, and treatment goals.

Depot Buprenorphine Injection In The Management Of Opioid Use Disorder: From Development To Implementation

Buprenorphine has pharmacologic advantages over methadone, especially buprenorphine's better safety profile. The true significance of buprenorphine's introduction lies in returning the care of those suffering from opioid use disorder (OUD) to the hands of the physician. The clinical success of buprenorphine has been meager, in part because most physicians have not been exposed to treating these patients. For physicians inclined to treat OUD, the barriers to buprenorphine's implementation have been onerous and largely counter to the norms of medical practice. Some notable concerns pertain to buprenorphine's clinical pharmacology like street diversion, unintended use and accidental poisoning. Recently, injectable buprenorphine preparations have been introduced to mitigate these latter shortcomings. Yet, the injectable preparations' clinical and commercial success has fallen far short of expectation. Here, we review the clinical pharmacology of these products and their expected clinical advantages for the manufacturers, clinicians, policy makers and patients, and offer our perspective, as clinicians and researchers, on how things can improve. Questions remain whether clinicians are willing to overcome barriers to treat OUD using these medications.

Successful Treatment of Opioid Dependence with Flexible Doses of Injectable Prolonged Release Buprenorphine

Opioid dependence (OD) may be effectively treated with well-evidenced regimens including psychosocial and pharmacotherapeutic interventions. Treatment has benefits but also limitations including risk of diversion, impact of mandatory daily supervision, and stigma. An injectable prolonged release buprenorphine with flexible dose options has recently been approved by the European Commission and is available in the UK and other European Countries. Initial positive treatment experience in patients with different clinical scenarios (patients with no recent treatment history, a transfer from oral methadone, and change from sublingual buprenorphine tablets) provides evidence of the potential benefit in a range of situations for this therapeutic option. Adoption of the injectable form was clinically successful with no withdrawal signs, nor evidence of use of other drugs. Patient reported outcomes were positive including reduction in cravings and anxiety and improved attitude, relationships, and general mood.

Opioid users' willingness to receive prolonged-release buprenorphine depot injections for opioid use disorder

AIMS

Prolonged-release implantable and depot injection formulations of buprenorphine are very recent developments in the treatment of opioid use disorder. Such formulations remove the need for daily dosing and provide patients with sustained concentrations of buprenorphine over a period of weeks or months. We explored opioid users' personal willingness to receive prolonged-release buprenorphine depot injections and factors influencing their interest.

METHODS

The study took place in London during 2018, before depot buprenorphine was licensed for use in Europe. Thirty-six face-to-face, semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with people who were: i) using heroin daily and not receiving any treatment for opioid use (n = 12); or ii) prescribed daily oral buprenorphine (n = 12); or iii) prescribed daily oral methadone (n = 12). Participants were asked about their willingness to receive depot buprenorphine and were encouraged to discuss factors that might alter their opinions. Interview data were analysed following the stages of Iterative Categorization.

FINDINGS

Participants expressed a high level of willingness to receive depot buprenorphine. Their views were influenced both positively and negatively by six key features of depot buprenorphine: i) reduced contact with pharmacies and drug treatment services; ii) impact on illicit drug use and recovery; iii) the perceived effectiveness of depot buprenorphine; iv) the duration and dosage of depot buprenorphine injections; v) clinical administration of the depot buprenorphine injection; and vi) potential for side effects associated with the depot buprenorphine injection.

CONCLUSIONS

Willingness to receive a given medication is complex, individual and changeable. Opioid users seem likely to welcome greater choice and flexibility in respect of opioid agonist medications and appear more likely to accept and adhere to depot buprenorphine if it enables them to reduce their illicit drug use and facilitates their recovery. Research is now needed to assess whether patients' reported willingness to receive depot buprenorphine translates into actual uptake and adherence.

Prolonged-release opioid agonist therapy: qualitative study exploring patients' views of 1-week, 1-month, and 6-month buprenorphine formulations

Background

Options for opioid agonist therapy (OAT) are expanding with the development of prolonged-release (also known as extended-release) 1-week, 1-month, and 6-month formulations of buprenorphine. There is an assumption that patients will welcome these new treatments and medication adherence will correspondingly increase. However, there has been little research exploring patients’ views of prolonged-release buprenorphine. This paper aims to understand which durations patients prefer and why, and to consider the findings with reference to the development of future OAT products.

Methods

Data were generated as part of a qualitative interview study. Fieldwork was conducted in London, UK, during 2018 (before any prolonged-release OAT formulations were licensed in Europe). Participants (n = 36) were taking daily oral OAT (methadone or buprenorphine) or using heroin daily without OAT. They included 26 men and 10 women, aged 24–63 years. All were asked for their views on weekly, monthly, and six-monthly duration buprenorphine. Responses were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed by Iterative Categorization.

Results

Participants generally stated that having buprenorphine of different prolonged durations was positive. They tended to believe that ‘longer’ prolonged-release formulations would be beneficial for patients who wanted to avoid thinking about drugs and drug-using associates, wished to evade the stigma of substance use, and desired ‘normality’ and ‘recovery.’ In contrast, participants favored ‘shorter’ prolonged-release formulations for patients who are new to OAT, worried about the safety and reliability/effectiveness of OAT, want a ‘break’ from street opioids, and need contact with services to monitor/support them. Participants indicated that transitioning between OAT medications of different duration would be a very individual process. Some also linked prolonged-release OAT duration to political, philosophical, and ethical issues, such as patient coercion and mental capability.

Conclusions

Medication duration is an important but complex feature of prolonged-release buprenorphine, with patients’ views and preferences likely to be influenced by a wide range of factors. We need further qualitative research to explore the experiences of people who have actually used prolonged-release OAT. Meanwhile, drug developers should continue to build flexibility and choice into OAT products to ensure that future treatment is acceptable to patients and able to accommodate their diverse individual needs.