Search

AbstractBackground: People with opioid use disorder (OUD) are increasingly started on buprenorphine in the hospital, yet many patients do not attend outpatient buprenorphine care after discharge. Peer providers, people in recovery themselves, are a growing part of addiction care. We examine whether patients who received a low-intensity, peer-delivered intervention during hospitalization had a greater rate of linking with outpatient buprenorphine care relative to those not seen by a peer. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of adults with OUD who were started on buprenorphine during hospitalization. The primary outcome was receipt of a buprenorphine prescription within 30 days of discharge. Secondary outcomes included attendance at a follow-up visit with a buprenorphine provider within 30 days and hospital readmission within 90 days. Modified Poisson regression analyses tested for differences in the rate ratios (RR) of each binary outcome for patients who were versus were not seen by a peer provider. Peer notes in the electronic health record were reviewed to characterize peer activities. Results: 111 patients met the study inclusion criteria, 31.5% of whom saw a peer provider. 55.0% received a buprenorphine prescription within 30 days of hospital discharge. Patients with versus without peer provider encounters did not significantly differ in the rates of receiving a buprenorphine prescription (RR = 1.06, 95% CI: 0.74-1.51), hospital readmission (RR = 1.45, 95% CI: 0.80-2.64), or attendance at a buprenorphine follow-up visit (RR = 1.03, 95% CI: 0.68-1.57). Peers most often listened to or shared experiences with patients (68.6% of encounters) and helped facilitate medical care (60.0% of encounters). Conclusions: There were no differences in multiple measures of buprenorphine follow-up between patients who received this low-intensity peer intervention and those who did not. There is need to investigate what elements of peer provider programs contribute to patient outcomes and what outcomes should be assessed when evaluating peer programs.

Background: People with opioid use disorder (OUD) are increasingly started on buprenorphine in the hospital, yet many patients do not attend outpatient buprenorphine care after discharge. Peer providers, people in recovery themselves, are a growing part of addiction care. We examine whether patients who received a low-intensity, peer-delivered intervention during hospitalization had a greater rate of linking with outpatient buprenorphine care relative to those not seen by a peer. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of adults with OUD who were started on buprenorphine during hospitalization. The primary outcome was receipt of a buprenorphine prescription within 30 days of discharge. Secondary outcomes included attendance at a follow-up visit with a buprenorphine provider within 30 days and hospital readmission within 90 days. Modified Poisson regression analyses tested for differences in the rate ratios (RR) of each binary outcome for patients who were versus were not seen by a peer provider. Peer notes in the electronic health record were reviewed to characterize peer activities. Results: 111 patients met the study inclusion criteria, 31.5% of whom saw a peer provider. 55.0% received a buprenorphine prescription within 30 days of hospital discharge. Patients with versus without peer provider encounters did not significantly differ in the rates of receiving a buprenorphine prescription (RR = 1.06, 95% CI: 0.74-1.51), hospital readmission (RR = 1.45, 95% CI: 0.80-2.64), or attendance at a buprenorphine follow-up visit (RR = 1.03, 95% CI: 0.68-1.57). Peers most often listened to or shared experiences with patients (68.6% of encounters) and helped facilitate medical care (60.0% of encounters). Conclusions: There were no differences in multiple measures of buprenorphine follow-up between patients who received this low-intensity peer intervention and those who did not. There is need to investigate what elements of peer provider programs contribute to patient outcomes and what outcomes should be assessed when evaluating peer programs.

Background: Federal and state regulations require frequent direct observation of methadone ingestion at an Opioid Treatment Program (OTP)—a requirement that creates barriers to patient access. Video observed therapy (VOT) may help to address public health and safety concerns of providing take-home medications while simultaneously reducing barriers to treatment access and long-term retention. Evaluating user experiences with VOT is important for understanding the acceptability of this strategy. Methods: We conducted a qualitative evaluation of a clinical pilot program of VOT via smartphone that was rapidly implemented between April and August 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic within three opioid treatment programs. In the program, selected patients submitted video recordings of themselves ingesting methadone take-home doses, which were asynchronously reviewed by their counselor. We recruited participating patients and counselors for semi-structured, individual interviews to explore their VOT experiences after program completion. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis to identify key factors influencing acceptability and the effect of VOT on the treatment experience. Results: We interviewed 12 of the 60 patients who participated in the clinical pilot and 3 of the 5 counselors. Overall, patients were enthusiastic about VOT, noting multiple benefits over traditional treatment experiences, including avoiding frequent travel to the clinic. Some noted how this allowed them to better meet recovery goals by avoiding a potentially triggering environment. Most appreciated having increased time to devote to other life priorities, including maintaining consistent employment. Participants described how VOT increased their autonomy, allowed them to keep treatment private, and normalized treatment to align with other medications that do not require in-person dosing. Participants did not describe major usability issues or privacy concerns with submitting videos. Some participants reported feeling disconnected from counselors while others felt more connected. Counselors felt some discomfort in their new role confirming medication ingestion but saw VOT as a useful tool for select patients. Conclusions: VOT may be an acceptable tool to achieve equipoise between lowering barriers to treatment with methadone and protecting the health and safety of patients and their communities.

Buprenorphine maintenance for opioid dependence remains of limited availability among underserved populations, despite increases in US opioid misuse and overdose deaths. Low threshold primary care treatment models including the use of unobserved, “home,” buprenorphine induction may simplify initiation of care and improve access. Unobserved induction and long-term treatment outcomes have not been reported recently among large, naturalistic cohorts treated in low threshold safety net primary care settings. This prospective clinical registry cohort design estimated rates of induction-related adverse events, treatment retention, and urine opioid results for opioid dependent adults offered buprenorphine maintenance in a New York City public hospital primary care office-based practice from 2006 to 2013. This clinic relied on typical ambulatory care individual provider-patient visits, prescribed unobserved induction exclusively, saw patients no more than weekly, and did not require additional psychosocial treatment. Unobserved induction consisted of an in-person screening and diagnostic visit followed by a 1-week buprenorphine written prescription, with pamphlet, and telephone support. Primary outcomes analyzed were rates of induction-related adverse events (AE), week 1 drop-out, and long-term treatment retention. Factors associated with treatment retention were examined using a Cox proportional hazard model among inductions and all patients. Secondary outcomes included overall clinic retention, buprenorphine dosages, and urine sample results. Of the 485 total patients in our registry, 306 were inducted, and 179 were transfers already on buprenorphine. Post-induction (n = 306), week 1 drop-out was 17%. Rates of any induction-related AE were 12%; serious adverse events, 0%; precipitated withdrawal, 3%; prolonged withdrawal, 4%. Treatment retention was a median 38 weeks (range 0–320) for inductions, compared to 110 (0–354) weeks for transfers and 57 for the entire clinic population. Older age, later years of first clinic visit (vs. 2006–2007), and baseline heroin abstinence were associated with increased treatment retention overall. Unobserved “home” buprenorphine induction in a public sector primary care setting appeared a feasible and safe clinical practice. Post-induction treatment retention of a median 38 weeks was in line with previous naturalistic studies of real-world office-based opioid treatment. Low threshold treatment protocols, as compared to national guidelines, may compliment recently increased prescriber patient limits and expand access to buprenorphine among public sector opioid use disorder patients.