Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Opioid agonist treatment (OAT) is a highly effective treatment option for people with opioid use disorder. The potent medications used create dilemmas regarding low or high thresholds to access treatment, patient autonomy and regulations. OAT in Scania County in the south of Sweden has seen the implementation of regulatory changes resulting in liberalization through a patient choice model and increased access to treatment. In this setting, in which OAT has developed from high threshold to low threshold because of policy changes at both national and local levels, we aimed to analyze how patients and staff view the risks and benefits of OAT. Methods We conducted qualitative interviews with 32 OAT patients and 15 OAT staff in Malmö, Sweden. We analyzed the data with a thematic analysis approach. Results Patients reported that OAT helped them to “stabilize” their lives although many felt a sense of being locked into treatment, which acted as a barrier to normalization. A significant risk was being offered illicit drugs by patients and dealers when visiting the clinic. Patients who had enrolled in OAT before liberalization found current guidelines too lenient and expressed worry that persons being enrolled were too young. Staff viewed liberalization with some ambivalence, with a positive view of increased access to OAT, although they had worries about the enrollment of young patients and difficulties supporting patients with ongoing drug use. Staff also viewed the sale of drugs in and outside of clinics as a significant problem. Some staff viewed medicines as the most important aspect of OAT, while others positioned the social support as most important. Conclusions Patient and staff perspectives were relatively congruent as they highlighted substantial risks regarding drug dealing at OAT clinics and were ambivalent toward the liberalization of OAT guidelines and the increased access to OAT. Liberalization impacted both patients and staff in their everyday lives and in professional practice, in a setting where OAT is both a desirable treatment and sometimes the basis of a problematic drug scene.

Although clinical trials demonstrate the superior effectiveness of medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) compared with nonpharmacologic treatment, national data on the comparative effectiveness of real-world treatment pathways are lacking. To examine associations between opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment pathways and overdose and opioid-related acute care use as proxies for OUD recurrence. This retrospective comparative effectiveness research study assessed deidentified claims from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse from individuals aged 16 years or older with OUD and commercial or Medicare Advantage coverage. Opioid use disorder was identified based on 1 or more inpatient or 2 or more outpatient claims for OUD diagnosis codes within 3 months of each other; 1 or more claims for OUD plus diagnosis codes for opioid-related overdose, injection-related infection, or inpatient detoxification or residential services; or MOUD claims between January 1, 2015, and September 30, 2017. Data analysis was performed from April 1, 2018, to June 30, 2019. One of 6 mutually exclusive treatment pathways, including (1) no treatment, (2) inpatient detoxification or residential services, (3) intensive behavioral health, (4) buprenorphine or methadone, (5) naltrexone, and (6) nonintensive behavioral health. Opioid-related overdose or serious acute care use during 3 and 12 months after initial treatment. A total of 40 885 individuals with OUD (mean [SD] age, 47.73 [17.25] years; 22 172 [54.2%] male; 30 332 [74.2%] white) were identified. For OUD treatment, 24 258 (59.3%) received nonintensive behavioral health, 6455 (15.8%) received inpatient detoxification or residential services, 5123 (12.5%) received MOUD treatment with buprenorphine or methadone, 1970 (4.8%) received intensive behavioral health, and 963 (2.4%) received MOUD treatment with naltrexone. During 3-month follow-up, 707 participants (1.7%) experienced an overdose, and 773 (1.9%) had serious opioid-related acute care use. Only treatment with buprenorphine or methadone was associated with a reduced risk of overdose during 3-month (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 0.24; 95% CI, 0.14-0.41) and 12-month (AHR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.31-0.55) follow-up. Treatment with buprenorphine or methadone was also associated with reduction in serious opioid-related acute care use during 3-month (AHR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.47-0.99) and 12-month (AHR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.58-0.95) follow-up. Treatment with buprenorphine or methadone was associated with reductions in overdose and serious opioid-related acute care use compared with other treatments. Strategies to address the underuse of MOUD are needed.

Opioid agonists are recommended for opioid use disorder in pregnancy. A large cohort study showed that buprenorphine was associated with lower incidences of neonatal abstinence syndrome and complications at birth than methadone.

Substance use is disproportionately high among people who are homeless or vulnerably housed. We performed a systematic overview of reviews examining the effects of selected harm reduction and pharmacological interventions on the health and social well-being of people who use substances, with a focus on homeless populations. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Joanna Briggs Institute EBP, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and DARE for systematic reviews from inception to August 2019. We conducted a grey literature search and hand searched reference lists. We selected reviews that synthesized evidence on supervised consumption facilities, managed alcohol programs and pharmacological interventions for opioid use disorders. We abstracted data specific to homeless or vulnerably housed populations. We assessed certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Our search identified 483 citations and 30 systematic reviews met all inclusion criteria, capturing the results from 442 primary studies. This included three reviews on supervised consumption facilities, 24 on pharmacological interventions, and three on managed alcohol programs. Supervised consumption facilities decreased lethal overdoses and other high risk behaviours without any significant harm, and improved access to care. Pharmaceutical interventions reduced mortality, morbidity, and substance use, but the impact on retention in treatment, mental illness and access to care was variable. Managed alcohol programs reduced or stabilized alcohol consumption. Few studies on managed alcohol programs reported deaths. Substance use is a common chronic condition impacting homeless populations. Supervised consumption facilities reduce overdose and improve access to care, while pharmacological interventions may play a role in reducing harms and addressing other morbidity. High quality evidence on managed alcohol programs is limited.

In the midst of an opioid epidemic, mortality related to opioid overdose continues to rise in the US. Medications to treat opioid use disorder, including methadone and buprenorphine, are highly effective in reducing the morbidity and mortality related to illicit opioid use. Despite the efficacy of these life-saving medications, the majority of people with an opioid use disorder lack access to treatment. This paper briefly reviews the evidence to support the use of medications to treat opioid use disorder with a specific focus on methadone. We discuss the current state of methadone therapy for the treatment of opioid use disorder in the US and present logistical barriers that limit its use. Next, we examine three international pharmacy-based models in which methadone dispensing to treat opioid use disorder occurs outside of an opioid treatment facility. We discuss current challenges and opportunities to incorporate similar methods of methadone dispensing for the treatment of opioid use disorder in the US. Finally, we present our vision to integrate pharmacy-based methadone dispensing into routine opioid use disorder treatment through collaboration between clinicians and pharmacies to improve local access to this life-saving medication.

Over the past two decades the number of opioid pain relievers sold in the United States rose dramatically. This rise in sales was accompanied by an increase in opioid-related overdose deaths. In response, forty-nine states (all but Missouri) created prescription drug monitoring programs to detect high-risk prescribing and patient behaviors. Our objectives were to determine whether the implementation or particular characteristics of the programs were effective in reducing opioid-related overdose deaths. In adjusted analyses we found that a state's implementation of a program was associated with an average reduction of 1.12 opioid-related overdose deaths per 100,000 population in the year after implementation. Additionally, states whose programs had robust characteristics-including monitoring greater numbers of drugs with abuse potential and updating their data at least weekly-had greater reductions in deaths, compared to states whose programs did not have these characteristics. We estimate that if Missouri adopted a prescription drug monitoring program and other states enhanced their programs with robust features, there would be more than 600 fewer overdose deaths nationwide in 2016, preventing approximately two deaths each day.

ABSTRACTBackgroundIn an evolving landscape of practices and policies, reviewing and incorporating the latest scientific evidence is necessary to ensure optimal clinical management for people with opioid use disorder. We provide a synopsis of the 2024 update of the 2018 National Guideline for the Clinical Management of Opioid Use Disorder, from the Canadian Research Initiative in Substance Matters. MethodsFor this update, we followed the United States Institute of Medicine’s Standards for Developing Trustworthy Clinical Practice Guidelines and used the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation—Recommendation Excellence tool to ensure guideline quality. We carried out a comprehensive systematic literature review, capturing the relevant literature from Jan. 1, 2017, to Sept. 14, 2023. We drafted and graded recommendations according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessments, Development and Evaluation approach. A multidisciplinary external national committee, which included people with living or lived experience of opioid use disorder, provided input that was incorporated into the guideline. RecommendationsFrom the initial 11 recommendations in the 2018 guideline, 3 remained unchanged, and 8 were updated. Specifically, 4 recommendations were consolidated into a single revised recommendation; 1 recommendation was split into 2; another recommendation was moved to become a special consideration; and 2 recommendations were revised. Key changes have arisen from substantial evidence supporting that methadone and buprenorphine are similarly effective, particularly in reducing opioid use and adverse events, and both are now considered preferred first-line treatment options. Slow-release oral morphine is recommended as a second-line option. Psychosocial interventions can be offered as adjunctive treatment but should not be mandatory. The guideline reaffirms the importance of avoiding withdrawal management as a standalone intervention and of incorporating evidence-based harm reduction services along the continuum of care. InterpretationThis guideline update presents new recommendations based on the latest literature for standardized management of opioid use disorder. The aim is to establish a robust foundation upon which provincial and territorial bodies can develop guidance for optimal care.

BackgroundEmergency department (ED)-initiated buprenorphine/naloxone with continuation in primary care was found to increase engagement in addiction treatment and reduce illicit opioid use at 30 days compared to referral only or a brief intervention with referral.ObjectiveTo evaluate the long-term outcomes at 2, 6 and 12 months following ED interventions.DesignEvaluation of treatment engagement, drug use, and HIV risk among a cohort of patients from a randomized trial who completed at least one long-term follow-up assessment.ParticipantsA total of 290/329 patients (88% of the randomized sample) were included. The followed cohort did not differ significantly from the randomized sample.InterventionsED-initiated buprenorphine with 10-week continuation in primary care, referral, or brief intervention were provided in the ED at study entry.Main MeasuresSelf-reported engagement in formal addiction treatment, days of illicit opioid use, and HIV risk (2, 6, 12 months); urine toxicology (2, 6 months).Key ResultsA greater number of patients in the buprenorphine group were engaged in addiction treatment at 2 months [68/92 (74%), 95% CI 65–83] compared with referral [42/79 (53%), 95% CI 42–64] and brief intervention [39/83 (47%), 95% CI 37–58; p < 0.001]. The differences were not significant at 6 months [51/92 (55%), 95% CI 45–65; 46/70 (66%) 95% CI 54–76; 43/76 (57%) 95% CI 45–67; p = 0.37] or 12 months [42/86 (49%) 95% CI 39–59; 37/73 (51%) 95% CI 39–62; 49/78 (63%) 95% CI 52–73; p = 0.16]. At 2 months, the buprenorphine group reported fewer days of illicit opioid use [1.1 (95% CI 0.6–1.6)] versus referral [1.8 (95% CI 1.2–2.3)] and brief intervention [2.0 (95% CI 1.5–2.6), p = 0.04]. No significant differences in illicit opioid use were observed at 6 or 12 months. There were no significant differences in HIV risk or rates of opioid-negative urine results at any time.ConclusionsED-initiated buprenorphine was associated with increased engagement in addiction treatment and reduced illicit opioid use during the 2-month interval when buprenorphine was continued in primary care. Outcomes at 6 and 12 months were comparable across all groups.

The treatment of opioid withdrawal is an important area of clinical concern when treating patients with chronic, non-cancer pain, patients with active opioid use disorder, and patients receiving medication for opioid use disorder. Current standards of care for medically supervised withdrawal include treatment with μ-opioid receptor agonists, (eg, methadone), partial agonists (eg, buprenorphine), and α2-adrenergic receptor agonists (eg, clonidine and lofexidine). Newer agents likewise exploit these pharmacological mechanisms, including tramadol (μ-opioid receptor agonism) and tizanidine (α2 agonism). Areas for future research include managing withdrawal in the context of stabilising patients with opioid use disorder to extended-release naltrexone, transitioning patients with opioid use disorder from methadone to buprenorphine, and tapering opioids in patients with chronic, non-cancer pain.

Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a chronic relapsing disorder that, whilst initially driven by activation of brain reward neurocircuits, increasingly engages anti-reward neurocircuits that drive adverse emotional states and relapse. However, successful recovery is possible with appropriate treatment, although with a persisting propensity to relapse. The individual and public health burdens of OUD are immense; 26.8 million people were estimated to be living with OUD globally in 2016, with >100,000 opioid overdose deaths annually, including >47,000 in the USA in 2017. Well-conducted trials have demonstrated that long-term opioid agonist therapy with methadone and buprenorphine have great efficacy for OUD treatment and can save lives. New forms of the opioid receptor antagonist naltrexone are also being studied. Some frequently used approaches have less scientifically robust evidence but are nevertheless considered important, including community preventive strategies, harm reduction interventions to reduce adverse sequelae from ongoing use and mutual aid groups. Other commonly used approaches, such as detoxification alone, lack scientific evidence. Delivery of effective prevention and treatment responses is often complicated by coexisting comorbidities and inadequate support, as well as by conflicting public and political opinions. Science has a crucial role to play in informing public attitudes and developing fuller evidence to understand OUD and its associated harms, as well as in obtaining the evidence today that will improve the prevention and treatment interventions of tomorrow. The ongoing epidemic of opioid use disorder includes, in addition to increasing global use of illicitly manufactured heroin and other opioids, a public health crisis aggravated by the over-prescribing of opioid pain medications, in North America particularly. This Primer by Strang, Volkow and colleagues discusses the risk factors of opioid use disorder, together with its epidemiology, mechanisms, diagnosis and treatment.