Emergency department-initiated buprenorphine/naloxone treatment for opioid dependence: a randomized clinical trial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: D'Onofrio G
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4527523 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Apr
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Emergency department-initiated buprenorphine/naloxone treatment for opioid dependence: a randomized clinical trial.
D'Onofrio Gail G O'Connor Patrick G PG Pantalon Michael V MV Chawarski Marek C MC Busch Susan H SH Owens Patricia H PH Bernstein Steven L SL Fiellin David A DA
JAMA 20150401 16
<h4>Importance</h4>Opioid-dependent patients often use the emergency department (ED) for medical care.<h4>Objective</h4>To test the efficacy of 3 interventions for opioid dependence: (1) screening and referral to treatment (referral); (2) screening, brief intervention, and facilitated referral to community-based treatment services (brief intervention); and (3) screening, brief intervention, ED-initiated treatment with buprenorphine/naloxone, and referral to primary care for 10-week follow-up (bu ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background and aimsIn a recent randomized trial, patients with opioid dependence receiving brief intervention, emergency department (ED)-initiated buprenorphine and ongoing follow-up in primary care with buprenorphine (buprenorphine) were twice as likely to be engaged in addiction treatment compared with referral to community-based treatment (referral) or brief intervention and referral (brief intervention). Our aim was to evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of these three methods of intervening on opioid dependence in the ED.DesignMeasured health-care use was converted to dollar values. We considered a health-care system perspective and constructed cost-effectiveness acceptability curves that indicate the probability each treatment is cost-effective under different thresholds of willingness-to-pay for outcomes studied.SettingAn urban ED in the United States.ParticipantsOpioid-dependent patients aged 18 years or older.MeasurementsSelf-reported 30-day assessment data were used to construct cost-effectiveness acceptability curves for patient engagement in formal addiction treatment at 30 days and the number of days illicit opioid-free in the past week.FindingsConsidering only health-care system costs, cost-effectiveness acceptability curves indicate that at all positive willingness-to-pay values, ED-initiated buprenorphine treatment was more cost-effective than brief intervention or referral. For example, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $1000 for 30-day treatment engagement, we are 79% certain ED-initiated buprenorphine is most cost-effective compared with other studied treatments. Similar results were found for days illicit opioid-free in the past week. Results were robust to secondary analyses that included patients with missing cost data, included crime and patient time costs in the numerator, and to changes in unit price estimates.ConclusionIn the United States, emergency department-initiated buprenorphine intervention for patients with opioid dependence provides high value compared with referral to community-based treatment or combined brief intervention and referral.
| S-EPMC5657503 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsTo evaluate the safety and efficacy of buprenorphine implants (BI) versus placebo implants (PI) for the treatment of opioid dependence. A secondary aim compared BI to open-label sublingual buprenorphine/naloxone tablets (BNX).DesignRandomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Subjects received either four buprenorphine implants (80 mg/implant) (n = 114), four placebo implants (n = 54) or open-label BNX (12-16 mg/day) (n = 119).SettingTwenty addiction treatment centers.ParticipantsAdult out-patients (ages 18-65) with DSM-IV-TR opioid dependence.MeasurementsThe primary efficacy end-point was the percentage of urine samples negative for opioids collected from weeks 1 to 24, examined as a cumulative distribution function (CDF).FindingsThe BI CDF was significantly different from placebo (P < 0.0001). Mean [95% confidence interval (CI)] proportions of urines negative for opioids were: BI = 31.2% (25.3, 37.1) and PI = 13.4% (8.3, 18.6). BI subjects had a higher study completion rate relative to placebo (64 versus 26%, P < 0.0001), lower clinician-rated (P < 0.0001) and patient-rated (P < 0.0001) withdrawal, lower patient-ratings of craving (P < 0.0001) and better subjects' (P = 0.031) and clinicians' (P = 0.022) global ratings of improvement. BI also resulted in significantly lower cocaine use (P = 0.0016). Minor implant-site reactions were comparable in the buprenorphine [27.2% (31 of 114)] and placebo groups [25.9% (14 of 54)]. BI were non-inferior to BNX on percentage of urines negative for opioids [mean (95% CI) = 33.5 (27.3, 39.6); 95% CI for the difference of proportions = (-10.7, 6.2)].ConclusionsCompared with placebo, buprenorphine implants result in significantly less frequent opioid use and are non-inferior to sublingual buprenorphine/naloxone tablets.
| S-EPMC4669043 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceEmergency department (ED) initiation of buprenorphine is safe and effective but underutilized in practice. Understanding the factors affecting adoption of this practice could inform more effective interventions.ObjectiveTo quantify the factors, including social contagion, associated with the adoption of the practice of ED initiation of buprenorphine for patients with opioid use disorder.Design, setting, and participantsThis is a secondary analysis of the EMBED (Emergency Department-Initiated Buprenorphine For Opioid Use Disorder) trial, a multicentered, cluster randomized trial of a clinical decision support intervention targeting ED initiation of buprenorphine. The trial occurred from November 2019 to May 2021. The study was conducted at ED clusters across health care systems from the northeast, southeast, and western regions of the US and included attending physicians, resident physicians, and advanced practice practitioners. Data analysis was performed from August 2022 to June 2023.ExposuresThis analysis included both the intervention and nonintervention groups of the EMBED trial. Graph methods were used to construct the network of clinicians who shared in the care of patients for whom buprenorphine was initiated during the trial before initiating the practice themselves, termed exposure.Main outcomes and measuresCox proportional hazard modeling with time-dependent covariates was performed to assess the association of the number of these exposures with self-adoption of the practice of ED initiation of buprenorphine while adjusting for clinician role, health care system, and intervention site status.ResultsA total of 1026 unique clinicians in 18 ED clusters across 5 health care systems were included. Analysis showed associations of the cumulative number of exposures to others initiating buprenorphine with the self-practice of buprenorphine initiation. This increased in a dose-dependent manner (1 exposure: hazard ratio [HR], 1.31; 95% CI, 1.16-1.48; 5 exposures: HR, 2.85; 95% CI, 1.66-4.89; 10 exposures: HR, 3.55; 95% CI, 1.47-8.58). Intervention site status was associated with practice adoption (HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.04-2.18). Health care system and clinician role were also associated with practice adoption.Conclusions and relevanceIn this secondary analysis of a multicenter, cluster randomized trial of a clinical decision support tool for buprenorphine initiation, the number of exposures to ED initiation of buprenorphine and the trial intervention were associated with uptake of ED initiation of buprenorphine. Although systems-level approaches are necessary to increase the rate of buprenorphine initiation, individual clinicians may change practice of those around them.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03658642.
| S-EPMC10638655 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceEmergency department (ED)-initiated buprenorphine for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) is underused.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether provision of ED-initiated buprenorphine with referral for OUD increased after implementation facilitation (IF), an educational and implementation strategy.Design, setting, and participantsThis multisite hybrid type 3 effectiveness-implementation nonrandomized trial compared grand rounds with IF, with pre-post 12-month baseline and IF evaluation periods, at 4 academic EDs. The study was conducted from April 1, 2017, to November 30, 2020. Participants were ED and community clinicians treating patients with OUD and observational cohorts of ED patients with untreated OUD. Data were analyzed from July 16, 2021, to July 14, 2022.ExposureA 60-minute in-person grand rounds was compared with IF, a multicomponent facilitation strategy that engaged local champions, developed protocols, and provided learning collaboratives and performance feedback.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were the rate of patients in the observational cohorts who received ED-initiated buprenorphine with referral for OUD treatment (primary implementation outcome) and the rate of patients engaged in OUD treatment at 30 days after enrollment (effectiveness outcome). Additional implementation outcomes included the numbers of ED clinicians with an X-waiver to prescribe buprenorphine and ED visits with buprenorphine administered or prescribed and naloxone dispensed or prescribed.ResultsA total of 394 patients were enrolled during the baseline evaluation period and 362 patients were enrolled during the IF evaluation period across all sites, for a total of 756 patients (540 [71.4%] male; mean [SD] age, 39.3 [11.7] years), with 223 Black patients (29.5%) and 394 White patients (52.1%). The cohort included 420 patients (55.6%) who were unemployed, and 431 patients (57.0%) reported unstable housing. Two patients (0.5%) received ED-initiated buprenorphine during the baseline period, compared with 53 patients (14.6%) during the IF evaluation period (P < .001). Forty patients (10.2%) were engaged with OUD treatment during the baseline period, compared with 59 patients (16.3%) during the IF evaluation period (P = .01). Patients in the IF evaluation period who received ED-initiated buprenorphine were more likely to be in treatment at 30 days (19 of 53 patients [35.8%]) than those who did not 40 of 309 patients (12.9%; P < .001). Additionally, there were increases in the numbers of ED clinicians with an X-waiver (from 11 to 196 clinicians) and ED visits with provision of buprenorphine (from 259 to 1256 visits) and naloxone (from 535 to 1091 visits).Conclusions and relevanceIn this multicenter effectiveness-implementation nonrandomized trial, rates of ED-initiated buprenorphine and engagement in OUD treatment were higher in the IF period, especially among patients who received ED-initiated buprenorphine.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03023930.
| S-EPMC10077107 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ContextNo randomized trials have examined treatments for prescription opioid dependence, despite its increasing prevalence.ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of brief and extended buprenorphine hydrochloride-naloxone hydrochloride treatment, with different counseling intensities, for patients dependent on prescription opioids.DesignMultisite, randomized clinical trial using a 2-phase adaptive treatment research design. Brief treatment (phase 1) included 2-week buprenorphine-naloxone stabilization, 2-week taper, and 8-week postmedication follow-up. Patients with successful opioid use outcomes exited the study; unsuccessful patients entered phase 2: extended (12-week) buprenorphine-naloxone treatment, 4-week taper, and 8-week postmedication follow-up.SettingTen US sites. Patients A total of 653 treatment-seeking outpatients dependent on prescription opioids.InterventionsIn both phases, patients were randomized to standard medical management (SMM) or SMM plus opioid dependence counseling; all received buprenorphine-naloxone.Main outcome measuresPredefined "successful outcome" in each phase: composite measures indicating minimal or no opioid use based on urine test-confirmed self-reports.ResultsDuring phase 1, only 6.6% (43 of 653) of patients had successful outcomes, with no difference between SMM and SMM plus opioid dependence counseling. In contrast, 49.2% (177 of 360) attained successful outcomes in phase 2 during extended buprenorphine-naloxone treatment (week 12), with no difference between counseling conditions. Success rates 8 weeks after completing the buprenorphine-naloxone taper (phase 2, week 24) dropped to 8.6% (31 of 360), again with no counseling difference. In secondary analyses, successful phase 2 outcomes were more common while taking buprenorphine-naloxone than 8 weeks after taper (49.2% [177 of 360] vs 8.6% [31 of 360], P < .001). Chronic pain did not affect opioid use outcomes; a history of ever using heroin was associated with lower phase 2 success rates while taking buprenorphine-naloxone.ConclusionsPrescription opioid-dependent patients are most likely to reduce opioid use during buprenorphine-naloxone treatment; if tapered off buprenorphine-naloxone, even after 12 weeks of treatment, the likelihood of an unsuccessful outcome is high, even in patients receiving counseling in addition to SMM.
| S-EPMC3470422 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceTo date, extended-release naltrexone hydrochloride has not previously been compared directly with opioid medication treatment (OMT), currently the most commonly prescribed treatment for opioid dependence.ObjectiveTo determine whether treatment with extended-release naltrexone will be as effective as daily buprenorphine hydrochloride with naloxone hydrochloride in maintaining abstinence from heroin and other illicit substances in newly detoxified individuals.Design, setting and participantsA 12-week, multicenter, outpatient, open-label randomized clinical trial was conducted at 5 urban addiction clinics in Norway between November 1, 2012, and December 23, 2015; the last follow-up was performed on October 23, 2015. A total of 232 adult opioid-dependent (per DSM-IV criteria) individuals were recruited from outpatient addiction clinics and detoxification units and assessed for eligibility. Intention-to-treat analyses of efficacy end points were performed with all randomized participants.InterventionsRandomization to either daily oral flexible dose buprenorphine-naloxone, 4 to 24 mg/d, or extended-release naltrexone hydrochloride, 380 mg, administered intramuscularly every fourth week for 12 weeks.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary end points (protocol) were the randomized clinical trial completion rate, the proportion of opioid-negative urine drug tests, and number of days of use of heroin and other illicit opioids. Secondary end points included number of days of use of other illicit substances. Safety was assessed by adverse event reporting.ResultsOf 159 participants, mean (SD) age was 36 (8.6) years and 44 (27.7%) were women. Eighty individuals were randomized to extended-release naltrexone and 79 to buprenorphine-naloxone; 105 (66.0%) completed the trial. Retention in the extended-release naltrexone group was noninferior to the buprenorphine-naloxone group (difference, -0.1; with 95% CI, -0.2 to 0.1; P = .04), with mean (SD) time of 69.3 (25.9) and 63.7 (29.9) days, correspondingly (P = .33, log-rank test). Treatment with extended-release naltrexone showed noninferiority to buprenorphine-naloxone on group proportion of total number of opioid-negative urine drug tests (mean [SD], 0.9 [0.3] and 0.8 [0.4], respectively, difference, 0.1 with 95% CI, -0.04 to 0.2; P < .001) and use of heroin (mean difference, -3.2 with 95% CI, -4.9 to -1.5; P < .001) and other illicit opioids (mean difference, -2.7 with 95% CI, -4.6 to -0.9; P < .001). Superiority analysis showed significantly lower use of heroin and other illicit opioids in the extended-release naltrexone group. No significant differences were found between the treatment groups regarding most other illicit substance use.Conclusions and relevanceExtended-release naltrexone was as effective as buprenorphine-naloxone in maintaining short-term abstinence from heroin and other illicit substances and should be considered as a treatment option for opioid-dependent individuals.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01717963.
| S-EPMC6583381 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ContextThe usual treatment for opioid-addicted youth is detoxification and counseling. Extended medication-assisted therapy may be more helpful.ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of continuing buprenorphine-naloxone for 12 weeks vs detoxification for opioid-addicted youth.Design, setting, and patientsClinical trial at 6 community programs from July 2003 to December 2006 including 152 patients aged 15 to 21 years who were randomized to 12 weeks of buprenorphine-naloxone or a 14-day taper (detox).InterventionsPatients in the 12-week buprenorphine-naloxone group were prescribed up to 24 mg per day for 9 weeks and then tapered to week 12; patients in the detox group were prescribed up to 14 mg per day and then tapered to day 14. All were offered weekly individual and group counseling.Main outcome measureOpioid-positive urine test result at weeks 4, 8, and 12.ResultsThe number of patients younger than 18 years was too small to analyze separately, but overall, patients in the detox group had higher proportions of opioid-positive urine test results at weeks 4 and 8 but not at week 12 (chi(2)(2) = 4.93, P = .09). At week 4, 59 detox patients had positive results (61%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 47%-75%) vs 58 12-week buprenorphine-naloxone patients (26%; 95% CI = 14%-38%). At week 8, 53 detox patients had positive results (54%; 95% CI = 38%-70%) vs 52 12-week buprenorphine-naloxone patients (23%; 95% CI = 11%-35%). At week 12, 53 detox patients had positive results (51%; 95% CI = 35%-67%) vs 49 12-week buprenorphine-naloxone patients (43%; 95% CI = 29%-57%). By week 12, 16 of 78 detox patients (20.5%) remained in treatment vs 52 of 74 12-week buprenorphine-naloxone patients (70%; chi(2)(1) = 32.90, P < .001). During weeks 1 through 12, patients in the 12-week buprenorphine-naloxone group reported less opioid use (chi(2)(1) = 18.45, P < .001), less injecting (chi(2)(1) = 6.00, P = .01), and less nonstudy addiction treatment (chi(2)(1) = 25.82, P < .001). High levels of opioid use occurred in both groups at follow-up. Four of 83 patients who tested negative for hepatitis C at baseline were positive for hepatitis C at week 12.ConclusionsContinuing treatment with buprenorphine-naloxone improved outcome compared with short-term detoxification. Further research is necessary to assess the efficacy and safety of longer-term treatment with buprenorphine for young individuals with opioid dependence.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00078130.
| S-EPMC2610690 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveEmergency department-initiated buprenorphine (BUP) for opioid use disorder is an evidence-based practice, but limited data exist on BUP initiation practices in real-world settings. We sought to characterize protocols for BUP initiation among a geographically diverse sample of emergency departments (EDs).MethodsIn December 2020, we reviewed prestudy clinical BUP initiation protocols from all EDs participating in CTN0099 Emergency Department-INitiated bupreNOrphine VAlidaTION (ED-INNOVATION). We abstracted information on processes for identification of treatment-eligible patients, BUP administration, and discharge care.ResultsAll participating ED-INNOVATION sites across 22 states submitted protocols; 31 protocols were analyzed. Identification of treatment-eligible patients: Most EDs 22 (71%) relied on clinician judgment to determine appropriateness of BUP treatment with only 7 (23%) requiring decision support tools or diagnosis checklists. Before BUP initiation, 27 (87%) protocols required a documented Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale (COWS) score; 4 (13%) required a clinical diagnosis of withdrawal with optional COWS score. Twenty-seven (87%) recommended a minimum COWS score of 8 for ED-initiated BUP. BUP administration: Initial BUP dose ranged from 2-16 mg (mode = 4). For continued withdrawal symptoms, 27 (87%) protocols recommended an interval of 30-60 minutes between first and second BUP dose. Total BUP dose in the ED ranged from 8 to 32 mg. Discharge care: Twenty-eight (90%) protocols recommended a BUP prescription (mode 16 mg daily) at discharge. Naloxone prescription and/or provision was suggested in 23 (74%) protocols.ConclusionsIn this geographically diverse sample of EDs, protocols for ED-initiated BUP differed between sites. Future work should evaluate the association between this variation and patient outcomes.
| S-EPMC8630357 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The objective is to estimate cost, net social cost and cost-effectiveness in a clinical trial of extended buprenorphine-naloxone (BUP) treatment versus brief detoxification treatment in opioid-dependent youth.Economic evaluation of a clinical trial conducted at six community out-patient treatment programs from July 2003 to December 2006, who were randomized to 12 weeks of BUP or a 14-day taper (DETOX). BUP patients were prescribed up to 24 mg per day for 9 weeks and then tapered to zero at the end of week 12. DETOX patients were prescribed up to 14 mg per day and then tapered to zero on day 14. All were offered twice-weekly drug counseling.152 patients aged 15-21 years.Data were collected prospectively during the 12-week treatment and at follow-up interviews at months 6, 9 and 12.The 12-week out-patient study treatment cost was $1514 (P < 0.001) higher for BUP relative to DETOX. One-year total direct medical cost was only $83 higher for BUP (P = 0.97). The cost-effectiveness ratio of BUP relative to DETOX was $1376 in terms of 1-year direct medical cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and $25,049 in terms of out-patient treatment program cost per QALY. The acceptability curve suggests that the cost-effectiveness ratio of BUP relative to DETOX has an 86% chance of being accepted as cost-effective for a threshold of $100,000 per QALY.Extended BUP treatment relative to brief detoxification is cost effective in the US health-care system for the outpatient treatment of opioid-dependent youth.
| S-EPMC2967450 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Emergency departments (EDs) frequently care for individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD). Buprenorphine (BUP) is an effective treatment option for patients with OUD that can safely be initiated in the ED. At present, BUP is rarely initiated as a part of routine ED care. Clinical decision support (CDS) could accelerate adoption of ED-initiated BUP into routine emergency care. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to design and formatively evaluate a user-centered decision support tool for ED initiation of BUP for patients with OUD. METHODS:User-centered design with iterative prototype development was used. Initial observations and interviews identified workflows and information needs. The design team and key stakeholders reviewed prototype designs to ensure accuracy. A total of 5 prototypes were evaluated and iteratively refined based on input from 26 attending and resident physicians. RESULTS:Early feedback identified concerns with the initial CDS design: an alert with several screens. The timing of the alert led to quick dismissal without using the tool. User feedback on subsequent iterations informed the development of a flexible tool to support clinicians with varied levels of experience with the intervention by providing both one-click options for direct activation of care pathways and user-activated support for critical decision points. The final design resolved challenging navigation issues through targeted placement, color, and design of the decision support modules and care pathways. In final testing, users expressed that the tool could be easily learned without training and was reasonable for use during routine emergency care. CONCLUSIONS:A user-centered design process helped designers to better understand users' needs for a Web-based clinical decision tool to support ED initiation of BUP for OUD. The process identified varying needs across user experience and familiarity with the protocol, leading to a flexible design supporting both direct care pathways and user-initiated decision support.
| S-EPMC6414819 | biostudies-literature