A Health Plan's Formulary Led To Reduced Use Of Extended-Release Opioids But Did Not Lower Overall Opioid Use.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Barnett ML
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6407123 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
A Health Plan's Formulary Led To Reduced Use Of Extended-Release Opioids But Did Not Lower Overall Opioid Use.
Barnett Michael L ML Olenski Andrew R AR Thygeson N Marcus NM Ishisaka Denis D Wong Salina S Jena Anupam B AB Mehrotra Ateev A
Health affairs (Project Hope) 20180901 9
Many insurers are using formulary design to influence opioid prescribing, but it is unclear if these changes lead to reduced use or just substitution between opioids. We evaluated the effect of a new prior authorization process implemented in July 2015 for extended-release (ER) oxycodone by Blue Shield of California. Compared to other commercially insured Californians, among 880,000 Blue Shield enrollees, there was a 36 percent drop in monthly rates of ER opioid initiation relative to control-gr ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:AimsTo examine perceptions of extended-release (XR) buprenorphine injections among people who regularly use opioids in Australia.DesignCross-sectional survey prior to implementation. XR-buprenorphine was registered in Australia in November 2018.SettingSydney, Melbourne and Hobart. Participants A total of 402 people who regularly use opioids interviewed December 2017 to March 2018.MeasurementsPrimary 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).FindingsSixty-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.ConclusionsAmong 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.
| S-EPMC7292758 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AIMS:To review systematically the published literature on extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX, Vivitrol® ), marketed as a once-per-month injection product to treat opioid use disorder. We addressed the following questions: (1) how successful is induction on XR-NTX; (2) what are adherence rates to XR-NTX; and (3) does XR-NTX decrease opioid use? Factors associated with these outcomes as well as overdose rates were examined. METHODS:We searched PubMed and used Google Scholar for forward citation searches of peer-reviewed papers from January 2006 to June 2017. Studies that included individuals seeking treatment for opioid use disorder who were offered XR-NTX were included. RESULTS:We identified and included 34 studies. Pooled estimates showed that XR-NTX induction success was lower in studies that included individuals that required opioid detoxification [62.6%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 54.5-70.0%] compared with studies that included individuals already detoxified from opioids (85.0%, 95% CI = 78.0-90.1%); 44.2% (95% CI = 33.1-55.9%) of individuals took all scheduled injections of XR-NTX, which were usually six or fewer. Adherence was higher in prospective investigational studies (i.e. studies conducted in a research context according to a study protocol) compared to retrospective studies of medical records taken from routine care (6-month rates: 46.7%, 95% CI = 34.5-59.2% versus 10.5%, 95% CI = 4.6-22.4%, respectively). Compared with referral to treatment, XR-NTX reduced opioid use in adults under criminal justice supervision and when administered to inmates before release. XR-NTX reduced opioid use compared with placebo in Russian adults, but this effect was confounded by differential retention between study groups. XR-NTX showed similar efficacy to buprenorphine when randomization occurred after detoxification, but was inferior to buprenorphine when randomization occurred prior to detoxification. CONCLUSIONS:Many individuals intending to start extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX) do not and most who do start XR-NTX discontinue treatment prematurely, two factors that limit its clinical utility significantly. XR-NTX appears to decrease opioid use but there are few experimental demonstrations of this effect.
| S-EPMC5993595 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceIn 2017, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a monthly injectable form of buprenorphine, extended-release buprenorphine; published data show that extended-release buprenorphine is effective compared with no treatment, but its current cost is higher and current retention is lower than that of transmucosal buprenorphine. Preliminary research suggests that extended-release buprenorphine may be an important addition to treatment options, but the cost-effectiveness of extended-release buprenorphine compared with transmucosal buprenorphine remains unclear.ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of extended-release buprenorphine compared with transmucosal buprenorphine.Design, setting, and participantsThis economic evaluation used a state transition model starting in 2019 to simulate the lifetime of a closed cohort of individuals with OUD presenting for evaluation for opioid agonist treatment with buprenorphine. The data sources used to estimate model parameters included cohort studies, clinical trials, and administrative data. The model relied on pharmaceutical costs from the Federal Supply Schedule and health care utilization costs from published studies. Data were analyzed from September 2021 to January 2023.InterventionsNo treatment, treatment with transmucosal buprenorphine, or treatment with extended-release buprenorphine.Main outcomes and measuresMean lifetime costs per person, discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).ResultsThe simulated cohort included 100 000 patients with OUD receiving (61% male; mean [SD] age, 38 [11] years) or not receiving medication treatment (58% male, mean [SD] age, 48 [18] years). Compared with no medication treatment, treatment with transmucosal buprenorphine yielded an ICER of $19 740 per QALY. Compared with treatment with transmucosal buprenorphine, treatment with extended-release buprenorphine yielded lower effectiveness by 0.03 QALYs per person at higher cost, suggesting that treatment with extended-release buprenorphine was dominated and not preferred. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, treatment with transmucosal buprenorphine was the preferred strategy 60% of the time. Treatment with extended-release buprenorphine was cost-effective compared with treatment with transmucosal buprenorphine at a $100 000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold only after substantial changes in key parameters.Conclusions and relevanceIn this economic evaluation of extended-release buprenorphine compared with transmucosal buprenorphine for the treatment of OUD, extended-release buprenorphine was not associated with efficient allocation of limited resources when transmucosal buprenorphine was available. Future initiatives should aim to improve retention rates or decrease costs associated with extended-release buprenorphine.
| S-EPMC10500382 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Opioid use disorder is common in prison populations, and prison release is a high-risk time for relapse and overdose. Initiation of extended release injectable naltrexone (XR-NTX)) prior to prison release might decrease relapse among opioid-dependent persons. OBJECTIVE:This pilot study examined the feasibility and acceptability of XR-NTX injection prior to prison release among adult inmates with opioid use disorder, followed by six months of community XR-NTX treatment. It sought to determine effects on treatment retention and abstinence compared to post-release XR-NTX initiation. METHODS:Recruitment for the study took place at the RIDOC's Adult Correctional Institute (ACI). Volunteers with a history of opioid dependence and a release date scheduled within 1-2months were self-referred in response to recruitment fliers. Consented volunteers were randomized to XR-NTX treatment prior to release followed by 5 monthly treatments in the community (pre-release) or six XR-NTX treatments in the community (post-release). RESULTS:Of 26 volunteers consented, 15 were randomized (9 pre-release, 6 post-release). The pre-release group generally had better treatment retention: 100% received the first NTX injection (vs. 67% post-release), 78% received more than one injection (vs. 17%) and 22% received all 6 injections (vs. 0%). The pre-release group also had greater abstinence, with a higher proportion of self-reported opioid free days in the first month after release (83% vs. 46%, fewer positive urine drug tests in the 6months after release (22% vs. 33%), and more days of opioid receptor blockade during the first two weeks after release, a high risk time for overdose death. CONCLUSIONS:Initiation of XR-NTX injection prior to release from prison might be an effective approach to reduce relapse to opioids, but these findings require confirmation in a larger trial.
| S-EPMC5648627 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBuprenorphine treatment is not equally effective in all patients with opioid use disorder (OUD). Two retrospective studies showed that, among African Americans (AAs), rs678849, a polymorphism in the delta-opioid receptor gene, moderated the therapeutic effect of sublingual buprenorphine.MethodsWe examined rs678849 as a moderator of the response to an extended-release subcutaneous buprenorphine formulation (BUP-XR) in a 24-week OUD treatment study of 127 AAs and 327 European Americans (EAs). Participants were randomly assigned to receive: (1) BUP-XR as 2 monthly injections of 300 mg followed by either 300 mg monthly or 100 mg monthly for 4 months, or (2) monthly volume-matched placebo injections. Generalized estimating equations logistic regression analyses tested, per population group, the main and interaction effects of treatment (BUP-XR vs placebo) and genotype group (rs678849*CC vs CT/TT) on weekly urine drug screens (UDS).ResultsAmong AAs, the placebo group had higher rates of opioid-positive UDS than the BUP-XR group (log odds ratio = 1.67, 95% CI = 0.36, 2.98), but no genotype by treatment effect (P = .80). Among EAs, the placebo group also showed higher rates of opioid-positive UDS than the BUP-XR group (log odds ratio = 1.97, 95% CI = 1.14, 2.79) but a significant genotype by treatment interaction (χ 2(1) = 4.33, P = .04).ConclusionWe found a moderating effect of rs678849 on the response to buprenorphine treatment of OUD in EAs, but not AAs. These findings require replication in well-powered, prospective studies of both AA and EA OUD patients treated with BUP-XR and stratified on rs678849 genotype.
| S-EPMC7883889 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Few studies examine the effectiveness of treatments for opioid use disorder (OUD) among Black individuals despite recent evidence suggesting opioid overdose death rates are, in some cases, highest and increasing at a faster rate among Black people compared to other racial/ethnic groups. This secondary analysis study investigated treatment preference, retention, and relapse rates amongst a subgroup of 73 Black participants with OUD (81% male, mean age 39.05, SD = 11.80) participating in a 24-week multisite randomized clinical trial ("X:BOT") comparing the effectiveness of extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX) and sublingual buprenorphine-naloxone (BUP-NX) between 2014 and 2017. Chi-square analyses were used to investigate treatment preference assessed at baseline, and logistic regression analyses were used to investigate differences in the odds of retention and relapse assessed over the 24-week course of treatment between treatment groups. Our findings suggest no differences in preference for XR-NTX versus BUP-NX. However, similar to the parent trial, there was an induction hurdle such that only 59.5% of those randomized to XR-NTX successfully initiated medication compared to 91.6% of those randomized to BUP-NX (OR = 0.13, 95% CI = 0.04, 0.52). No significant differences were found in treatment retention (intention-to-treat: OR = 1.19, 95% CI = 0.43, 3.28; per-protocol [i.e., those who initiated medication]: OR = 0.60, 95% CI = 0.20, 1.82) or relapse rates between treatment groups (intention-to-treat: OR = 1.53, 95% CI = 0.57, 4.13; per-protocol: OR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.23, 2.06). Although there is a significant initiation hurdle with XR-NTX, once inducted, both medications appear similar in effectiveness, but as in the main study, dropout rates were high. Future research is needed on how to improve adherence.
| S-EPMC7433932 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and aimsRecovery from substance use disorders (SUD) has traditionally been equated with abstinence. "Personal recovery" however emphasizes recovery as a unique and personal process, supported by changes in connectedness, hope, identity, meaning and empowerment. This study aimed to examine personal recovery in people receiving extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX); specifically investigate changes in personal recovery during treatment, identify groups of participants following distinct trajectories of recovery, and characteristics predicting group-belonging.MethodsOverall change in recovery (Questionnaire about the Process of Recovery, QPR) score was assessed by linear mixed model in a subsample of 135 people with opioid use disorder (OUD) participating in a 24 + 28-week trial of XR-NTX. Growth mixture model was used to identify potential groups of people following distinct trajectories of personal recovery.ResultsOverall, there was a significant change in QPR score during treatment. Four groups with distinct recovery trajectories were identified: "initially low- increase" (G1), "initially average- no change" (G2), "initially high- no change" (G3) and "initially high- increase" (G4). The groups were different with regards to level of psychological distress, social support, and the use of benzodiazepines. In addition, previous participation in opioid agonist treatment programs, current pain, life satisfaction, employment, heroin craving and previous use of heroin also differed between groups.ConclusionsPersonal recovery among people receiving XR-NTX follows different trajectories, and various factors are associated with personal recovery. Particular attention regarding psychological distress, social support and heroin use among patients commencing XR-NTX treatment is important to facilitate successful recovery trajectories.
| S-EPMC10336734 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceMany stakeholders are working to improve the safe use of immediate-release (IR) and extended-release/long-acting (ER/LA) opioid analgesics. However, little information exists regarding the relative use of these 2 formulations in chronic pain management.ObjectivesTo describe the distribution of IR and ER/LA opioid analgesic therapy duration and examine adding and switching patterns among patients receiving long-term IR opioid analgesic therapy, defined as at least 90 consecutive days of IR formulation use.Design, setting, and participantsA retrospective cohort study of 169 million individuals receiving opioid analgesics from across 90% of outpatient retail pharmacies in the United States from January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2014, using the IQVIA Health Vector One: Data Extract Tool. Analyses were conducted from March 2015 to June 2017.ExposuresReceipt of dispensed IR or ER/LA opioid analgesic prescription.Main outcomes and measuresDistribution of therapy frequency and duration of IR and ER/LA opioid analgesic use, and annual proportions of patients receiving long-term IR opioid analgesic therapy who added an ER/LA formulation while continuing to use an IR formulation, switched to an ER/LA formulation, or continued receiving IR opioid analgesic therapy only.ResultsAmong the 169 280 456 patients included in this analysis, 168 315 458 patients filled IR formulations and 10 216 570 patients filled ER/LA formulations. A similar percentage of women received ER/LA (55%) and IR (56%) formulations, although those receiving ER/LA formulations (72%) were more likely to be aged 45 years or older compared with those receiving IR formulations (46%). The longest opioid analgesic episode duration was 90 days or longer for 11 563 089 patients (7%) filling IR formulations and 3 103 777 patients (30%) filling ER/LA formulations. The median episode duration was 5 days (interquartile range, 3-10 days) for patients using IR formulations and 30 days (interquartile range, 21-74 days) for patients using ER/LA formulations. From January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2014, a small and decreasing proportion of patients with long-term IR opioid analgesic therapy added (3.8% in 2003 to 1.8% in 2014) or switched to (1.0% in 2003 to 0.5% in 2014) an ER/LA formulation.Conclusions and relevanceMost patients receiving opioid analgesics, whether for short or extended periods, use IR formulations. Once receiving long-term IR opioid analgesic therapy, patients are unlikely to add or switch to an ER/LA formulation.
| S-EPMC6324408 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundExtended release naltrexone (XR-NTX) injected intramuscularly monthly has been shown to reduce relapse in persons with opioid use disorder. Baseline factors, including patients' demographics, comorbidities and lifestyle, may help identify patients who will benefit most or least from XR-NTX treatment.MethodsPotential moderators of XR-NTX's effect were examined in the largest North American randomized open-label effectiveness trial of XR-NTX. Relapse status (Yes/No) at 6-month follow-up was regressed on treatment group (XR-NTX, N=153; or Treatment-as-Usual [TAU], N=155), baseline covariates, and their two-way interaction to identify moderator effects. Baseline covariates included age, gender, summary scores for depression, suicidal thoughts, drug abuse risk, substance use, medical, psychiatric and employment status, socialization, legal and family/social issues, history of abuse and quality of life measures.ResultsAlcohol use to intoxication in the 30days before randomization was a significant moderator: during the treatment phase, those who reported being recently intoxicated before randomization to XR-NTX relapsed to opioids at a rate (56%) similar to TAU (58%), while those without alcohol intoxication in the prior 30days had a lower rate of opioid relapse (41% vs. 65%, respectively, P<0.04).ConclusionsXR-NTX appeared to work equally well across subgroups with diverse demographic, addiction, mental health and environmental characteristics, with the possible exception of working better among those without recent alcohol intoxication. These findings should be reassuring to practitioners increasingly using XR-NTX as medical addiction therapy in diverse and often vulnerable populations.
| S-EPMC5565721 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundExtended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX) is an injectable monthly sustained-release mu opioid receptor antagonist, which blocks the typical effects of heroin and other opioid agonists. Use of XR-NTX among opioid dependent persons leaving jails and prisons is increasing despite scant high-quality evidence regarding XR-NTX's effectiveness at re-entry.MethodsThis 24-week, open-label randomized controlled trial examines the effectiveness of XR-NTX as opioid relapse prevention at release from jail (N=85) compared to enhanced treatment as usual (ETAU, N=85). A third, non-randomized, quasi-experimental naturalistic arm of participants who have newly initiated a jail-to-community methadone treatment program (MTP, N=85) allows for comparisons to a methadone standard-of-care.ResultsWe describe the rationale, design, and primary and secondary outcomes of the study. The primary outcome is an opioid relapse event; the primary contrast is a time-to-relapse comparison of XR-NTX and ETAU over a 24-week treatment phase. Secondary outcomes are rates of: (a) post-release opioid treatment participation, (b) opioid, alcohol, and cocaine use, (c) injection drug use and HIV sexual risk behaviors, (d) overdose (fatal and non-fatal) and all-cause mortality, and, (e) re-incarceration.ConclusionsXR-NTX is a potentially important, effective treatment and relapse prevention option for a large US population of persons with opioid use disorders leaving jails. This study will estimate XR-NTX's effectiveness relative to existing standards of care, including counseling-only treatment-as-usual and methadone maintenance.
| S-EPMC5455014 | biostudies-literature