Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Larance B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7292758 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Few studies have documented patient attitudes and experiences with extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX) opioid relapse prevention in criminal justice settings. This study assessed barriers and facilitators of jail-to-community reentry among adults with opioid use disorder (OUD) treated with XR-NTX, buprenorphine, methadone, and no medications. METHODS:This qualitative study conducted individual interviews with a purposeful and convenience sample of adults with OUD who were recently released from NYC jails. XR-NTX, no medication, and methadone participants were concurrently enrolled in a large randomized controlled trial evaluating XR-NTX vs. a no medication Enhanced Treatment As Usual (ETAU) condition, or enrolled in a non-randomized quasi-experimental methadone maintenance cohort. Buprenorphine participants were referred from NYC jails to a public hospital office-based buprenorphine program and not enrolled in the parent trial. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, independently coded by two researchers, and analyzed per a grounded theory approach adapted to the Social Cognitive Theory framework. The research team reviewed transcripts and coding to reach consensus on emergent themes. RESULTS:N = 33 adults with OUD (28 male, 5 female) completed a single individual interview. Purposeful sampling recruited persons leaving jail on XR-NTX (n = 11), no active medication treatment (n = 9), methadone (n = 9), and buprenorphine (n = 4). Emergent themes were: (1) general satisfaction with XR-NTX's long-acting antagonist effects and control of cravings; (2) "testing" XR-NTX's blockade with heroin upon reentry was common; (3) early discontinuation of XR-NTX treatment was most common among persons with high self-efficacy and/or heavy exposure to drug use environments and peers; (4) similar satisfaction regarding effects of methadone and buprenorphine maintenance among retained-in-treatment individuals, alongside general dissatisfaction with daily observed dosing requirements and misinformation and stigmas regarding methadone adverse effects; (5) unstable housing, economic insecurity, and exposure to actively using peers were attributed to early termination of treatment and relapse; (6) individual motivation and willpower as central to long-term opioid abstinence and reentry success. CONCLUSIONS:In the context of more familiar agonist maintenance treatments, XR-NTX relapse prevention during jail-to-community reentry was viewed as a helpful and unique intervention though with important limitations. Commonly described barriers to treatment retention and heroin abstinence included homelessness, economic insecurity, and drug-using peers. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01999946 (XOR), Registered 03 December 2013, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01999946 .

Project description:BackgroundExtended-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 findingsIn-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.ConclusionParticipants 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.

Project description:BackgroundBUP-XR (SUBLOCADE®) is the first buprenorphine extended-release subcutaneous injection approved in the USA for monthly treatment of moderate-to-severe opioid use disorder (OUD). Among patients with OUD, those who inject or use high doses of opioids likely require higher doses of buprenorphine to maximize treatment efficacy. The objective of this analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of 100-mg versus 300-mg maintenance doses of BUP-XR in OUD patients who inject opioids.MethodsThis was a secondary analysis of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in which adults with moderate or severe OUD received monthly injections of BUP-XR (2 × 300-mg doses, then 4 × 100-mg or 300-mg maintenance doses) or placebo for 24 weeks. Abstinence was defined as opioid-negative urine drug screens combined with negative self-reports collected weekly. Each participant's percentage abstinence was calculated after the first, second, and third maintenance doses in opioid-injecting and non-injecting participants. The proportion of participants achieving opioid abstinence in each group was also calculated weekly. Treatment retention rate following the first maintenance dose was estimated for opioid-injecting participants with Kaplan-Meier method. Risk-adjusted comparisons were made via inverse propensity weighting using propensity scores. Buprenorphine plasma concentration-time profiles were compared between injecting and non-injecting participants. The percentages of participants reporting treatment-emergent adverse events were compared between maintenance dose groups within injecting and non-injecting participants separately.ResultsBUP-XR 100-mg and 300-mg maintenance doses were equally effective in non-injecting participants. However, in opioid-injecting participants, the 300-mg maintenance dose delivered clinically meaningful improvements over the 100-mg maintenance dose for treatment retention and opioid abstinence. Exposure-response analyses confirmed that injecting participants would require higher buprenorphine plasma concentrations compared to non-injecting opioid participants to achieve similar efficacy in terms of opioid abstinence. Importantly, both 100- and 300-mg maintenance doses had comparable safety profiles, including hepatic safety events.ConclusionsThese analyses show clear benefits of the 300-mg maintenance dose in injecting participants, while no additional benefit was observed in non-injecting participants relative to the 100-mg maintenance dose. This is an important finding as opioid-injecting participants represent a high-risk and difficult-to-treat population. Optimal buprenorphine dosing in this population might facilitate harm reduction by improving abstinence and treatment retention.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02357901.