Identification and Treatment of Opioid Withdrawal and Opioid Use Disorder in the Emergency Department.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Jennings L
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7331957 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Identification and Treatment of Opioid Withdrawal and Opioid Use Disorder in the Emergency Department.
Jennings Lindsey L Warner Tessa T Bacro-Duverger Bastien B
MedEdPORTAL : the journal of teaching and learning resources 20200515
<h4>Introduction</h4>Opioid addiction and misuse constitute a public health crisis in the United States. Recent research supports buprenorphine induction in the emergency department (ED) setting for patients with opioid use disorder (OUD). However, education regarding buprenorphine induction for emergency medicine (EM) physicians, residents, and students is still limited.<h4>Methods</h4>We created a 1-hour introductory workshop for the identification and treatment of opioid withdrawal and OUD in ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ImportanceAlthough substantial evidence supports buprenorphine for treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) in controlled trials, prospective study of patient outcomes in clinical implementation of emergency department (ED) buprenorphine treatment is lacking.ObjectiveTo examine the association between buprenorphine treatment in the ED and follow-up engagement in OUD treatment 1 month later.Design, setting, and participantsThis multisite cohort study was conducted in 7 California EDs participating in a statewide implementation project to improve access to buprenorphine treatment. The study population included ED patients aged at least 18 years identified with OUD between April 1, 2021, and June 30, 2022. Data analysis was performed in October 2023.ExposureAll participants were offered buprenorphine treatment for OUD (either in ED administration, prescription, or both), the uptake of which was examined as the exposure of interest.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was engagement in OUD treatment 30 days after the ED visit, determined by patient report or clinical documentation. The association of ED buprenorphine treatment with subsequent OUD treatment engagement was estimated using hierarchical generalized linear models.ResultsThis analysis included 464 ED patients with OUD. Their median age was 36.0 (IQR, 29.0-38.7) years, and most were men (343 [73.9%]). With regard to race and ethnicity, 64 patients (13.8%) self-identified as non-Hispanic Black, 183 (39.4%) as Hispanic, and 185 as non-Hispanic White (39.9%). Most patients (396 [85.3%]) had Medicaid insurance, and more than half (262 [57.8%]) had unstable housing. Self-reported fentanyl use (242 [52.2%]) and a comorbid mental health condition (328 [71.5%]) were common. Interest in buprenorphine treatment was high: 398 patients (85.8%) received buprenorphine treatment; 269 (58.0%) were administered buprenorphine in the ED and 339 (73.1%) were prescribed buprenorphine. With regard to OUD treatment engagement at 30 days after the ED visit, 198 participants (49.7%) who received ED buprenorphine treatment remained engaged compared with 15 participants (22.7%) who did not receive ED buprenorphine treatment. An association of ED buprenorphine treatment with subsequent OUD treatment engagement at 30 days was observed (adjusted risk ratio, 1.97 [95% CI, 1.27-3.07]).Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this cohort study suggest that among patients with OUD presenting to EDs implementing low-threshold access to medications for OUD, buprenorphine treatment was associated with a substantially higher likelihood of follow-up treatment engagement 1 month later. Future research should investigate techniques to optimize both the uptake and effectiveness of buprenorphine initiation in low-threshold settings such as the ED.
| S-EPMC10825722 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceEmergency departments (EDs) sporadically use a high-dose buprenorphine induction strategy for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) in response to the increasing potency of the illicit opioid drug supply and commonly encountered delays in access to follow-up care.ObjectiveTo examine the safety and tolerability of high-dose (>12 mg) buprenorphine induction for patients with OUD presenting to an ED.Design, setting, and participantsIn this case series of ED encounters, data were manually abstracted from electronic health records for all ED patients with OUD treated with buprenorphine at a single, urban, safety-net hospital in Oakland, California, for the calendar year 2018. Data analysis was performed from April 2020 to March 2021.InterventionsED physicians and advanced practice practitioners were trained on a high-dose sublingual buprenorphine induction protocol, which was then clinically implemented.Main outcomes and measuresVital signs; use of supplemental oxygen; the presence of precipitated withdrawal, sedation, and respiratory depression; adverse events; length of stay; and hospitalization during and 24 hours after the ED visit were reported according to total sublingual buprenorphine dose (range, 2 to >28 mg).ResultsAmong a total of 391 unique patients (median [interquartile range] age, 36 [29-48] years), representing 579 encounters, 267 (68.3%) were male and 170 were (43.5%) Black. Homelessness (88 patients [22.5%]) and psychiatric disorders (161 patients [41.2%]) were common. A high dose of sublingual buprenorphine (>12 mg) was administered by 54 unique clinicians during 366 (63.2%) encounters, including 138 doses (23.8%) greater than or equal to 28 mg. No cases of respiratory depression or sedation were reported. All 5 (0.8%) cases of precipitated withdrawal had no association with dose; 4 cases occurred after doses of 8 mg of buprenorphine. Three serious adverse events unrelated to buprenorphine were identified. Nausea or vomiting was rare (2%-6% of cases). The median (interquartile range) length of stay was 2.4 (1.6-3.75) hours.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that high-dose buprenorphine induction, adopted by multiple clinicians in a single-site urban ED, was safe and well tolerated in patients with untreated OUD. Further prospective investigations conducted in multiple sites would enhance these findings.
| S-EPMC8283555 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDespite the significant increase in emergency room visits for opioid overdose, only few emergency departments (ED) have implemented best practices to treat people with opioid use disorders (OUD). Some implementation gaps may be due to practitioner factors; such as support for medication-assisted treatment (MAT) for OUD in the ED. In this study, we explore the relationship between inner setting characteristics of the EDs (e.g., leadership, readiness for change, organizational climate) and practitioner support for OUD treatment and attitudes towards people with OUD.MethodsWe surveyed 241 ED practitioners (e.g., physicians, nurses, social workers) at one of the largest EDs in the United States. We used analysis of variance and chi-square global tests to compare responses from ED practitioners in differing roles. We also conducted five multivariate logistic regressions to explore associations between ED inner setting characteristics and five antecedents of implementation; ED practitioner (1) supports MAT for OUD in the ED, (2) supports best practices to treat OUD, (3) has self-efficacy to treat OUD, (4) has stereotypes of people who use drugs, and (5) has optimism to treat people with OUD.ResultsWe found nurses were more likely than physicians to support MAT for OUD in the ED and delivering other best practices to treat OUD. At the same time, nurses had greater bias than physicians against working with patients suffering from OUD. We also found the ED's climate for innovation and practitioners' readiness for change were positively associated with support for MAT for OUD in the ED and using best practices to treat OUD.ConclusionsFindings suggest that professional roles and some ED inner setting factors play an important role in antecedents of implementation of OUD treatment in the ED. To prepare EDs to effectively respond to the current opioid overdose epidemic, it is critical to further understand the impact of these organizational factors on the implementation of evidence-based OUD treatment practices in the nation.
| S-EPMC7547528 | 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:Introduction: Despite widespread recognition of the opioid crisis, opioid overdose remains a common reason for Emergency Department (ED) utilization. Treatment for these patients after stabilization often involves the provision of information for outpatient treatment options. Ideally, an ED visit for overdose would present an opportunity to start treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) immediately. Although widely recognized as effective, opioid agonist therapy with methadone and buprenorphine commonly referred to as "medication-assisted therapy" but more correctly as "medication for addiction treatment" (MAT), can be difficult to access even for motivated individuals due to shortages of prescribers and treatment programs. Moreover, opioid agonist therapy may not be appropriate for all patients, as many patients who present after overdose are not opioid dependent. More treatment options are required to successfully match patients with diverse needs to an optimal treatment plan in order to avoid relapse. Naltrexone, a long-acting opioid antagonist, available orally and as a monthly extended-release intramuscular injection, may represent another treatment option. Methods: We conducted a literature search of MEDLINE and PubMed. We aimed to capture references related to naltrexone and is use as MAT for OUD, as well as manuscripts that discussed naltrexone in comparison toother agents used for MAT, opioid detoxification, and naltrexone metabolism. Our initial search logic returned a total of 618 articles. Following individual evaluation for relevance, we selected 65 for in-depthreview. Manuscripts meeting criteria were examined for citations meriting further review, leading to the addition of 30 manuscripts Conclusions: Here, we review the pharmacology of naltrexone as it relates to OUD, its history of use, and highlight recent studies and new approaches for use of the drug as MAT including its potential initiation after ED visit for opioid overdose.
| S-EPMC6908461 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Study objectiveConcurrent use of amphetamine-type stimulants among individuals with opioid use disorder can exacerbate social and medical harms, including overdose risk. The study evaluated rates of amphetamine-type stimulant use among patients with untreated opioid use disorder presenting at emergency departments in Baltimore, MD; New York, NY; Cincinnati, OH; and Seattle, WA.MethodsEmergency department (ED) patients with untreated opioid use disorder (N=396) and enrolled between February 2017 and January 2019 in a multisite hybrid type III implementation science study were evaluated for concurrent amphetamine-type stimulant use. Individuals with urine tests positive for methamphetamine, amphetamine, or both were compared with amphetamine-type stimulant-negative patients.ResultsOverall, 38% of patients (150/396) were amphetamine-type stimulant positive; none reported receiving prescribed amphetamine or methamphetamine medications. Amphetamine-type stimulant-positive versus -negative patients were younger: mean age was 36 years (SD 10 years) versus 40 years (SD 12 years), 69% (104/150) versus 46% (114/246) were white, 65% (98/150) versus 54% (132/246) were unemployed, 67% (101/150) versus 49 (121/246) had unstable housing, 47% (71/150) versus 25% (61/245) reported an incarceration during 1 year before study admission, 60% (77/128) versus 45% (87/195) were hepatitis C positive, 79% (118/150) versus 47% (115/245) reported drug injection during 1 month before the study admission, and 42% (62/149) versus 29% (70/244) presented to the ED for an injury. Lower proportions of amphetamine-type stimulant-positive patients had cocaine-positive urine test results (33% [50/150] versus 52% [129/246]) and reported seeking treatment for substance use problems as a reason for their ED visit (10% [14/148] versus 19% [46/246]). All comparisons were statistically significant at P<.05 with the false discovery rate correction.ConclusionAmphetamine-type stimulant use among ED patients with untreated opioid use disorder was associated with distinct sociodemographic, social, and health factors. Improved ED-based screening, intervention, and referral protocols for patients with opioid use disorder and amphetamine-type stimulant use are needed.
| S-EPMC8048036 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND Little is known regarding the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of emergency department (ED) patients with untreated opioid use disorder (OUD) and the relationship of those characteristics with whether they were seeking a referral to substance use treatment at the time of their ED visit. METHODS Using data collected from 2/2017-1/2019 from participants enrolled in Project ED Health (CTN-0069), we conducted a cross-sectional analysis of patients with untreated moderate to severe OUD presenting to one of four EDs in Baltimore, New York City, Cincinnati, or Seattle. Sociodemographic and clinical correlates, and International Classification of Diseases Tenth Revision (ICD-10) diagnosis codes related to opioid withdrawal, injection-related infection, other substance use, overdose, and OUD of those seeking and not seeking a referral to substance use treatment on presentation were compared using univariate analyses. RESULTS Among 394 study participants, 15.2 % (60/394) came to the ED seeking a referral to substance use treatment. No differences in age, gender, education, health insurance status or housing stability were detected between those seeking and not seeking referral to substance use treatment. Those seeking a referral to substance use treatment were less likely to have urine toxicology testing positive for amphetamine [17 % (10/60) vs 31 % (104/334), p = 0.023] and methamphetamine [23 % (14/60) vs 40 % (132/334), p = 0.017] compared to those not seeking a referral. CONCLUSION Most patients with untreated OUD seen in the EDs were not seeking a referral to substance use treatment. Active identification, treatment initiation, and coding may improve ED efforts to address untreated OUD.
| S-EPMC8110210 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSubstance use patterns are diverse, and multiple substances are often involved in fatal and nonfatal overdoses. Additionally, polysubstance use is associated with greater difficulty accessing and remaining in substance use disorder (SUD) treatment. The aim of this study was to identify substance use patterns and determine their association with SUD treatment engagement among emergency department (ED) patients at risk of opioid overdose.MethodsThis was a sub-analysis of a randomized controlled trial comparing two behavioral interventions for individuals at two EDs in Rhode Island from 2018 to 2021. Past six-month substance use frequency for eight substances plus injection drug use was self-reported at trial enrollment, and SUD treatment engagement within 90 days after enrollment was obtained using administrative data linkages. Latent class analysis identified substance use patterns and multivariable log-binomial models estimated the association with SUD treatment engagement.ResultsAmong 607 participants, there were four substance use patterns: 1) low reported use (n = 295), 2) frequent injection and heroin use (n = 131), 3) high frequency broad polysubstance use (n = 62), and 4) low frequency broad polysubstance use (n = 119). Compared to participants with the low reported use pattern, those with the frequent injection and heroin pattern had a greater likelihood of SUD treatment engagement (adjusted risk ratio = 1.28; 95% confidence interval = 1.02-1.61).ConclusionsDistinct and meaningful polysubstance use patterns showed differential SUD treatment engagement after ED discharge. Nuanced relationships between substance use patterns and treatment highlight the necessity for tailored harm reduction, treatment, and recovery services.
| S-EPMC10450842 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionTo date, there is limited literature to guide emergency providers (EPs) on the proper dosing of prescription opioids. Our study aims to assess the self-reported opioid use, storage, and disposal practices of patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with acute pain.MethodsThis prospective cohort study employed a validated, cross-sectional survey of subjects identified using electronic medical records. The survey link was e-mailed to a continuous sample of eligible participants 3-4 weeks following ED discharge. Nonrespondents were surveyed through telephone after 1 week. We used descriptive and nonparametric statistics to report survey results.ResultsOf 500 eligible subjects, 97 completed the questionnaire. Only 28% of respondents reported that they took all of the prescribed pills. Of the remaining responses, 20% stated that they did not take any pills, 33% took about one-fourth, 7.2% took about half, and 12.4% took about three-fourths of the pills. Among those who did not take any pills, 42% filled the prescription. Most (71.2%) reported storing their leftover pills; among those who stored their pills, less than one-fourth (23.8%) used a locked storage location.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that less than one-third of patients who receive prescriptions in the ED for acute pain use all of their prescribed pills, suggesting that many patients are unnecessarily prescribed opioids for acute conditions. The findings of this study also suggest that many patients with unused prescription opioids do not practice safe storage or proper disposal of leftover pills. This represents a potential opportunity for EPs to improve medication safety by educating patients on proper storage and disposal practices. Limitations include low response rate and the use of self-reporting.
| S-EPMC10824224 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceEmergency department (ED)-based initiation of buprenorphine has been shown to increase engagement in outpatient treatment and reduce the risk of subsequent opioid overdose; however, rates of buprenorphine treatment in the ED and follow-up care for opioid use disorder (OUD) remain low in the US. The Opioid Hospital Quality Improvement Program (O-HQIP), a statewide financial incentive program designed to increase engagement in OUD treatment for Medicaid-enrolled patients who have ED encounters, has the potential to increase ED-initiated buprenorphine treatment.ObjectiveTo evaluate the association between hospitals attesting to an ED buprenorphine treatment O-HQIP pathway and patients' subsequent initiation of buprenorphine treatment.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study included Pennsylvania patients aged 18 to 64 years with continuous Medicaid enrollment 6 months before their OUD ED encounter and at least 30 days after discharge between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2020. Patients with a claim for medication for OUD 6 months before their index encounter were excluded.ExposuresHospital implementation of an ED buprenorphine treatment O-HQIP pathway.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcome was patients' receipt of buprenorphine within 30 days of their index OUD ED visit. Between August 2021 and January 2023, data were analyzed using a difference-in-differences method to evaluate the association between hospitals' O-HQIP attestation status and patients' treatment with buprenorphine after ED discharge.ResultsThe analysis included 17 428 Medicaid-enrolled patients (female, 43.4%; male, 56.6%; mean [SD] age, 37.4 [10.8] years; Black, 17.5%; Hispanic, 7.9%; White, 71.6%; other race or ethnicity, 3.0%) with OUD seen at O-HQIP-attesting or non-O-HQIP-attesting hospital EDs. The rate of prescription fills for buprenorphine within 30 days of an OUD ED discharge in the O-HQIP attestation hospitals before the O-HQIP intervention was 5%. The O-HQIP attestation was associated with a statistically significant increase (2.6 percentage points) in prescription fills for buprenorphine within 30 days of an OUD ED discharge (β, 0.026; 95% CI, 0.005-0.047).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study, the O-HQIP was associated with an increased initiation of buprenorphine in patients with OUD presenting to the ED. These findings suggest that statewide incentive programs may effectively improve outcomes for patients with OUD.
| S-EPMC10313142 | biostudies-literature