Bormann, Nicholas L

Background Long-acting injectable buprenorphine (LAI-BUP) is safe and effective, however is underutilized. Little is known regarding how buprenorphine prescribers view LAI-BUP, and which medication attributes they prioritize when selecting opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment. Methods Secondary analysis of a national, cross-sectional survey of U.S. physicians prescribing buprenorphine for OUD. Respondents reported OUD caseload, LAI-BUP use, and importance of medication attributes (eg, efficacy, safety, ease of prescribing, administrative requirements). Providers were categorized as no LAI-BUP use or, among LAI-BUP prescribers, Low vs High use by a median split. Group comparisons used chi-square (or Fisher’s exact) tests for categorical variables and Jonckheere–Terpstra tests for ordinal responses. Results Among 125 respondents, 39 (31.2%) reported no LAI-BUP use. The remaining 86 (68.8%) were split evenly into Low and High use groups (n’s = 43). LAI-BUP use did not differ meaningfully by specialty, region, or practice setting. Greater LAI-BUP use was reported by providers with larger OUD panels. Ratings of medication attributes were uniformly high. Conclusions LAI-BUP remains underused, with uptake highest among clinicians managing larger OUD caseloads. Measured attitudes toward medication attributes did not explain these differences. Future work should assess clinic workflow, staffing, reimbursement, and REMS burden, testing targeted implementation strategies using mixed-methods trials.

Abstract Background Long-acting injectable buprenorphine (LAIB) has been positioned as a potentially transformative option for opioid use disorder (OUD), in part because patient experiences reported in qualitative studies emphasize reduced daily burden, increased “freedom,” reduced stigma, and fewer pressures related to diversion—while also noting barriers such as insufficient information, early adverse experiences, and concerns about coercion. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional online survey of adults recruited from the Behavioral Health Research Panel (BHRP). Eligibility included age ≥18, English literacy, and OUD diagnosis or problematic opioid use within the past 5 years. Survey content assessed buprenorphine experience, knowledge and attitudes toward LAIB, attribute preferences, and open-text feedback. Descriptive statistics were generated; analyses were stratified by buprenorphine experience (experienced vs naïve). Results Among 105 participants, 82.9% reported prior buprenorphine use, and 17.1% were buprenorphine-naïve. Overall, 53.3% preferred a long-acting injection regimen (weekly/monthly/3-monthly) versus 46.7% preferring a daily oral tablet/film. Convenience and adherence-related themes (e.g., not missing doses, fewer visits) drove LAIB preference, while oral-route preference and concerns about side effects and safety were prominent among those favoring oral formulations. Conclusions In this national convenience sample, preferences were nearly evenly split between daily oral and long-acting injectable buprenorphine regimens, with a slight overall preference for LAIB. Findings align with the qualitative literature, emphasizing the practical and psychosocial benefits of LAIB, alongside persistent needs for improved education, shared decision-making, and attention to tolerability, safety perceptions, and cost/coverage barriers.

Abstract Background Long-acting injectable buprenorphine (LAI-BUP) is safe and effective, however is dramatically underutilized in comparison to oral formulations. Little is known regarding how buprenorphine prescribers view LAI-BUP, and which medication attributes they prioritize when selecting treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD). Methods A secondary analysis of a national, cross-sectional online survey of U.S. physicians who prescribe buprenorphine for OUD was conducted. Respondents reported OUD caseload, LAI-BUP use, and the importance of medication attributes relevant to treatment selection (e.g., efficacy, safety, ease of administration, ease of prescribing, and administrative requirements). Providers were categorized as no LAI-BUP use or, among LAI-BUP prescribers, Low vs High use based on a median split. Group comparisons used chi-square (or Fisher’s exact) tests for categorical variables and Jonckheere–Terpstra tests for ordinal responses. Results Among 125 respondents, 39 (31.2%) reported no patients receiving LAI-BUP. The remaining 86 (68.8%) were LAI-BUP prescribers, split evenly into Low and High (n’s=43; 34.4%) groups using a median cut of 23.2%. LAI-BUP use did not differ meaningfully by specialty, region, or practice setting. Greater LAI-BUP use was reported by providers with larger OUD panels. Ratings of key medication attributes were uniformly high. Conclusions LAI-BUP remains underused, with uptake highest among clinicians managing larger OUD caseloads. Measured attitudes toward medication attributes did not explain these differences. Future work should assess clinic workflow, staffing, reimbursement, and REMS burden, testing targeted implementation strategies using mixed-methods trials. Identifying what shifts clinicians from no use to low and high use may guide scalable implementation interventions.

Abstract Background and Objectives Implementation of screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) for substance use in primary care remains challenging. Care coordination (CC) may strengthen SBIRT by supporting brief interventions, improving referral follow‐through, and enhancing continuity. CC models and outcomes vary, however, and no prior scoping review has synthesized these. Methods A comprehensive search of 10 resources, including Embase, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO, was conducted on 4/15/2025. Eligible studies described outpatient SBIRT models adding CC for any age group. Articles were excluded if they lacked CC, presented no original data, or were not in English. Relevant implementation and patient‐level outcomes were extracted to describe CC models and their impact. Results Of 737 abstracts and 50 full texts reviewed, 15 met the inclusion criteria. Studies spanned primary care, specialty care, and age ranges. CC models included embedded behavioral health providers, centralized linkage managers, and remote coordinators using phone or digital platforms. CC was associated with higher screening completion, brief intervention delivery, referral initiation, and treatment engagement. Successful integration incorporated structured communication, follow‐up protocols, and accessible technology. Barriers included limited billing infrastructure, weak electronic record integration, and unclear roles. Discussion and Conclusions CC appears to enhance SBIRT implementation and treatment engagement across outpatient settings. Embedded approaches offer relational benefits, while remote and digital strategies show promise for scalability. Comparative studies are needed to assess effectiveness, cost, and contextual fit. Scientific Significance Provides the first review of CC models within SBIRT, highlighting their implementation impact and guiding future optimization.

Background: Substance use disorders (SUDs) are highly prevalent, affecting over 48.5 million Americans. Available treatments for SUD remain insufficient, and many patients do not respond to existing interventions despite adequate adherence to treatments. While novel therapies for SUD are urgently needed, the use of psychedelic drugs for the treatment of SUDs has shown promise. Objectives: This overview of systematic reviews summarizes existing evidence on hallucinogens—serotonergic psychedelics and ketamine—for the treatment of SUD. Methods: A comprehensive search of the literature was conducted to identify relevant evidence for using serotonergic and non-serotonergic psychedelics for the treatment of SUDs. After initial screening (n = 468 studies), 62 studies were retrieved and assessed for eligibility, and a total of 16 systematic reviews were included. Conclusions: Although preliminary, evidence suggests that the use of serotonergic and non-serotonergic psychedelics for the treatment of SUD may provide advantages over traditional therapeutics, and these compounds may eventually become part of the next generation of treatments for SUD under specific circumstances. Research with these drugs has faced significant challenges, though, and caution when interpreting results is warranted, given high risk of bias and several other methodological limitations from the studies to date. Furthermore, risks associated with these drugs are not negligible. For now, the use of psychedelic drugs for the treatment of SUDs remains experimental, and existing evidence is insufficient to support its use in clinical practice.

Background Pseudohallucinations (PHs), defined as perceptual experiences recognized by the individual as unreal, have historically been distinguished from “true” hallucinations. However, their conceptual validity and clinical utility remain debated, with definitions and applications varying widely. Methods A narrative review of historical and contemporary literature on PHs was conducted. Articles were identified through PubMed using the terms “pseudohallucination,” “hallucination,” “dissociation,” and “trauma,” and through reviewing reference lists of key publications. Results Historical accounts emphasized features such as insight and localization, but empirical findings challenge these distinctions and demonstrate significant overlap with hallucinations and intrusive imagery across diagnoses. PHs are observed in psychotic, trauma-related, and personality disorders, suggesting they may reflect a spectrum of perceptual experiences rather than a discrete entity. Conclusions Moving beyond binary classifications and exploring the use of specifiers to describe hallucinations may offer a more nuanced framework for understanding these experiences across diagnostic categories. Rather than seeking rigid distinctions, this approach encourages descriptions that reflect individual phenomenology and context. Such a shift may help reduce stigma, foster more compassionate clinical engagement, and preserve the perceived relevance of the PH concept while aligning it with contemporary dimensional models of psychopathology.

Background: Invasive and non-invasive neuromodulation in psychiatry represents a burgeoning field that leverages advanced neuromodulation techniques to address substance use disorders (SUDs). Aims: This narrative review synthesizes findings from multiple reviews to evaluate the efficacy of neuromodulation in treating SUDs. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted between December 2024 and April 2025, focusing on systematic reviews and meta-analyses that examined various neuromodulation modalities, including repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), and deep brain stimulation (DBS). The selected reviews were analyzed to identify common themes, outcomes, and gaps in the current understanding of these treatments for SUDs. Results: 11 reviews met the final inclusion criteria; 5 focused on non-invasive neuromodulation (rTMS, tDCS) and 6 on invasive neuromodulation (DBS). Non-invasive neurostimulation was associated with modest improvements in craving and cognitive dysfunction in individuals with SUDs. Similarly, invasive neuromodulation (DBS), through high-frequency stimulation of the bilateral nucleus accumbens, appeared to reduce cravings and improve comorbid psychiatric symptoms in both preclinical and human studies. Importantly, small sample sizes, heterogeneity in targets and stimulation protocols, and short follow-up periods significantly limit the generalizability of current findings from both non-invasive and invasive neuromodulation studies. Conclusions: As novel and more effective therapies for the treatment of SUD are desperately needed, procedural interventional psychiatry holds promise. However, despite encouraging results, existing evidence is still preliminary, and larger, rigorously designed studies are warranted to further establish the safety and efficacy of neuromodulatory interventions for SUD treatment.

AbstractBackgroundWorkforce engagement can provide structure, income, feelings of accomplishment, and personal contacts, growing an individual's recovery capital (RC). Employed individuals are also more likely to complete addiction treatment. We sought to investigate whether changes in employment status from alcohol treatment admission to discharge correlated with changes in alcohol use frequency over those time points.MethodsThe Treatment Episode Dataset—Discharges (2017–2021) provided the data. Employment status (full‐time, part‐time, unemployed, and not in labor force) and alcohol use frequency (daily use, some use, and no use in past month) were assessed at treatment admission and discharge. Changes in alcohol use frequency during treatment were recorded as Reduction or No reduction. Logistic regression using reduced alcohol use frequency as the dependent variable included employment status at admission and discharge separately. A second analysis included employment status at both admission and discharge and their interaction term. An adjusted model included all covariates (race, ethnicity, age, education, and referral source), with its results being used to derive the marginal probabilities of reduced alcohol use frequency.ResultsThere were 856,085 alcohol treatment admissions over the 5 years, with 221,724 (25.9%) first admissions. Transitioning from not in the labor force or unemployed to full‐time saw the largest percentage of encounters decreasing alcohol use frequency: 71.9% (95% CI: 70.0–73.7) and 69.3% (95% CI: 68.1–70.5), respectively. Those remaining unemployed had the lowest reduction at 26.7% (95% CI: 26.3–27.1), with a sample reduction of 42.7% (95% CI: 42.5–42.9) overall. Far more people (60.4%) completed treatment within the Reduction group than in the No reduction group (30.2%).ConclusionsFindings suggest that improving employment status may be relevant for reducing alcohol use frequency. This aligns with past work showing overall improved health outcomes with lower unemployment levels. Incorporating vocational training and workforce engagement activities into outpatient treatment may help augment traditional approaches to improve an individual's RC.

AbstractBackground and ObjectivesCriminal‐legal (CL) referrals to addiction treatment have historically had low utilization of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD). While state differences have been reported, an in‐depth longitudinal analysis of state‐by‐state differences is lacking.MethodsThe Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Treatment Episode Dataset‐Admissions 2000–2020 provided data for individuals entering their initial treatment with an opioid as their primary substance. Outcome was planned use of MOUD, assessing odds ratio (OR) of CL referrals relative to non‐CL referrals cumulatively over the 21‐year period and as incremental change (change in relative disparity) using effect sizes, stratified by each state.Results2,187,447 cases met the criteria. Planned MOUD occurred in 37.7% of non‐CL clients versus 6.5% of CL clients (OR = 0.11, 95% confidence interval = 0.11–0.12). For all clients, planned MOUD increased from 2000 (33.9%) to 2020 (44.8%). This increase was blunted within CL clients, increasing from 2000 (6.4%) to 2020 (13.3%). Rhode Island saw the greatest improvements in equity.Discussion and ConclusionsWhile rates of planned MOUD increased over the 21 years, a significant disparity persisted among CL clients in most states. As opioid use disorders and opioid‐related overdoses are more prevalent among those involved with the CL system, improving this has high impact.Scientific SignificanceProvides the most comprehensive analysis of state‐by‐state inequities in MOUD access for CL relative to non‐CL referrals over a 21‐year period through use of a national data set. Positive outliers are used as case examples for others to follow in pursuit of more equitable care.