Citations

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.

Substance use disorders (SUD) remain a significant source of morbidity and mortality in the United States, and access to treatment continues to be inadequate. Primary Care Clinicians (PCCs) are well-positioned to provide long-term SUD care for patients. However, multiple provider-level barriers exist. Collaborative Care Management (CoCM) has proven successful in supporting PCCs in treating psychiatric conditions, such as depression. Our group proposes an addiction-focused modified CoCM that leverages telemedicine and an electronic platform (Senyo) into primary care. This study assesses PCCs’ attitudes toward this proposed model and their likelihood (with support) of prescribing medications for alcohol and opioid use disorder. To achieve this, an anonymized and confidential electronic survey was deployed to all 489 of our institutions’ PCCs. Eighty-five completed the survey (17.4% response); the majority (94%) agreed that digital CoCM for SUD will be helpful for their practice, and 85% expressed agreement that such a model will increase their confidence and likelihood to prescribe anti-craving medications. Additionally, we found that PCCs’ comfort level in addressing SUD with patients is not associated with years in practice, clinician type (attending physicians, resident/fellow physicians, nurse practitioner or physician assistant), or their perception of currently available SUD treatment resources. Future work to evaluate practice changes, including rates of anti-craving medication prescribing and SUD-treatment outcomes after implementation of our digital CoCM will prove useful in determining the effectiveness of this model.

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 Aims Alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD) and alcohol use disorder (AUD) are interconnected and highly prevalent. Integrating substance use disorder (SUD) treatment into medical clinics may increase access to specialized care and improve liver-related outcomes. Methods A scoping review and quantitative analysis were completed on published literature before 4 September 2024. Included articles described SUD treatment integrated in medical settings for adults with liver disease and alcohol use. Specific focus in the analysis was placed on integrations that utilized telehealth formats, facilitated access to medications for AUD (MAUD), and intervened in liver transplant populations. Results Twenty-three full-length manuscripts and 10 conference abstracts met the inclusion criteria. Fourteen articles discussed MAUD access in ALD populations. Nine utilized telehealth interventions, and 12 focused on pre- and post-liver transplant populations considered high-risk for returning to alcohol use. Nine full-length manuscripts were included in a quantitative analysis, which showed a 9.7% risk difference (95% CI: 5.9–13.4) in any alcohol use, favoring integrated care over treatment as usual. Conclusions Integrated care for AUD and concurrent ALD populations can effectively reduce returns to alcohol use and be successfully integrated in a medical setting. The core ingredient of such interventions was the inclusion of an addiction medicine specialist into a medical setting, rather than an outside referral. Strategic telehealth utilization can further reduce geographic and specialty-specific barriers to SUD care in medically ill populations. More consensus is needed on key components, processes, and optimal outcomes for such integrated programs for people with concurrent liver disease and AUD.

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.

AbstractBackground and ObjectivesTranscranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) have evidence for their potential in the treatment of substance use disorders (SUD). Medication for addiction treatment (MAT) is underutilized and not always effective. We identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and case studies that evaluated the effectiveness of TMS or tDCS used concurrently with MAT in SUD treatment.MethodsA systematic review of published literature following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was conducted on 6/1/2023 by a medical librarian. Craving‐related scales were extracted for an effect size calculation. The Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale assessed study quality.ResultsEight studies (7 RCT, 1 case) including 253 individuals were published from 2015 to 2022, 5 of which had available data for meta‐analysis. TMS or tDCS combined with MAT significantly reduced craving‐related measures relative to sham stimulation (Hedges' g = −0.42, confidence interval: −0.73 to −0.11, p < .01). Opioid use disorder, methadone, and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex were the most commonly studied SUD, MAT, and target region.Discussion and ConclusionsOur results show a significant effect; however, is limited by a small number of studies with heterogeneous methodology across intervention methods and SUDs. Additional trials are needed to fully assess the clinical impact and mechanisms of combined brain stimulation and pharmacotherapy. We discuss a possible mechanism for synergism from these treatment combinations.Scientific SignificanceAdds the first systematic review of combination treatment with TMS or tDCS and MAT in SUD patients to the literature and estimates its overall effect size.