8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Emergency Department-Initiated Buprenorphine for Opioid Dependence with Continuation in Primary Care: Outcomes During and After Intervention

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Emergency department (ED)-initiated buprenorphine/naloxone with continuation in primary care was found to increase engagement in addiction treatment and reduce illicit opioid use at 30 days compared to referral only or a brief intervention with referral.

          Objective

          To evaluate the long-term outcomes at 2, 6 and 12 months following ED interventions.

          Design

          Evaluation of treatment engagement, drug use, and HIV risk among a cohort of patients from a randomized trial who completed at least one long-term follow-up assessment.

          Participants

          A total of 290/329 patients (88% of the randomized sample) were included. The followed cohort did not differ significantly from the randomized sample.

          Interventions

          ED-initiated buprenorphine with 10-week continuation in primary care, referral, or brief intervention were provided in the ED at study entry.

          Main Measures

          Self-reported engagement in formal addiction treatment, days of illicit opioid use, and HIV risk (2, 6, 12 months); urine toxicology (2, 6 months).

          Key Results

          A greater number of patients in the buprenorphine group were engaged in addiction treatment at 2 months [68/92 (74%), 95% CI 65–83] compared with referral [42/79 (53%), 95% CI 42–64] and brief intervention [39/83 (47%), 95% CI 37–58; p < 0.001]. The differences were not significant at 6 months [51/92 (55%), 95% CI 45–65; 46/70 (66%) 95% CI 54–76; 43/76 (57%) 95% CI 45–67; p = 0.37] or 12 months [42/86 (49%) 95% CI 39–59; 37/73 (51%) 95% CI 39–62; 49/78 (63%) 95% CI 52–73; p = 0.16]. At 2 months, the buprenorphine group reported fewer days of illicit opioid use [1.1 (95% CI 0.6–1.6)] versus referral [1.8 (95% CI 1.2–2.3)] and brief intervention [2.0 (95% CI 1.5–2.6), p = 0.04]. No significant differences in illicit opioid use were observed at 6 or 12 months. There were no significant differences in HIV risk or rates of opioid-negative urine results at any time.

          Conclusions

          ED-initiated buprenorphine was associated with increased engagement in addiction treatment and reduced illicit opioid use during the 2-month interval when buprenorphine was continued in primary care. Outcomes at 6 and 12 months were comparable across all groups.

          Related collections

          Most cited references16

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Emergency department-initiated buprenorphine/naloxone treatment for opioid dependence: a randomized clinical trial.

          Opioid-dependent patients often use the emergency department (ED) for medical care.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Generation of allocation sequences in randomised trials: chance, not choice.

            The randomised controlled trial sets the gold standard of clinical research. However, randomisation persists as perhaps the least-understood aspect of a trial. Moreover, anything short of proper randomisation courts selection and confounding biases. Researchers should spurn all systematic, non-random methods of allocation. Trial participants should be assigned to comparison groups based on a random process. Simple (unrestricted) randomisation, analogous to repeated fair coin-tossing, is the most basic of sequence generation approaches. Furthermore, no other approach, irrespective of its complexity and sophistication, surpasses simple randomisation for prevention of bias. Investigators should, therefore, use this method more often than they do, and readers should expect and accept disparities in group sizes. Several other complicated restricted randomisation procedures limit the likelihood of undesirable sample size imbalances in the intervention groups. The most frequently used restricted sequence generation procedure is blocked randomisation. If this method is used, investigators should randomly vary the block sizes and use larger block sizes, particularly in an unblinded trial. Other restricted procedures, such as urn randomisation, combine beneficial attributes of simple and restricted randomisation by preserving most of the unpredictability while achieving some balance. The effectiveness of stratified randomisation depends on use of a restricted randomisation approach to balance the allocation sequences for each stratum. Generation of a proper randomisation sequence takes little time and effort but affords big rewards in scientific accuracy and credibility. Investigators should devote appropriate resources to the generation of properly randomised trials and reporting their methods clearly.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Counseling plus buprenorphine-naloxone maintenance therapy for opioid dependence.

              The optimal level of counseling and frequency of attendance for medication distribution has not been established for the primary care, office-based buprenorphine-naloxone treatment of opioid dependence. We conducted a 24-week randomized, controlled clinical trial with 166 patients assigned to one of three treatments: standard medical management and either once-weekly or thrice-weekly medication dispensing or enhanced medical management and thrice-weekly medication dispensing. Standard medical management was brief, manual-guided, medically focused counseling; enhanced management was similar, but each session was extended. The primary outcomes were the self-reported frequency of illicit opioid use, the percentage of opioid-negative urine specimens, and the maximum number of consecutive weeks of abstinence from illicit opioids. The three treatments had similar efficacies with respect to the mean percentage of opioid-negative urine specimens (standard medical management and once-weekly medication dispensing, 44 percent; standard medical management and thrice-weekly medication dispensing, 40 percent; and enhanced medical management and thrice-weekly medication dispensing, 40 percent; P=0.82) and the maximum number of consecutive weeks during which patients were abstinent from illicit opioids. All three treatments were associated with significant reductions from baseline in the frequency of illicit opioid use, but there were no significant differences among the treatments. The proportion of patients remaining in the study at 24 weeks did not differ significantly among the patients receiving standard medical management and once-weekly medication dispensing (48 percent) or thrice-weekly medication dispensing (43 percent) or enhanced medical management and thrice-weekly medication dispensing (39 percent) (P=0.64). Adherence to buprenorphine-naloxone treatment varied; increased adherence was associated with improved treatment outcomes. Among patients receiving buprenorphine-naloxone in primary care for opioid dependence, the efficacy of brief weekly counseling and once-weekly medication dispensing did not differ significantly from that of extended weekly counseling and thrice-weekly dispensing. Strategies to improve buprenorphine-naloxone adherence are needed. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00023283 [ClinicalTrials.gov].). Copyright 2006 Massachusetts Medical Society.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                203-785-4404 , gail.donofrio@yale.edu
                Journal
                J Gen Intern Med
                J Gen Intern Med
                Journal of General Internal Medicine
                Springer US (New York )
                0884-8734
                1525-1497
                13 February 2017
                June 2017
                : 32
                : 6
                : 660-666
                Affiliations
                [1 ] ISNI 0000000419368710, GRID grid.47100.32, Department of Emergency Medicine, , Yale School of Medicine, ; New Haven, CT USA
                [2 ] ISNI 0000000419368710, GRID grid.47100.32, Department of Psychiatry, , Yale School of Medicine, ; New Haven, CT USA
                [3 ] ISNI 0000000419368710, GRID grid.47100.32, Department of General Medicine, , Yale School of Medicine, ; New Haven, CT USA
                [4 ] ISNI 0000000419368710, GRID grid.47100.32, Yale School of Public Health, ; New Haven, CT USA
                Article
                PMC5442013 PMC5442013 5442013 3993
                10.1007/s11606-017-3993-2
                5442013
                28194688
                c6213891-04e1-4008-b3b3-52146a5c73d2
                © Society of General Internal Medicine 2017
                History
                : 29 July 2016
                : 30 November 2016
                : 11 January 2017
                Categories
                Original Research
                Custom metadata
                © Society of General Internal Medicine 2017

                opioid use disorder,substance use disorder,emergency medicine,primary care

                Comments

                Comment on this article