Pharmacist, prescriber, and drug policy expert opinions on gabapentinoid misuse.

BACKGROUND: Gabapentinoids (gabapentin and pregabalin) are widely used in clinical practice, but recent evidence indicates that they carry an increased risk of misuse. As healthcare professionals (HCPs) and policymakers plan different strategies to promote harm reduction, it is important to understand different interested party viewpoints. OBJECTIVE: To explore prescriber, pharmacist, and drug policy expert (DPE) awareness, opinions, and experiences regarding gabapentinoid misuse. METHODS: A qualitative description study using individual semi-structured virtual interviews was conducted between February and April 2021. Participants included prescribers (physicians, physician assistants [PA], or nurse practitioners [NP]) and pharmacists practicing in outpatient, ambulatory, or community-based healthcare settings; individuals with relevant drug policy expertise were also included. Qualtrics (Provo, Utah) and Zoom (San Jose, California) were used to facilitate quantitative (for initial screening and participant characteristics) and qualitative (interview) data collection. Data were coded and organized into themes in NVivo (QSR International; Burlington, Massachusetts) using thematic analysis steps. RESULTS: A total of 43 individuals participated in this study, including 16 (37.2%) pharmacists, 13 (30.2%) physicians, seven (16.3%) NPs, four (9.3%) DPEs, two (4.7%) pharmacist/DPEs, and one (2.3%) PA. Results were organized along four themes: (1) challenges/opportunities in gabapentinoid use; (2) gabapentinoid misuse awareness; (3) solutions to gabapentinoid misuse and (4) contributing barriers in pain management. Participants invoked different opinions in their consideration of gabapentinoid misuse, including the desire for harm reduction, the limitations of the current healthcare and insurance system, the lack of options for pain and substance use disorder treatment, and the influence of patient expectations. CONCLUSIONS: Gabapentinoid misuse was commonly framed in comparative fashion to ongoing concerns with opioids, and proposed solutions often focused less on regulatory control and more toward patient and HCP education and an overhaul of the health system approach to substance use and healthcare overall.

Subcutaneous Extended-release Buprenorphine Depot Misdiagnosed as an Abscess Resulting in Incision and Drainage and Disruption of Opioid Use Disorder Treatment.

Monthly extended-release buprenorphine subcutaneous injection (BUP-XR) is a newer treatment formulation for use in moderate to severe opioid use disorder. After injection into the subcutaneous tissue of the abdomen, the medication forms a depot to allow for slow release of buprenorphine. As such, a small yet visible and palpable nodule is normal and is expected to decrease in size over the following weeks to months. Given the newness of this medication, it is possible that not all healthcare providers are familiar with this formulation, nor will they interpret the BUP-XR depot as normal findings. Herein, we provide a case report where a patient's BUP-XR depot was misdiagnosed as an abscess, resulting in incision and drainage and disruption of life-saving opioid use disorder treatment. To prevent cases like this in the future, it is important that providers administering BUP-XR properly educate patients on what to expect during treatment with BUP-XR and when to seek care for potential abnormalities. In addition, it is critical that healthcare providers working in other treatment settings are aware of how to properly evaluate BUP-XR injection sites.

Availability of buprenorphine/naloxone films and naloxone nasal spray in community pharmacies in 11 U.S. states.

BACKGROUND: Prompt access to prescribed buprenorphine/naloxone films (BUP/NX) and naloxone nasal spray (NNS) is vital for patients with opioid use disorder (OUD), but multiple studies have documented pharmacy-level barriers. METHODS: A cross-sectional secret shopper telephone audit was conducted in a sample of 5734 actively licensed pharmacies in 11 U.S. states from May 2020-April 2021. Primary outcomes included availability of 14 generic BUP/NX 8/2 mg and one unit of NNS 4 mg. Outcomes were compared by pharmacy type, county metropolitan status, state Medicaid expansion status, and state drug overdose death rate. RESULTS: Data from 4984 pharmacies (3402 chain and 1582 independent) were analyzed. Both medications were available in 41.2 % of pharmacies, BUP/NX was available in 48.3%, and NNS was available in 69.5%. Chain pharmacies were significantly more likely than independent pharmacies to have both medications available, to have each medication available individually, and to be willing to order BUP/NX. Pharmacies in metropolitan counties were more likely to have BUP/NX available than pharmacies in non-metropolitan counties, pharmacies in Medicaid expansion states were more likely to have both medications available and to have NNS available than pharmacies in non-expansion states, and pharmacies in states with high drug overdose death rates were more likely to have NNS available than pharmacies in states with low drug overdose death rates. CONCLUSIONS: BUP/NX and NNS are not readily accessible in many U.S. pharmacies. Deficits in access are most pronounced in independent pharmacies, though county- and state-level factors may also influence availability of these essential medications.

State-level response to gabapentin misuse in the United States: Implications and future direction.

PURPOSE: Gabapentin misuse is on the rise and has forced many US states to mobilize policies to address this public health concern. The purpose of this manuscript is to update state-level gabapentin misuse-related policies in the US through September 1, 2021, discuss the benefits and risks of current measures, and highlight gaps in national response. METHODS: Identification of state and federal district policy changes and deliberations related to gabapentin were searched via internet for all 50 states and 1 federal district (n = 51). Only results from state regulatory bodies, such as the board of pharmacy, or state legislative bodies, such as the senate, were considered for inclusion. RESULTS: Results showed that 22 states and federal districts (43.1%) tightened regulation, while another 2 (3.9%) are considering doing so. Of the 22 states and federal districts with policy changes, 15 (68.2%) enrolled gabapentin into their prescription drug monitoring program, while 7 (31.8%) reclassified gabapentin as a Schedule V controlled substance (C-V). CONCLUSION: Absent of federal guidance surrounding gabapentin misuse, the onus has fallen on individual states; thus, approaches have ranged from no intervention to reclassification as a C-V. These measures aim to reduce medication supply but fall short of addressing patient outcomes and reducing harm. Therefore, harm reduction-informed public health policies must be implemented to positively impact patient outcomes and enhance safety.

Low Dose Initiation of Buprenorphine: A Narrative Review and Practical Approach.

ABSTRACT: Low dose buprenorphine initiation, is an alternative method of initiating buprenorphine in which the starting dose is very low and gradually increased to therapeutic levels over a period of days. This method takes advantage of slow displacement of the full opioid agonist from mu-opioid receptors, avoiding the need for a person with opioid use disorder to experience opioid withdrawal symptoms before initiating buprenorphine, while also minimizing the risk of precipitated opioid withdrawal. With this initiation method, full opioid agonists can be continued as buprenorphine is initiated, expanding the population to which buprenorphine can be offered. To date, the literature on low dose initiation is primarily case-based but rapidly growing. While evidence emerges, guidance for the use of low dose initiation is clearly desired and urgently needed in the context of an increasingly risky and contaminated opioid drug supply, particularly with high potency synthetic opioids, driving overdose deaths. Despite limited evidence, several principles to guide low dose initiation have been identified including: (1) choosing the appropriate clinical situation, (2) initiating at a low buprenorphine dose, (3) titrating the buprenorphine dose gradually, (4) continuing the full opioid agonist even if it is nonmedical, (5) communicating clearly with frequent monitoring, (6) pausing or delaying buprenorphine dose changes if opioid withdrawal symptoms occur, and (7) prioritizing care coordination. We review a practical approach to low dose initiation in hospital-based and outpatient settings guided by the current evidence.

Gabapentinoid Pharmacology in the Context of Emerging Misuse Liability.

This article will review the epidemiology and pharmacology of gabapentinoids (gabapentin and pregabalin) relevant to their emerging misuse potential and provide guidance for clinical and regulatory management. Gabapentinoids are γ-aminobutyric acid analogues that produce their therapeutic effects by inhibiting voltage-gated calcium channels and decreasing neurotransmitter release. Recently gabapentinoid prescribing and use have increased tremendously. Although traditionally thought to possess a favorable safety profile, gabapentinoid misuse has also risen significantly. Gabapentinoid misuse generally occurs in combination with other substances, most notably opioids, and may be for purposes of eliciting euphoric effects, enhancing the effects of other substances, or self-treating conditions such as withdrawal, pain, anxiety, or insomnia. Given its faster onset, increased bioavailability and potency, and nonsaturable absorption, pregabalin's pharmacokinetics theoretically enhance its misuse liability versus gabapentin. However, gabapentin can produce similar euphoric effects, and epidemiologic studies have identified higher rates of gabapentin misuse in the United States, likely because of greater availability and less regulated prescribing. Although adverse events of gabapentinoid-only ingestion are relatively benign, a growing body of evidence indicates that gabapentinoids significantly increase opioid-related morbidity and mortality when used concomitantly. In addition, significant withdrawal effects may occur on abrupt discontinuation. As a result of these trends, several US states have begun to further regulate gabapentinoid prescribing, reclassifying it as a controlled substance or mandating reporting to local prescription drug-monitoring programs. Although increased regulation of gabapentin prescribing may be warranted, harm reduction efforts and increased patient and provider education are necessary to mitigate this concerning gabapentinoid misuse trend.

Characterization of hospitalized patients who received naloxone while receiving opioids with or without gabapentinoids.

INTRODUCTION: Gabapentin and pregabalin (gabapentinoids) can be given with opioids for opioid-sparing and adjuvant analgesic effects. In the context of certain comorbidities and high dosages, coadministration of these agents can lead to respiratory depression or oversedation, necessitating naloxone administration. METHODS: A retrospective chart review from January 2015 to December 2017 was conducted to include patients who received naloxone and opioids with or without gabapentinoids. Exclusion criteria included pregnancy or having received naloxone in the emergency department, intensive care, or pediatrics units. The primary outcome was to characterize differences between groups regarding comorbidities, history of renal or hepatic dysfunction, history of SUD, opioid tolerance, initiation and dose appropriateness of gabapentinoids, and dose intensity of gabapentinoids and opioids. Secondary outcomes were concomitant CNS depressant use and naloxone episodes for documented respiratory depression. RESULTS: Of 126 patients who met inclusion criteria, 36 received opioids and gabapentinoids (gabapentinoid group) and 90 received opioids alone (nongabapentinoid group). There were 136 naloxone episodes between the 2 groups. More than 50% of the naloxone episodes in the gabapentinoid group involved opioids of at least 90 oral morphine mg equivalents. Respiratory depression accounted for 39% and 15.8% of the naloxone episodes in the gabapentinoid and nongabapentinoid groups, respectively. DISCUSSION: There may be increased naloxone episodes among patients receiving opioids and gabapentinoids. Future studies are needed to evaluate the incremental risk of respiratory depression and oversedation as it pertains to concomitant medication administration and patient-specific factors.

Patterns of patient discontinuation from buprenorphine/naloxone treatment for opioid use disorder: A study of a commercially insured population in Massachusetts.

BACKGROUND: Research has shown buprenorphine/naloxone to be an effective medication for treating individuals with opioid use disorder. At the same time, treatment discontinuation rates are reportedly high though much of the extant evidence comes from studies of the Medicaid population. OBJECTIVES: To examine the pattern and determinants of buprenorphine/naloxone treatment discontinuation in a population of commercially insured individuals. RESEARCH DESIGN: We performed a retrospective observational analysis of Massachusetts All Payer Claims Data (MA APCD) covering years 2013 through 2017. We defined treatment discontinuation as a gap of 60 consecutive days without a prescription for buprenorphine/naloxone within a time frame of 24 months from the initiation of treatment. A mixed-effect Cox proportional hazard model examined the associated risk of discontinuing treatment with baseline predictors. SUBJECTS: A total of 5134 individuals who were commercially insured during the study period. MEASURES: Buprenorphine/naloxone treatment discontinuation. RESULTS: Overall 75% of individuals had discontinued treatment within two years of initiating treatment, and median time to discontinuation was 300 days. Patients aged between 18 and 24 years (HR = 1.436, 95%, CI = 1.240-1.663) and receiving treatment from prescribers with high panel-size (HR = 1.278, 95% CI = 1.112-1.468) had higher risk of discontinuing treatment. On the contrary, patients receiving treatment from multiple prescribers had lower associated risk of treatment discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial percentage of patients discontinue treatment well before they can typically meet criteria for sustained remission. Further investigations should assess the clinical outcomes following premature discontinuation and identify strategies for retaining patients in treatment.

Real-world outcomes with extended-release buprenorphine (XR-BUP) in a low threshold bridge clinic: A retrospective case series.

BACKGROUND: In clinical trial settings, extended-release buprenorphine (XR-BUP) is noninferior to sublingual buprenorphine and may offer some advantages. However, real-world experiences of XR-BUP are limited and outcomes are unknown for low-threshold clinics with high-risk populations. Practical guidance is lacking on overcoming treatment challenges, such as inability for some to stabilize on sublingual (SL) BUP for seven days prior to XR-BUP and ongoing craving/withdrawal symptoms during treatment. METHODS: Retrospective case series of a convenience sample of 40 serial adults with opioid use disorder (OUD) treated with XR-BUP from Massachusetts General Hospital bridge clinic from February 1, 2019, to July 31, 2019. RESULTS: Patients were mostly male (67.5%), non-Hispanic white (97.5%), unstably housed (77.5%), and average age of 32.1 years old. The average SL BUP dose prior to XR-BUP was 18.6 mg (standard deviation [SD] = 5; range 8-32) for an average treatment duration of 105 days (SD = 191; range 1-810). Ten (25%) patients received SL BUP for fewer than the seven recommended days (mean = 3.7, SD = 1.4, range = 1-6). Standard induction dosing was administered to 30%, empiric high-dose XR-BUP (300 mg monthly) was administered to 25%, and 55% were treated with supplemental SL BUP ranging from 4 to24mg, daily or as needed, for varying time periods. At the end of data collection, 65% remained on XR-BUP, 30% discontinued XR-BUP, and one patient was lost to follow-up. Acute care utilization rates were similar between patients who continued XR-BUP versus discontinued at 18.5% and 16.6%, respectively (χ2 = 0.02, p-value = 0.89). Toxicology was negative for other opioids in 65% of patients throughout treatment. There were no reports of overdose, withdrawal after use of opioids, or precipitated withdrawal after subsequent XR-BUP. Patients' most cited reason for discontinuing XR-BUP was a preference for SL BUP. CONCLUSION: This real-world evaluation of XR-BUP in a low-threshold clinic found that treatment was feasible, well tolerated, and outcomes were good, with most individuals choosing to continue treatment and a majority with no evidence of ongoing opioid use or precipitated withdrawal.

Rapid buprenorphine microdosing for opioid use disorder in a hospitalized patient receiving very high doses of full agonist opioids for acute pain management: Titration, implementation barriers, and strategies to overcomes.

Background: Conventional buprenorphine inductions for OUD are clinically useful but require patients to experience mild to moderate opioid withdrawal symptoms to avoid precipitated withdrawal. This may be intolerable/unreasonable for some, which may have precluded successful buprenorphine treatment in the past. Microdosing buprenorphine, allowing for full agonist opioid overlap, has emerged as a clinically useful strategy for those unable to complete conventional buprenorphine induction. However, many questions remain such as preclusions regarding the amount of full agonist opioid overlap, speed of buprenorphine microdose titration, and overcoming implementation barriers in U.S. hospitals. Case presentation: A female between the ages of 30 and 40 with severe OUD admitted to the hospital for IDU-related osteomyelitis wished to begin buprenorphine for OUD. Her hospitalization was subject to premature discharge at any time due to competing interests of potential foreclosure on her home, so buprenorphine needed to be started rapidly for safety and improved outcomes. Due to her significant acute pain requirements managed with full agonist opioids, it was unreasonable to consider conventional buprenorphine induction. Buprenorphine microdose strategy was employed at more rapid titration and previously described in the literature, starting at 1 mg TDD on day 1, 3 mg TDD on day 2, and 8 mg TDD on day 3 with full agonist opioid overlap starting at 1,944 MME tapered down to 473 MME. The patient prematurely left the hospital, at which time buprenorphine 8 mg TDD was held at this dose for days 3-8 while full agonist opioid was tapered from 473 MME to 117 MME. BUP was then further titrated to 8 mg TID. This patient tolerated buprenorphine microdosing well, without any treatment-emergent opioid symptoms or worsening of baseline symptoms. Discussion: This case demonstrates the success of buprenorphine microdose induction despite very high doses of full agonist opioid overlap and demonstrates the ability to titrate buprenorphine microdoses faster than originally described. Strategies to overcoming implementation barriers are also discussed.

Prevalence of and Factors Associated with Gabapentinoid Use and Misuse Among Texas Medicaid Recipients.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Gabapentin and pregabalin have been considered relatively safe opioid-sparing adjuncts for pain management. However, rising prescribing trends, presence of gabapentinoids in opioid-related overdoses, and the growing body of evidence regarding gabapentinoid misuse and abuse, have caused gabapentinoids to emerge as a drug class of public health concern. This study aimed to assess the prevalence of, and factors associated with gabapentinoid use and misuse. METHODS: This retrospective study of Texas Medicaid data from 1/1/2012 to 30/8/2016 included patients aged 18-63 years at index date, with ≥ 1 gabapentinoid prescription, and continuously enrolled 6 months pre-index and 12 months post-index. Gabapentinoid misuse was defined as ≥ 3 claims exceeding daily doses of 3600 mg for gabapentin and 600 mg for pregabalin. Age, gender, concurrent opioid use, neuropathic pain diagnoses and gabapentinoid type were independent variables. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used. RESULTS: Of included subjects (N = 39,000), 0.2% (N = 81) met study criteria for gabapentinoid misuse. Overall, the majority (76.4%) of gabapentinoid users were aged 41-63 years with a mean ± SD age of 48.2 ± 10.7 years. Those patients meeting the study criteria for gabapentinoid misuse were significantly younger (45.1 ± 11.0 vs 48.2 ± 10.7, p = 0.0084). Majority of the study sample was female (68.1%). However, a significantly higher proportion of males met the study criteria for gabapentinoid misuse compared to females (0.3% vs 0.2%, p = 0.0079). Approximately one-half (51.9%) of the study sample had neuropathic pain, and gabapentinoid misuse was significantly higher in neuropathic pain patients compared to those without neuropathic pain (0.3% vs 0.1%, p = 0.0078). Over three-quarters (77.4%) of patients were using gabapentin; however, gabapentinoid misuse was significantly higher among pregabalin users (0.4% vs 0.2%, p = 0.0003). Approximately 20% (17.3%) of gabapentinoid users had ≥ 90 days of concurrent opioid use. However, there was no significant difference in gabapentinoid misuse among patients with concurrent opioid use compared to patients without (0.3% vs 0.2%, p = 0.1440). Factors significantly associated with misuse included: male sex (odds ratio [OR] 0.486; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.313-0.756; p = 0.0013); neuropathic pain (OR 2.065; 95% CI 1.289-3.308; p = 0.0026); and pregabalin versus gabapentin use (OR 2.337, 95% CI 1.492-3.661; p = 0.0002). Concurrent opioid use was not significantly associated with gabapentinoid misuse (OR 1.542, 95% CI 0.920-2.586; p = 0.1006). CONCLUSION: Prevalence of gabapentinoid misuse was low (0.2%) among Texas Medicaid recipients. Younger age, male gender, neuropathic pain diagnosis and pregabalin use were significantly associated with higher levels of gabapentinoid misuse.

Leveraging pharmacists to maintain and extend buprenorphine supply for opioid use disorder amid COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: Strategies for deploying clinical pharmacists to increase access to buprenorphine in inpatient, outpatient and transitional care, and community practice settings are described. SUMMARY: Access to medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) is essential, but patients face many barriers when pursuing treatment and MOUD. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has compounded the opioid crisis and worsened outcomes by introducing new barriers to MOUD access. Many strategies to ensure continued access to MOUD have been described, but the role of leveraging pharmacists during the opioid/COVID-19 syndemic to improve medication access and outcomes remains underappreciated. Pharmacists, while both qualified and capable of liberalizing access to all forms of MOUD, may have the strongest impact by increasing access to buprenorphine. Herein, we present progressive strategies to maintain and extend buprenorphine access for patients with OUD through deployment of clinical pharmacists, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, during which access may be further restricted. CONCLUSION: Leveraging pharmacists to extend access to MOUD, particularly buprenorphine, remains an underutilized strategy that should be implemented, particularly during the concurrent COVID-19 global pandemic.

Gabapentinoid misuse, abuse and non-prescribed obtainment in a United States general population sample.

Background Reports of gabapentinoid (gabapentin and pregabalin) misuse are on the rise, but few studies have assessed this within the general US population. Objective Describe lifetime misuse/abuse/non-prescribed obtainment of gabapentinoids and descriptive characteristics associated with such actions in a US general population sample. Setting This cross-sectional questionnaire was administered online by Qualtrics® research panel aggregator via quota-based sampling. Methods Data were collected from a sample of respondents that mirrored the general US population aged 18-59 years with regards to age, geographic region, ethnicity, income, and education level, based on most recent census data. Misuse/abuse/non-prescribed obtainment was collectively defined as use of a gabapentinoid for reasons other than a diagnosed medical condition, using with the intention of altering one's state of consciousness, or obtaining without a prescription. A multivariable logistic regression model was created to predict misuse/abuse/non-prescribed obtainment of gabapentinoids, incorporating relevant covariates. Main outcome measure Proportion of sample indicating lifetime misuse/abuse/non-prescribed obtainment of gabapentinoids. Results Among 1,843 respondents, 121 (6.6%) reported gabapentinoid misuse/abuse/non-prescribed obtainment. Specifically, 2.1% (n = 39) and 1.5% (n = 27) of respondents for gabapentin and pregabalin, respectively, met study criteria for abuse. Opioids were the most common medication co-administered with gabapentinoids (among 50-70% of respondents) for misuse/abuse. Previous treatment for addiction (OR: 2.61, 95% CI: 1.32-5.14, p = 0.005) and the total attitudinal risk score (OR: 1.14, 95% CI: 1.09-1.19, p < 0.001) were associated with gabapentinoid misuse/abuse/non-prescribed obtainment. Conclusion Among those surveyed, 6.6% reported previous gabapentinoid misuse/abuse/non-prescribed obtainment, providing one of the first estimates within a nationally distributed, US general population sample.

Abuse and Misuse of Pregabalin and Gabapentin: A Systematic Review Update.

BACKGROUND: A 2017 systematic review (SR) identified 59 studies examining gabapentinoid (pregabalin and gabapentin) misuse/abuse. Evidence of gabapentinoid misuse/abuse has since grown substantially. OBJECTIVE: Update previous SR and describe new insights regarding gabapentinoid abuse. METHODS: A SR of PubMed was conducted to identify studies published from 7/29/2016-8/31/2020. Four searches were performed using the following terms: "gabapentin [MeSH] OR pregabalin [MeSH] OR gabapentinoid" AND one of the following substance misuse/abuse-related terms: "substance-related disorders [MeSH]", "overdose", "abuse", or "misuse". Clinicaltrials.gov and the Cochrane Library database were searched to identify ongoing studies or similar SRs. Reference lists of included studies were reviewed to identify additional literature. All studies with novel data related to pregabalin and/or gabapentin abuse, misuse, or overdose conducted during the study period were included. Articles not written in English, review articles, and animal studies were excluded. RESULTS: Fifty-five studies were included (29 [52.7%] from North America, 17 [30.9%] Europe, 6 [10.9%] Asia, and 3 [5.5%] Australia). Forty-six observational studies and 10 case reports/series were included (one manuscript included both). Twenty (36.4%) studied gabapentin only, 18 (32.7%) pregabalin only, and 17 (30.9%) both pregabalin/gabapentin. These studies corroborate findings from the previous SR that gabapentinoids are increasingly abused or misused to self-medicate, that gabapentinoids can produce desirable effects alone but are often used concomitantly with other drugs, and that opioid use disorder is the greatest risk factor for gabapentinoid abuse. While the original SR identified the largest studies having been published in Europe, this review identified several more generalisable US studies that have subsequently been conducted. The most concerning finding was increased evidence of associated patient harm, including increased hospital utilisation and opioid-related overdose mortality risk. CONCLUSION: Evidence suggests that gabapentinoid misuse/abuse represents a growing trend that is causing significant patient harm. Prescribers should exercise appropriate caution with use in high-risk populations and monitor for signs of misuse or abuse.

Opportunities to Offer Harm Reduction to People who Inject Drugs During Infectious Disease Encounters: Narrative Review.

Increased rates of overdose (OD) and blood-borne infections have been associated with injection drug use (IDU). This increasing overlap between IDU-related infectious diseases (ID) is a byproduct of the opioid OD crisis, especially with the transition to synthetic opioids with faster onset and shorter duration leading to potentially more frequent injections. ID specialists are uniquely positioned to positively impact the opioid OD crisis by capitalizing on opportunistic moments of engagement during clinical encounters with people who inject drugs (PWID). Harm reduction services should therefore be expanded and offered to PWID in ID settings to reduce rates of OD, infection, and hospitalization. Major target areas include (1) teaching and distribution of materials related to safer injection practice such as sterile injection supplies, fentanyl test strips, and naloxone; (2) increased screening and access to pre-exposure prophylaxis and postexposure prophylaxis; and (3) initiation of medications for opioid use disorder. Incorporating these strategies in various treatment settings can expand treatment access, improve patient outcomes, and reduce stigma associated with IDU.

National outpatient medication utilization for opioid and alcohol use disorders from 2014 to 2016.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Research has recommended a combination of pharmacotherapy and behavioral therapy to treat opioid use disorder (OUD) or alcohol use disorder (AUD). The objective of this study was to estimate the prevalence of U.S. outpatient visits in which patients had a documented OUD or AUD and in what proportion of these visits the patient was receiving medication for OUD (MOUD) or AUD (MAUD), alone or in combination with behavioral therapy. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) from 2014 to 2016. SETTING: NAMCS provides national estimates based on the latest census data, for all U.S. outpatient medical visits. PARTICIPANTS/CASES: All visits involving patients aged ≥18 years with an OUD or AUD diagnosis. MEASUREMENT: Medications for OUD included buprenorphine, buprenorphine/naloxone, or naltrexone; medications for AUD included acamprosate, disulfiram, or naltrexone. We defined behavioral therapy as provision of psychosocial therapy, mental health counseling, or stress management. We also compared annualized data between 2014 and 2016 using the Chi-square test. FINDINGS: From 2014 to 2016, NAMCS recorded nearly 2.3 billion adult outpatient visits, including 17.1 million and 21.7 million visits involving patients with an OUD or AUD diagnosis, respectively. From 2014 to 2016, a decreased prevalence of annual visits involved AUD (11.7 vs. 9.9/1000, P < 0.0001), while those for OUD increased (9.3 vs. 13.3/1000, P < 0.0001). Among office visits with an OUD diagnosis, a MOUD was documented in 14.2 million (83.1%) visits and behavioral therapy was provided in 4.4 million (25.6%). Among office visits with an AUD diagnosis, an MAUD was documented in approximately 800,000 (3.6%) and behavioral therapy in 5.4 million (24.8%). CONCLUSION: These data highlight an opportunity to increase the use of MAUD and offer behavioral therapy to those with OUD and/or AUD.