How Do I Manage Acute Pain for Patients Prescribed Buprenorphine for Opioid Use Disorder?

AbstractA growing number of patients are prescribed buprenorphine for opioid use disorder (OUD). Consequently, clinicians are likely to encounter hospitalized patients with acute surgical or nonsurgical pain who are also prescribed buprenorphine for OUD. This scenario evokes the clinical question of how to adequately manage acute pain among hospitalized patients receiving buprenorphine for OUD. This article reviews buprenorphine's pharmacology, describes various buprenorphine products used to treat pain and OUD, and provides pain management recommendations for patients prescribed buprenorphine in the setting of acute surgical and nonsurgical pain.

Unintended consequences of methadone regulation for opioid use disorder treatment among hospitalized patients.

BACKGROUND: In the United States, there are no federal restrictions on the use of methadone to manage opioid withdrawal symptoms when patients are hospitalized with a medical or surgical condition other than addiction. In contrast, in an outpatient setting, methadone for opioid use disorder (OUD) is highly regulated by federal and state governments and can only be dispensed from an opioid treatment program (OTP). Discrepancies in regulatory requirements across these settings may lead to barriers in care for patients with OUD. OBJECTIVE: Identify how methadone regulation impacts the care of patients with OUD during hospitalization, care transitions, and in the OTP setting. METHODS: We completed 26 interviews with clinicians and social workers working on hospital-based addiction consultation services across the United States. Study findings are the result of a secondary content analysis of interviews to identifying the word "methadone" and construct themes resulting from the data. RESULTS: We identified three major themes related to "methadone" for OUD treatment, all of which impacted patient care: (1) limited OTP hours leads to tenuous or delayed hospital discharges; (2) inadequate information-sharing between hospitals and OTPs leads to delays in care; and (3) methadone regulations create treatment barriers for the most vulnerable patients. CONCLUSION: Strict methadone regulations have resulted in unintended consequences for patients with OUD in the hospital setting, during care transitions, and in the OTP setting. Recent and ongoing federal efforts to reform methadone provision may improve some of the reported challenges, but significant hurdles remain in providing safe, equitable care to hospitalized patients with OUD.

The Impact of Completing X-Waiver Training and Clinical Addiction Exposure on Internal Medicine Residents Treating Patients With Opioid Use Disorder.

BACKGROUND: Treating opioid use disorder (OUD) with buprenorphine or methadone significantly reduces overdose and all-cause mortality. Prior studies demonstrate that clinicians and residents reported a lack of preparedness to diagnose or treat OUD. Little is known about how clinical exposure or buprenorphine X-waiver training impacts OUD care delivery by resident physicians. OBJECTIVE: Distinguish the effects of X-waiver training and clinical exposure with OUD on resident's knowledge, attitudes, feelings of preparedness, and practices related to OUD treatment provision. METHODS: From August 2021 to April 2022, we distributed a cross-sectional survey to internal medicine residents at a large academic training program. We analyzed associations between self-reported clinical exposure and X-waiver training across 4 domains: knowledge about best practices for OUD treatment, attitudes about patients with OUD, preparedness to treat OUD, and clinical experience with OUD. RESULTS: Of the 188 residents surveyed, 91 responded (48%). A majority of respondents had not completed X-waiver training (60%, n = 55) while many had provided clinical care to patients with OUD (65%, n = 59). Most residents had favorable attitudes about OUD treatment (97%). Both residents with clinical exposure to treating OUD and X-waiver training, and residents with clinical exposure without X-waiver training, felt more prepared to treat OUD (P < .0008) compared to residents with neither clinical exposure or X-waiver training or only X-waiver training. CONCLUSIONS: Residents with clinical exposure to treating OUD are more prepared to treat patients with OUD than those without clinical exposure. Greater efforts to incorporate clinical exposure to the treatment of OUD and education in internal medicine residency programs is imperative to address the opioid epidemic.

In-Hospital Methadone Enrollment: a Novel Program to Facilitate Linkage from the Hospital to the Opioid Treatment Program for Vulnerable Patients with Opioid Use Disorder.

INTRODUCTION: Methadone ameliorates opioid withdrawal among hospitalized patients with opioid use disorder (OUD). To continue methadone after hospital discharge, patients must enroll in an opioid treatment program (OTP) per federal regulations. Uncontrolled opioid withdrawal is a barrier to linkage from hospital to OTP. AIM: Describe a federally compliant In-Hospital Methadone Enrollment Team (IN-MEET) that enrolls hospitalized patients with OUD into an OTP with facilitated hospital to OTP linkage. SETTING: Seven hundred-bed university hospital in Aurora, CO. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: A physician dually affiliated with a hospital's addiction consultation service and a community OTP completes an in-hospital, face-to-face medical assessment required by federal law and titrates methadone to comfort. An OTP-affiliated nurse with hospital privileges completes a psychosocial evaluation and provides case management by arranging transportation and providing weekly telephone check-ins. PROGRAM EVALUATION METRICS: IN-MEET enrollments completed, hospital to OTP linkage, and descriptive characteristics of patients who completed IN-MEET enrollments compared to patients who completed community OTP enrollments. RESULTS: Between April 2019 and April 2023, our team completed 165 IN-MEET enrollments. Among a subset of 73 IN-MEET patients, 56 (76.7%) presented to the OTP following hospital discharge. Compared to community OTP enrolled patients (n = 1687), a higher percentage of IN-MEET patients were older (39.7 years, standard deviation [SD] 11.2 years vs. 36.1 years, SD 10.6 years) and were unhoused (n = 43, 58.9% vs. n = 199, 11.8%). Compared to community OTP enrolled patients, a higher percentage of IN-MEET patients reported heroin or fentanyl as their primary substance (n = 53, 72.6% vs. n = 677, 40.1%), reported methamphetamine as their secondary substance (n = 27, 37.0% vs. n = 380, 22.5%), and reported they injected their primary substance (n = 46, 63.0% vs. n = 478, 28.3%). CONCLUSION: IN-MEET facilitates hospital to OTP linkage among a vulnerable population. This model has the potential to improve methadone access for hospitalized patients who may not otherwise seek out treatment.

Barriers to initiate buprenorphine and methadone for opioid use disorder treatment with postdischarge treatment linkage.

BACKGROUND: Hospitals are an essential site of care for people with opioid use disorder (OUD). Buprenorphine and methadone are underutilized in the hospital. OBJECTIVES: Characterize barriers to in-hospital buprenorphine or methadone initiation to inform implementation strategies to increase OUD treatment provision. DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: Survey of hospital-based clinicians' perceptions of OUD treatment from 12 hospitals conducted between June 2022 and August 2022. MEASURES: Survey questions were grouped into six domains: (1) evidence to treat OUD, (2) hospital processes to treat OUD, (3) buprenorphine or methadone initiation, (4) clinical practices to treat OUD, (5) leadership prioritization of OUD treatment, and (6) job satisfaction. Likert responses were dichotomized and associations between "readiness" to initiate buprenorphine or methadone and each domain were assessed. RESULTS: Of 160 respondents (60% response rate), 72 (45%) reported higher readiness to initiate buprenorphine compared to methadone, 55 (34%). Respondents with higher readiness to initiate medications for OUD were more likely to perceive that evidence supports the use of buprenorphine and methadone to treat OUD (p < .001), to perceive fewer barriers to treat OUD (p < .001), to incorporate OUD treatment into their clinical practice (p < .001), to perceive leadership support for OUD treatment (p < .007), and to have great job satisfaction (p < .04). Clinicians reported that OUD treatment protocols with treatment linkage, increased education, and addiction specialist support would facilitate OUD treatment provision. CONCLUSION: Interventions that incorporate protocols to initiate medications for OUD, include addiction specialist support and education, and ensure postdischarge OUD treatment linkage could facilitate hospital-based OUD treatment provision.

Estimated Clinical Outcomes and Cost-effectiveness Associated With Provision of Addiction Treatment in US Primary Care Clinics.

Importance: US primary care practitioners (PCPs) are the largest clinical workforce, but few provide addiction care. Primary care is a practical place to expand addiction services, including buprenorphine and harm reduction kits, yet the clinical outcomes and health care sector costs are unknown. Objective: To estimate the long-term clinical outcomes, costs, and cost-effectiveness of integrated buprenorphine and harm reduction kits in primary care for people who inject opioids. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this modeling study, the Reducing Infections Related to Drug Use Cost-Effectiveness (REDUCE) microsimulation model, which tracks serious injection-related infections, overdose, hospitalization, and death, was used to examine the following treatment strategies: (1) PCP services with external referral to addiction care (status quo), (2) PCP services plus onsite buprenorphine prescribing with referral to offsite harm reduction kits (BUP), and (3) PCP services plus onsite buprenorphine prescribing and harm reduction kits (BUP plus HR). Model inputs were derived from clinical trials and observational cohorts, and costs were discounted annually at 3%. The cost-effectiveness was evaluated over a lifetime from the modified health care sector perspective, and sensitivity analyses were performed to address uncertainty. Model simulation began January 1, 2021, and ran for the entire lifetime of the cohort. Main Outcomes and Measures: Life-years (LYs), hospitalizations, mortality from sequelae (overdose, severe skin and soft tissue infections, and endocarditis), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Results: The simulated cohort included 2.25 million people and reflected the age and gender of US persons who inject opioids. Status quo resulted in 6.56 discounted LYs at a discounted cost of $203 500 per person (95% credible interval, $203 000-$222 000). Each strategy extended discounted life expectancy: BUP by 0.16 years and BUP plus HR by 0.17 years. Compared with status quo, BUP plus HR reduced sequelae-related mortality by 33%. The mean discounted lifetime cost per person of BUP and BUP plus HR were more than that of the status quo strategy. The dominating strategy was BUP plus HR. Compared with status quo, BUP plus HR was cost-effective (ICER, $34 400 per LY). During a 5-year time horizon, BUP plus HR cost an individual PCP practice approximately $13 000. Conclusions and Relevance: This modeling study of integrated addiction service in primary care found improved clinical outcomes and modestly increased costs. The integration of addiction service into primary care practices should be a health care system priority.

External validation of a model to predict future chronic opioid use among hospitalized patients.

BACKGROUND: Previous research demonstrates an association between opioid prescribing at hospital discharge and future chronic opioid use. Various opioid guidelines and policies contributed to changes in opioid prescribing practices. How this affected hospitalized patients remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: Externally validate a prediction model to identify hospitalized patients at the highest risk for future chronic opioid therapy (COT). DESIGNS: Retrospective analysis of health record data from 2011 to 2022 using logistic regression. PARTICIPANTS: Hospitalized adults with limited to no opioid use 1-year prior to hospitalization. SETTINGS: A statewide healthcare system. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Used variables associated with progression to COT in a derivation cohort from a different healthcare system to predict expected outcomes in the validation cohort. KEY RESULTS: The derivation cohort included 17,060 patients, of whom 9653 (56.6%) progressed to COT 1 year after discharge. Compared to the derivation cohort, in the validation cohort, patients who received indigent care (odds ratio [OR] = 0.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.27-0.59, p < .001) were least likely to progress to COT. Among variables assessed, opioid receipt at discharge was most strongly associated with progression to COT (OR = 3.74, 95% CI = 3.06-4.61, p < .001). The receiver operating characteristic curve for the validation set using coefficients from the derivation cohort performed slightly better than chance (AUC = 0.55). CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight the importance of externally validating a prediction model prior to use outside of the derivation population. Periodic updates to models are necessary as policy changes and clinical practice recommendations may affect model performance.

Identifying factors that contribute to burnout and resilience among hospital-based addiction medicine providers: A qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Inpatient Addiction Consultation Services (ACS) fill an important need by connecting hospitalized patients with substance use disorders with resources for treatment; however, providers of these services may be at risk for burnout. In this qualitative study, we aimed to identify factors associated with burnout and, conversely, resilience among multidisciplinary providers working on ACS. METHODS: We completed 26 semi-structured interviews with clinicians working on ACS, including physicians, social workers, and advanced practice providers. Twelve institutions across the country were represented. The study recruited participants via email solicitation to ACS directors and then via snowball sampling. We used an inductive, grounded theory approach to analyze data. RESULTS: Providers described factors contributing to burnout and strategies for promoting resilience, and three main themes arose: (1) Systemic barriers contributed to provider burnout, (2) Engaging in meaningful work increased resilience, and (3) Team dynamics influenced perceptions of burnout and resilience. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that hospital-based addiction medicine work is intrinsically rewarding for many providers and that engaging with other addiction providers to debrief challenging encounters or engage in advocacy work can be protective against burnout. However, administrative and systemic factors are frequent sources of frustration for providers of ACS. Structured debriefings may help to mitigate burnout. Furthermore, training to enhance providers' ability to engage effectively in advocacy work within and between hospital systems has the potential to promote resilience and protect against burnout among ACS providers.

Management of opioid use disorder and associated conditions among hospitalized adults: A Consensus Statement from the Society of Hospital Medicine.

Hospital-based clinicians frequently care for patients with opioid withdrawal or opioid use disorder (OUD) and are well-positioned to identify and initiate treatment for these patients. With rising numbers of hospitalizations related to opioid use and opioid-related overdose, the Society of Hospital Medicine convened a working group to develop a Consensus Statement on the management of OUD and associated conditions among hospitalized adults. The guidance statement is intended for clinicians practicing medicine in the inpatient setting (e.g., hospitalists, primary care physicians, family physicians, advanced practice nurses, and physician assistants) and is intended to apply to hospitalized adults at risk for, or diagnosed with, OUD. To develop the Consensus Statement, the working group conducted a systematic review of relevant guidelines and composed a draft statement based on extracted recommendations. Next, the working group obtained feedback on the draft statement from external experts in addiction medicine, SHM members, professional societies, harm reduction organizations and advocacy groups, and peer reviewers. The iterative development process resulted in a final Consensus Statement consisting of 18 recommendations covering the following topics: (1) identification and treatment of OUD and opioid withdrawal, (2) perioperative and acute pain management in patients with OUD, and (3) methods to optimize care transitions at hospital discharge for patients with OUD. Most recommendations in the Consensus Statement were derived from guidelines based on observational studies and expert consensus. Due to the lack of rigorous evidence supporting key aspects of OUD-related care, the working group identified important issues necessitating future research and exploration.

Management of opioid use disorder, opioid withdrawal, and opioid overdose prevention in hospitalized adults: A systematic review of existing guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalizations related to the consequences of opioid use are rising. National guidelines directing in-hospital opioid use disorder (OUD) management do not exist. OUD treatment guidelines intended for other treatment settings could inform in-hospital OUD management. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the quality and content of existing guidelines for OUD treatment and management. DATA SOURCES: OVID MEDLINE, PubMed, Ovid PsychINFO, EBSCOhost CINHAL, ERCI Guidelines Trust, websites of relevant societies and advocacy organizations, and selected international search engines. STUDY SELECTION: Guidelines published between January 2010 to June 2020 addressing OUD treatment, opioid withdrawal management, opioid overdose prevention, and care transitions among adults. DATA EXTRACTION: We assessed quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. DATA SYNTHESIS: Nineteen guidelines met the selection criteria. Most recommendations were based on observational studies or expert consensus. Guidelines recommended the use of nonstigmatizing language among patients with OUD; to assess patients with unhealthy opioid use for OUD using the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Diseases-5th Edition criteria; use of methadone or buprenorphine to treat OUD and opioid withdrawal; use of multimodal, nonopioid therapy, and when needed, short-acting opioid analgesics in addition to buprenorphine or methadone, for acute pain management; ensuring linkage to ongoing methadone or buprenorphine treatment; referring patients to psychosocial treatment; and ensuring access to naloxone for opioid overdose reversal. CONCLUSIONS: Included guidelines were informed by studies with various levels of rigor and quality. Future research should systematically study buprenorphine and methadone initiation and titration among people using fentanyl and people with pain, especially during hospitalization.

An Interprofessional Approach to Chronic Pain Management and Education.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The opioid epidemic highlights the importance of evidence-based practices in the management of chronic pain and the need for improved resident education focused on chronic pain treatment and controlled substance use. We present the development, implementation, and outcomes of a novel, long-standing interprofessional safe prescribing committee (SPC) and resulting policy, protocol, and longitudinal curriculum to address patient care and educational gaps in chronic pain management for residents in training. METHODS: The SPC developed and implemented an opioid prescribing policy, protocol, and longitudinal curriculum in a single, community-based residency program. We conducted a postcurriculum survey for resident graduates to assess impact of knowledge gained. We conducted a retrospective chart review for patients on chronic opioid therapy to assess change in morphine equivalent dosing (MED) and pain scores pre- and postintervention. RESULTS: A postcurriculum survey was completed by 20/26 (77%) graduates; 18/20 (90%) felt well-equipped to manage chronic pain based on their residency training experience. We completed a retrospective chart review on 57 patients. We found a significant decrease in MED (-20.34 [SE 5.12], P<.0001) at intervention visit with MED reductions maintained through the postintervention period (-9.43 per year additional decrease [SE 5.25], P=.073). We observed improvement in postintervention pain scores (P=.017). CONCLUSIONS: Our study illustrates the effectiveness of an interprofessional committee in lowering prescribed opioid doses and enhancing chronic pain education in a community-based residency setting.

Experiences of stigma in hospitals with addiction consultation services: A qualitative analysis of patients' and hospital-based providers' perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Addiction consultation services (ACS) provide evidence-based treatment to hospitalized patients with substance use disorders (SUD). Expansion of hospital-based addiction care may help to counteract the stigma that patients with SUD experience within the health care system. Stigma is among the most impactful barriers to seeking care and adhering to medical advice among people with SUD. We aimed to understand how the presence of an ACS affected patients' and hospital-based providers' experiences with stigma in the hospital setting. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study utilizing focus groups and key informant interviews with hospital-based providers (hospitalists and hospital-based nurses, social workers, pharmacists). We also conducted key informant interviews with patients who received care from an ACS during their hospitalization. An interprofessional team coded and analyzed transcripts using a thematic analysis approach to identify emergent themes. RESULTS: Sixty-two hospital-based providers participated in six focus groups or eight interviews. Twenty patients participated in interviews. Four themes emerged relating to the experiences of stigma reported by hospital-based providers and hospitalized patients with SUD: (1) past experiences in the health care system propagate a cycle of stigmatization between hospital-based providers and patients; (2) documentation in medical charts unintentionally or intentionally perpetuates enacted stigma among hospital-based providers resulting in anticipated stigma among patients; (3) the presence of an ACS reduces enacted stigma among hospital-based providers through expanding the use of evidenced-based SUD treatment and reframing the SUD narrative; (4) ACS team members combat the effects of internalized stigma by promoting feelings of self-worth, self-efficacy, and mutual respect among patients with SUD. CONCLUSIONS: An ACS can facilitate destigmatization of hospitalized patients with SUD by incorporating evidence-based SUD treatment into routine hospital care, by providing and modeling compassionate care, and by reframing addiction as a chronic condition to be treated alongside other medical conditions. Future reductions of stigma in hospital settings may result from promoting greater use of evidence-based treatment for SUD and expanded education for health care providers on the use of non-stigmatizing language and medical terminology when documenting SUD in the medical chart.

Opioid Use Disorder Treatment Initiation and Continuation: a Qualitative Study of Patients Who Received Addiction Consultation and Hospital-Based Providers.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalizations related to opioid use disorder (OUD) are rising. Addiction consultation services (ACS) increasingly provide OUD treatment to hospitalized patients, but barriers to initiating and continuing medications for OUD remain. We examined facilitators and barriers to hospital-based OUD treatment initiation and continuation from the perspective of patients and healthcare workers in the context of an ACS. METHODS: In this qualitative study, we sought input using key informant interviews and focus groups from patients who received care from an ACS during their hospitalization and from hospitalists, pharmacists, social workers, and nurses who work in the hospital setting. A multidisciplinary team coded and analyzed transcripts using a directed content analysis. FINDINGS: We conducted 20 key informant interviews with patients, nine of whom were interviewed following hospital discharge and 12 of whom were interviewed during a rehospitalization. We completed six focus groups and eight key informant interviews with hospitalists and hospital-based medical staff (n = 62). Emergent themes related to hospital-based OUD treatment included the following: the benefit of an ACS to facilitate OUD treatment engagement; expanded use of methadone or buprenorphine to treat opioid withdrawal; the triad of hospitalization, self-efficacy, and easily accessible, patient-centered treatment motivates change in opioid use; adequate pain control and stabilization of mental health conditions among patients with OUD contributed to opioid agonist therapy (OAT) continuation; and stable housing and social support are prerequisites for OAT uptake and continuation. CONCLUSION: Modifiable factors which facilitate hospital-based OUD treatment initiation and continuation include availability of in-hospital addiction expertise to offer easily accessible, patient-centered treatment and the use of methadone or buprenorphine to manage opioid withdrawal. Further research and public policy efforts are urgently needed to address reported barriers to hospital-based OUD treatment initiation and continuation which include unstable housing, poorly controlled chronic medical and mental illness, and lack of social support.