Primary care physicians' preparedness to treat opioid use disorder in the United States: A cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Efforts to increase opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment have focused on primary care. We assessed primary care physicians' preparedness to identify and treat individuals with OUD and barriers to increasing buprenorphine prescribing. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey from January-August 2020 which assessed perceptions of the opioid epidemic; comfort screening, diagnosing, and treating individuals with OUD with medications; and barriers to obtaining a buprenorphine waiver and prescribing buprenorphine in their practice. Primary care physicians were sampled from the American Medical Association Physician Master File (n = 1000) and contacted up to 3 times, twice by mail and once by e-mail. RESULTS: Overall, 173 physicians (adjusted response rate 27.3 %) responded. While most were somewhat or very comfortable screening (80.7 %) and diagnosing (79.3 %) OUD, fewer (36.9 %) were somewhat or very comfortable treating OUD with medications. One third of respondents were in a practice where they or a colleague were waivered and 10.7 % of respondents had a buprenorphine waiver. The most commonly cited barriers to both obtaining a waiver and prescribing buprenorphine included lack of access to addiction, behavioral health, or psychiatric co-management, lack of experience treating OUD, preference not to be inundated with requests for buprenorphine, and the buprenorphine training requirement. CONCLUSIONS: While most primary care physicians reported comfort screening and diagnosing OUD, fewer were comfortable treating OUD with medications such as buprenorphine and even fewer were waivered to do so. Addressing provider self-efficacy and willingness, and identifying effective, coordinated, and comprehensive models of care may increase OUD treatment with buprenorphine.

Validation of the Opioid Overdose Risk Behavior Scale, version 2 (ORBS-2).

OBJECTIVE: To examine the factor structure of a revised and expanded opioid overdose risk behavior scale and assess its associations with known overdose indicators and other clinical constructs. BACKGROUND: Opioid-related overdose remains high in the U.S. We lack strong instrumentation for assessing behavioral risk factors. We revised and expanded the opioid overdose risk behavior scale (ORBS-1) for use among a broader range of people who use opioids. SETTING & SAMPLING FRAME: Using respondent-driven sampling we recruited adults (18+) reporting current unprescribed opioid use and New York City residence. METHOD: Participants (N = 575) completed the ORBS-1, ORBS-2, and a variety of clinical measures and then completed the ORBS-2 and overdose risk outcomes across monthly follow-up assessments over a 13-month period. RESULTS: Principal components analysis was used to identify six ORBS-2 subscales, Prescription Opioid Misuse, Risky Non-Injection Use, Injection Drug Use, Concurrent Opioid and Benzodiazepine Use, Concurrent Opioid and Alcohol Use, and Multiple-Drug Polysubstance Use. All subscales showed moderate non-parametric correlations with the ORBS-1 and with corresponding clinical constructs. Five of the subscales were significantly (p < .01) positively associated with self-reported non-fatal overdose. Of note, the Risky Non-Injection Use subscale was the most strongly associated with past-month overdose indicators. CONCLUSIONS: Psychometrics for the opioid overdose risk behavior subscales identified suggest the ongoing utility of risk behavioral instrumentation for epidemiological research and clinical practice focused on risk communication and minimization. Use of the entire ORBS-2 measure can provide insight into the proximal/behavioral factors of greatest concern to reduce overdose mortality.

How FDA Failures Contributed to the Opioid Crisis.

Over the past 25 years, pharmaceutical companies deceptively promoted opioid use in ways that were often neither safe nor effective, contributing to unprecedented increases in prescribing, opioid use disorder, and deaths by overdose. This article explores regulatory mistakes made by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in approving and labeling new analgesics. By understanding and correcting these mistakes, future public health crises caused by improper pharmaceutical marketing might be prevented.

Primary Care Physicians' Knowledge and Attitudes Regarding Prescription Opioid Abuse and Diversion.

OBJECTIVES: Physicians are a key stakeholder in the epidemic of prescription opioid abuse. Therefore, we assessed their knowledge of opioid abuse and diversion, as well as their support for clinical and regulatory interventions to reduce opioid-related morbidity and mortality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a nationally representative postal mail survey of 1000 practicing internists, family physicians, and general practitioners in the United States between February and May 2014. RESULTS: The adjusted response rate was 58%, and all physicians (100%) believed that prescription drug abuse was a problem in their communities. However, only two-thirds (66%) correctly reported that the most common route of abuse was swallowing pills whole, and nearly one-half (46%) erroneously reported that abuse-deterrent formulations were less addictive than their counterparts. In addition, a notable minority of physicians (25%) reported being "not at all" or "only slightly concerned" about the potential for opioid diversion from the licit to the illicit market when this practice is common at all levels of the pharmaceutical supply chain. Most physicians supported clinical and regulatory interventions to reduce prescription opioid abuse, including the use of patient contracts (98%), urine drug testing (90%), requiring prescribers to check a centralized database before prescribing opioids (88%), and instituting greater restrictions on the marketing and promotion of opioids (77% to 82%). Despite this, only one-third of physicians (33%) believed that interventions to reduce prescription opioid abuse had a moderate or large effect on preventing patients' clinically appropriate access to pain treatment. DISCUSSION: Although physicians are unaware of some facets of prescription opioid-related morbidity, most support a variety of clinical and regulatory interventions to improve the risk-benefit balance of these therapies.

The prescription opioid and heroin crisis: a public health approach to an epidemic of addiction.

Public health authorities have described, with growing alarm, an unprecedented increase in morbidity and mortality associated with use of opioid pain relievers (OPRs). Efforts to address the opioid crisis have focused mainly on reducing nonmedical OPR use. Too often overlooked, however, is the need for preventing and treating opioid addiction, which occurs in both medical and nonmedical OPR users. Overprescribing of OPRs has led to a sharp increase in the prevalence of opioid addiction, which in turn has been associated with a rise in overdose deaths and heroin use. A multifaceted public health approach that utilizes primary, secondary, and tertiary opioid addiction prevention strategies is required to effectively reduce opioid-related morbidity and mortality. We describe the scope of this public health crisis, its historical context, contributing factors, and lines of evidence indicating the role of addiction in exacerbating morbidity and mortality, and we provide a framework for interventions to address the epidemic of opioid addiction.

Long-term opioid therapy reconsidered.

In the past 20 years, primary care physicians have greatly increased prescribing of long-term opioid therapy. However, the rise in opioid prescribing has outpaced the evidence regarding this practice. Increased opioid availability has been accompanied by an epidemic of opioid abuse and overdose. The rate of opioid addiction among patients receiving long-term opioid therapy remains unclear, but research suggests that opioid misuse is not rare. Recent studies report increased risks for serious adverse events, including fractures, cardiovascular events, and bowel obstruction, although further research on medical risks is needed. New data indicate that opioid-related risks may increase with dose. From a societal perspective, higher-dose regimens account for the majority of opioids dispensed, so cautious dosing may reduce both diversion potential and patient risks for adverse effects. Limiting long-term opioid therapy to patients for whom it provides decisive benefits could also reduce risks. Given the warning signs and knowledge gaps, greater caution and selectivity are needed in prescribing long-term opioid therapy. Until stronger evidence becomes available, clinicians should err on the side of caution when considering this treatment.

Outcomes of buprenorphine maintenance in office-based practice.

Buprenorphine is an efficacious treatment for opioid dependence recently approved for office-based medical practice. The purpose of the study was to describe the background characteristics, treatment process, outcomes and correlates of outcomes for patients receiving buprenorphine maintenance in "real world" office-based settings in New York City, without employing the many patient exclusion criteria characterizing clinical research studies of buprenorphine, including absence of co-occurring psychiatric and non-opioid substance use disorders. A convenience sample of six physicians completed anonymous chart abstraction forms for all patients who began buprenorphine induction or who transferred to these practices during 2003-2005 (N = 86). The endpoint was the patient's current status or status at discharge from the index practice, presented in an intent-to-treat analysis. The results were: male (74%); median age (38 yrs); White, non-Hispanic (82%); employed full-time, (58%); HCV+ (15%); substance use at intake: prescription opioids (50%), heroin (35%), non-opioids (49%); median length of treatment (8 months); median maintenance dose (15 mg/day); prescribed psychiatric medication (63%). The most frequent psychiatric disorders were: major depression, obsessive-compulsive and other anxiety, bipolar. At the endpoint: retained in the index practice (55%); transferred to other buprenorphine practice (6%); transferred to other treatment (7%); lost to contact or out of any treatment (32%). Outcomes were positive, in that 2/3 of patients remained in the index practice or transferred to other treatment. Patients living in their own home or misusing prescription opioids (rather than heroin) were more likely, and those employed part-time were less likely, to be retained in the index practice. At the endpoint, 24% of patients were misusing drugs or alcohol. Co-occurring psychiatric disorders and polysubstance abuse at intake were common, but received clinical attention, which may explain why their effect on outcomes was minimal.