David A. Fiellin

Hiv Treatment Outcomes Among Hiv-infected, Opioid-dependent Patients Receiving Buprenorphine/naloxone Treatment within Hiv Clinical Care Settings: Results From a Multisite Study

Background:Having opioid dependence and HIV infection are associated with poor HIV-related treatment outcomes. Methods:HIV-infected, opioid-dependent subjects (N = 295) recruited from 10 clinical sites initiated buprenorphine/naloxone (BUP/NX) and were assessed at baseline and quarterly for 12 months. Primary outcomes included receiving antiretroviral therapy (ART), HIV-1 RNA suppression, and mean changes in CD4 lymphocyte count. Analyses were stratified for the 119 subjects not on ART at baseline. Generalized estimating equations were deployed to examine time-dependent correlates for each outcome. Results:At baseline, subjects on ART (N = 176) were more likely than those not on ART (N = 119) to be older, heterosexual, have lower alcohol addiction severity scores, and lower HIV-1 RNA levels; they were less likely to be homeless and report sexual risk behaviors. Subjects initiating BUP/NX (N = 295) were significantly more likely to initiate or remain on ART and improve CD4 counts over time compared with baseline; however, these improvements were not significantly improved by longer retention on BUP/NX. Retention on BUP/NX for three or more quarters was, however, significantly associated with increased likelihood of initiating ART (β = 1.34 [1.18, 1.53]) and achieve viral suppression (β = 1.25 [1.10, 1.42]) for the 64 of 119 (54%) subjects not on ART at baseline compared with the 55 subjects not retained on BUP/NX. In longitudinal analyses, being on ART was positively associated with increasing time of observation from baseline and higher mental health quality of life scores (β = 1.25 [1.06, 1.46]) and negatively associated with being homo- or bisexual (β = 0.55 [0.35, 0.97]), homeless (β = 0.58 [0.34, 0.98]), and increasing levels of alcohol addiction severity (β = 0.17 [0.03, 0.88]). The strongest correlate of achieving viral suppression was being on ART (β = 10.27 [5.79, 18.23]). Female gender (β = 1.91 [1.07, 3.41]), Hispanic ethnicity (β = 2.82 [1.44, 5.49]), and increased general health quality of life (β = 1.02 [1.00,1.04]) were also independently correlated with viral suppression. Improvements in CD4 lymphocyte count were significantly associated with being on ART and increased over time. Conclusions:Initiating BUP/NX in HIV clinical care settings is feasible and correlated with initiation of ART and improved CD4 lymphocyte counts. Longer retention on BPN/NX was not associated with improved prescription of ART, viral suppression, or CD4 lymphocyte counts for the overall sample in which the majority was already prescribed ART at baseline. Among those retained on BUP/NX, HIV treatment outcomes did not worsen and were sustained. Increasing time on BUP/NX, however, was especially important for improving HIV treatment outcomes for those not on ART at baseline, the group at highest risk for clinical deterioration. Retaining subjects on BUP/NX is an important goal for sustaining HIV treatment outcomes for those on ART and improving them for those who are not. Comorbid substance use disorders (especially alcohol), mental health problems, and quality-of-life indicators independently contributed to HIV treatment outcomes among HIV-infected persons with opioid dependence, suggesting the need for multidisciplinary treatment strategies for this population.

Does an Index Composed of Clinical Data Reflect Effects of Inflammation, Coagulation, and Monocyte Activation on Mortality Among Those Aging With HIV?

BACKGROUND When added to age, CD4 count and human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) RNA alone (Restricted Index), hemoglobin, FIB-4 Index, hepatitis C virus (HCV), and estimated glomerular filtration rate improve prediction of mortality. Weighted and combined, these 7 routine clinical variables constitute the Veterans Aging Cohort Study (VACS) Index. Because nonroutine biomarkers of inflammation (interleukin 6 [IL-6]), coagulation (D-dimer), and monocyte activation (sCD14) also predict mortality, we test the association of these indices and biomarkers with each other and with mortality. METHODS Samples from 1302 HIV-infected veterans on antiretroviral therapy were analyzed. Indices were calculated closest to date of collection. We calculated Spearman correlations stratified by HIV-1 RNA and HCV status and measured association with mortality using C statistics and net reclassification improvement (NRI). RESULTS Of 1302 subjects, 915 had HIV-1 RNA <500 copies/mL and 154 died. The VACS Index was more correlated with IL-6, D-dimer, and sCD14 than the Restricted Index (P < .001). It was also more predictive of mortality (C statistic, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], .72-.80) than any biomarker (C statistic, 0.66-0.70) or the Restricted Index (C statistic, 0.71; 95% CI, .67-.75). Compared to the Restricted Index alone, NRI resulted from incremental addition of VACS Index components (10%), D-dimer (7%), and sCD14 (4%), but not from IL-6 (0%). CONCLUSIONS Among HIV-infected individuals, independent of CD4, HIV-1 RNA, and age, hemoglobin and markers of liver and renal injury are associated with inflammation. Addition of D-dimer and sCD14, but not IL-6, improves the predictive accuracy of the VACS Index for mortality.

A brief intervention reduces hazardous and harmful drinking in emergency department patients.

STUDY OBJECTIVE Brief interventions have been shown to reduce alcohol use and improve outcomes in hazardous and harmful drinkers, but evidence to support their use in emergency department (ED) patients is limited. The use of research assessments in studies of brief interventions may contribute to uncertainty about their effectiveness. Therefore we seek to determine (1) if an emergency practitioner-performed Brief Negotiation Interview or a Brief Negotiation Interview with a booster reduces alcohol consumption compared with standard care; and (2) the impact of research assessments on drinking outcomes using a standard care-no-assessment group. METHODS We randomized 889 adult ED patients with hazardous and harmful drinking. A total of 740 received an emergency practitioner-performed Brief Negotiation Interview (n=297), a Brief Negotiation Interview with a 1-month follow-up telephone booster (Brief Negotiation Interview with booster) (n=295), or standard care (n=148). We also included a standard care with no assessments (n=149) group to examine the effect of assessments on drinking outcomes. Primary outcomes analyzed with mixed-models procedures included past 7-day alcohol consumption and 28-day binge episodes at 6 and 12 months, collected by interactive voice response. Secondary outcomes included negative health behaviors and consequences collected by telephone surveys. RESULTS The reduction in mean number of drinks in the past 7 days from baseline to 6 and 12 months was significantly greater in the Brief Negotiation Interview with booster (from 20.4 [95% confidence interval {CI} 18.8 to 22.0] to 11.6 [95% CI 9.7 to 13.5] to 13.0 [95% CI 10.5 to 15.5]) and Brief Negotiation Interview (from 19.8 [95% CI 18.3 to 21.4] to 12.7 [95% CI 10.8 to 14.6] to 14.3 [95% CI 11.9 to 16.8]) than in standard care (from 20.9 [95% CI 18.7 to 23.2] to 14.2 [95% CI 11.2 to 17.1] to 17.6 [95% CI 14.1 to 21.2]). The reduction in 28-day binge episodes was also greater in the Brief Negotiation Interview with booster (from 7.5 [95% CI 6.8 to 8.2] to 4.4 [95% CI 3.6 to 5.2] to 4.7 [95% CI 3.9 to 5.6]) and Brief Negotiation Interview (from 7.2 [95% CI 6.5 to 7.9] to 4.8 [95% CI 4.0 to 5.6] to 5.1 [95% CI 4.2 to 5.9]) than in standard care (from 7.2 [95% CI 6.2 to 8.2] to 5.7 [95% CI 4.5 to 6.9] to 5.8 [95% CI 4.6 to 7.0]). The Brief Negotiation Interview with booster offered no significant benefit over the Brief Negotiation Interview alone. There were no differences in drinking outcomes between the standard care and standard care-no assessment groups. The reductions in rates of driving after drinking more than 3 drinks from baseline to 12 months were greater in the Brief Negotiation Interview (38% to 29%) and Brief Negotiation Interview with booster (39% to 31%) groups than in the standard care group (43% to 42%). CONCLUSION Emergency practitioner-performed brief interventions can reduce alcohol consumption and episodes of driving after drinking in hazardous and harmful drinkers. These results support the use of brief interventions in ED settings.

Emergency Department–Initiated Buprenorphine/Naloxone Treatment for Opioid Dependence: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE Opioid-dependent patients often use the emergency department (ED) for medical care. OBJECTIVE To test the efficacy of 3 interventions for opioid dependence: (1) screening and referral to treatment (referral); (2) screening, brief intervention, and facilitated referral to community-based treatment services (brief intervention); and (3) screening, brief intervention, ED-initiated treatment with buprenorphine/naloxone, and referral to primary care for 10-week follow-up (buprenorphine). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A randomized clinical trial involving 329 opioid-dependent patients who were treated at an urban teaching hospital ED from April 7, 2009, through June 25, 2013. INTERVENTIONS After screening, 104 patients were randomized to the referral group, 111 to the brief intervention group, and 114 to the buprenorphine treatment group. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Enrollment in and receiving addiction treatment 30 days after randomization was the primary outcome. Self-reported days of illicit opioid use, urine testing for illicit opioids, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) risk, and use of addiction treatment services were the secondary outcomes. RESULTS Seventy-eight percent of patients in the buprenorphine group (89 of 114 [95% CI, 70%-85%]) vs 37% in the referral group (38 of 102 [95% CI, 28%-47%]) and 45% in the brief intervention group (50 of 111 [95% CI, 36%-54%]) were engaged in addiction treatment on the 30th day after randomization (P < .001). The buprenorphine group reduced the number of days of illicit opioid use per week from 5.4 days (95% CI, 5.1-5.7) to 0.9 days (95% CI, 0.5-1.3) vs a reduction from 5.4 days (95% CI, 5.1-5.7) to 2.3 days (95% CI, 1.7-3.0) in the referral group and from 5.6 days (95% CI, 5.3-5.9) to 2.4 days (95% CI, 1.8-3.0) in the brief intervention group (P < .001 for both time and intervention effects; P = .02 for the interaction effect). The rates of urine samples that tested negative for opioids did not differ statistically across groups, with 53.8% (95% CI, 42%-65%) in the referral group, 42.9% (95% CI, 31%-55%) in the brief intervention group, and 57.6% (95% CI, 47%-68%) in the buprenorphine group (P = .17). There were no statistically significant differences in HIV risk across groups (P = .66). Eleven percent of patients in the buprenorphine group (95% CI, 6%-19%) used inpatient addiction treatment services, whereas 37% in the referral group (95% CI, 27%-48%) and 35% in the brief intervention group (95% CI, 25%-37%) used inpatient addiction treatment services (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among opioid-dependent patients, ED-initiated buprenorphine treatment vs brief intervention and referral significantly increased engagement in addiction treatment, reduced self-reported illicit opioid use, and decreased use of inpatient addiction treatment services but did not significantly decrease the rates of urine samples that tested positive for opioids or of HIV risk. These findings require replication in other centers before widespread adoption. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00913770.

Long-Term Treatment with Buprenorphine/Naloxone in Primary Care: Results at 2-5 Years

To examine long-term outcomes with primary care office-based buprenorphine/naloxone treatment, we followed 53 opioid-dependent patients who had already demonstrated six months of documented clinical stability for 2-5 years. Primary outcomes were retention, illicit drug use, dose, satisfaction, serum transaminases, and adverse events. Thirty-eight percent of enrolled subjects were retained for two years. Ninety-one percent of urine samples had no evidence of opioid use, and patient satisfaction was high. Serum transaminases remained stable from baseline. No serious adverse events related to treatment occurred. We conclude that select opioid-dependent patients exhibit moderate levels of retention in primary care office-based treatment.

TREATMENT OF HEROIN DEPENDENCE WITH BUPRENORPHINE IN PRIMARY CARE

Buprenorphine is an effective treatment for heroin dependence. The feasibility and potential efficacy of buprenorphine with brief counseling in primary care is unknown. We enrolled 14 heroin dependent patients in a 13-week clinical trial using thrice weekly buprenorphine along with brief counseling in the primary care center of an urban medical center. Primary outcomes included urine toxicology and treatment retention. Opioid-positive urine toxicology tests reduced over the 13-week period from 95 to 25% (p<0.05). Eleven patients (79%) had greater than or equal to one week of opioid-free urine toxicologies. Nine patients (64%) had greater than or equal to three weeks of opioid-free urine toxicologies. Eleven patients (79%) were retained through the maintenance phase. We conclude that buprenorphine maintenance is feasible in a primary care setting.

Factors affecting willingness to provide buprenorphine treatment

Buprenorphine is an effective long-term opioid agonist treatment. As the only pharmacological treatment for opioid dependence readily available in office-based settings, buprenorphine may facilitate a historic shift in addiction treatment from treatment facilities to general medical practices. Although many patients have benefited from the availability of buprenorphine in the United States, almost half of current prescribers are addiction specialists suggesting that buprenorphine treatment has not yet fully penetrated general practice settings. We examined factors affecting willingness to offer buprenorphine treatment among physicians with different levels of prescribing experience. Based on their prescribing practices, physicians were classified as experienced, novice, or as a nonprescriber and asked to assess the extent to which a list of factors impacted their prescription of buprenorphine. Several factors affected willingness to prescribe buprenorphine for all physicians: staff training; access to counseling and alternate treatment; visit time; buprenorphine availability; and pain medications concerns. Compared with other physicians, experienced prescribers were less concerned about induction logistics and access to expert consultation, clinical guidelines, and mental health services. They were more concerned with reimbursement. These data provide important insight into physician concerns about buprenorphine and have implications for practice, education, and policy change that may effectively support widespread adoption of buprenorphine.

Methadone Safety: A Clinical Practice Guideline From the American Pain Society and College on Problems of Drug Dependence, in Collaboration With the Heart Rhythm Society

UNLABELLED Methadone is used for the treatment of opioid addiction and for treatment of chronic pain. The safety of methadone has been called into question by data indicating a large increase in the number of methadone-associated overdose deaths in recent years that has occurred in parallel with a dramatic rise in the use of methadone for chronic pain. The American Pain Society and the College on Problems of Drug Dependence, in collaboration with the Heart Rhythm Society, commissioned an interdisciplinary expert panel to develop a clinical practice guideline on safer prescribing of methadone for treatment of opioid addiction and chronic pain. As part of the guideline development process, the American Pain Society commissioned a systematic review of various aspects related to safety of methadone. After a review of the available evidence, the expert panel concluded that measures can be taken to promote safer use of methadone. Specific recommendations include the need to educate and counsel patients on methadone safety, use of electrocardiography to identify persons at greater risk for methadone-associated arrhythmia, use of alternative opioids in patients at high risk of complications related to corrected electrocardiographic QTc interval prolongation, careful dose initiation and titration of methadone, and diligent monitoring and follow-up. Although these guidelines are based on a systematic review, the panel identified numerous research gaps, most recommendations were based on low-quality evidence, and no recommendations were based on high-quality evidence. PERSPECTIVE This guideline, based on a systematic review of the evidence on methadone safety, provides recommendations developed by a multidisciplinary expert panel. Safe use of methadone requires clinical skills and knowledge in use of methadone to mitigate potential risks, including serious risks related to risk of overdose and cardiac arrhythmias.

The Next Therapeutic Challenge in HIV: Polypharmacy

With the adoption of combination antiretroviral therapy (ART), most HIV-infected individuals in care are on five or more medications and at risk of harm from polypharmacy, a risk that likely increases with number of medications, age, and physiologic frailty. Established harms of polypharmacy include decreased medication adherence and increased serious adverse drug events, including organ system injury, hospitalization, geriatric syndromes (falls, fractures, and cognitive decline) and mortality. The literature on polypharmacy among those with HIV infection is limited, and the literature on polypharmacy among non-HIV patients requires adaptation to the special issues facing those on chronic ART. First, those aging with HIV infection often initiate ART in their 3rd or 4th decade of life and are expected to remain on ART for the rest of their lives. Second, those with HIV may be at higher risk for age-associated comorbid disease, further increasing their risk of polypharmacy. Third, those with HIV may have an enhanced susceptibility to harm from polypharmacy due to decreased organ system reserve, chronic inflammation, and ongoing immune dysfunction. Finally, because ART is life-extending, nonadherence to ART is particularly concerning. After reviewing the relevant literature, we propose an adapted framework with which to address polypharmacy among those on lifelong ART and suggest areas for future work.

Clinic-based treatment of opioid-dependent HIV-infected patients versus referral to an opioid treatment program: A randomized trial.

BACKGROUND Opioid dependence is common in HIV clinics. Buprenorphine-naloxone (BUP) is an effective treatment of opioid dependence that may be used in routine medical settings. OBJECTIVE To compare clinic-based treatment with BUP (clinic-based BUP) with case management and referral to an opioid treatment program (referred treatment). DESIGN Single-center, 12-month randomized trial. Participants and investigators were aware of treatment assignments. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00130819) SETTING HIV clinic in Baltimore, Maryland. PATIENTS 93 HIV-infected, opioid-dependent participants who were not receiving opioid agonist therapy and were not dependent on alcohol or benzodiazepines. INTERVENTION Clinic-based BUP included BUP induction and dose titration, urine drug testing, and individual counseling. Referred treatment included case management and referral to an opioid-treatment program. MEASUREMENTS Initiation and long-term receipt of opioid agonist therapy, urine drug test results, visit attendance with primary HIV care providers, use of antiretroviral therapy, and changes in HIV RNA levels and CD4 cell counts. RESULTS The average estimated participation in opioid agonist therapy was 74% (95% CI, 61% to 84%) for clinic-based BUP and 41% (CI, 29% to 53%) for referred treatment (P < 0.001). Positive test results for opioids and cocaine were significantly less frequent in clinic-based BUP than in referred treatment, and study participants receiving clinic-based BUP attended significantly more HIV primary care visits than those receiving referred treatment. Use of antiretroviral therapy and changes in HIV RNA levels and CD4 cell counts did not differ between the 2 groups. LIMITATION This was a small single-center study, follow-up was only moderate, and the study groups were unbalanced in terms of recent drug injections at baseline. CONCLUSION Management of HIV-infected, opioid-dependent patients with a clinic-based BUP strategy facilitates access to opioid agonist therapy and improves outcomes of substance abuse treatment. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE Health Resources and Services Administration Special Projects of National Significance program.