Kelly E Dunn1, Andrew S Huhn2, Eric C Strain2. 1. Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, United States of America. Electronic address: kdunn9@jhmi.edu. 2. Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, United States of America.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a significant public health problem for which a substantial amount of treatment exists. The degree to which methadone and buprenorphine are administered in different treatment modalities is not clear but critical to understanding treatment success rates and service development strategies. METHODS: Data from the national Treatment Episode Dataset for Admissions and Discharges (TEDS-A [N = 4,070,264] and TEDS-D [832,731], respectively) were used to determine the likelihood patients initiating detoxification and outpatient OUD treatment between 2006 and 2015 were expected to receive opioid agonist treatment. Joinpoint regression evaluated significant trends and a generalized linear model with logit link function identified characteristics associated with receiving an agonist during detoxification. TEDS-D informed the percent of patients leaving detoxification against medical advice who did/did not receive an opioid agonist. RESULTS: Though agonist use in outpatient settings increased by 60% during 2012-2015, agonist use in detoxification was lower than outpatient treatment, decreased significantly by 26% from 2009 to 2015, and never exceeded 16% of detoxification admissions during 2006-2015. In 2015, persons who were under 25, homeless, had co-occurring psychiatric problems, utilized Medicare, Medicaid, or had no insurance, and had no prior OUD treatment or were high treatment utilizers were the least likely to receive an agonist during detoxification. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to expand opioid agonist access has been successful for outpatient but not detoxification settings. Improving detoxification outcomes is a potentially high impact way for the US to expand efficacious OUD treatment access in the US.
BACKGROUND: Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a significant public health problem for which a substantial amount of treatment exists. The degree to which methadone and buprenorphine are administered in different treatment modalities is not clear but critical to understanding treatment success rates and service development strategies. METHODS: Data from the national Treatment Episode Dataset for Admissions and Discharges (TEDS-A [N = 4,070,264] and TEDS-D [832,731], respectively) were used to determine the likelihood patients initiating detoxification and outpatient OUD treatment between 2006 and 2015 were expected to receive opioid agonist treatment. Joinpoint regression evaluated significant trends and a generalized linear model with logit link function identified characteristics associated with receiving an agonist during detoxification. TEDS-D informed the percent of patients leaving detoxification against medical advice who did/did not receive an opioid agonist. RESULTS: Though agonist use in outpatient settings increased by 60% during 2012-2015, agonist use in detoxification was lower than outpatient treatment, decreased significantly by 26% from 2009 to 2015, and never exceeded 16% of detoxification admissions during 2006-2015. In 2015, persons who were under 25, homeless, had co-occurring psychiatric problems, utilized Medicare, Medicaid, or had no insurance, and had no prior OUD treatment or were high treatment utilizers were the least likely to receive an agonist during detoxification. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to expand opioid agonist access has been successful for outpatient but not detoxification settings. Improving detoxification outcomes is a potentially high impact way for the US to expand efficacious OUD treatment access in the US.
Authors: Shalini Wickramatilake; Julia Zur; Norah Mulvaney-Day; Melinda Campopiano von Klimo; Elizabeth Selmi; Henrick Harwood Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2017-02-02 Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: David A Fiellin; Richard S Schottenfeld; Christopher J Cutter; Brent A Moore; Declan T Barry; Patrick G O'Connor Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Cindy Parks Thomas; Erin Doyle; Peter W Kreiner; Christopher M Jones; Joel Dubenitz; Alexis Horan; Bradley D Stein Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2017-10-18 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Bradley D Stein; Mark Sorbero; Andrew W Dick; Rosalie Liccardo Pacula; Rachel M Burns; Adam J Gordon Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-09-20 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Joshua D Lee; Edward V Nunes; Patricia Novo; Ken Bachrach; Genie L Bailey; Snehal Bhatt; Sarah Farkas; Marc Fishman; Phoebe Gauthier; Candace C Hodgkins; Jacquie King; Robert Lindblad; David Liu; Abigail G Matthews; Jeanine May; K Michelle Peavy; Stephen Ross; Dagmar Salazar; Paul Schkolnik; Dikla Shmueli-Blumberg; Don Stablein; Geetha Subramaniam; John Rotrosen Journal: Lancet Date: 2017-11-14 Impact factor: 79.321