Search

Co-occurring heroin and methamphetamine use is a growing public health problem. This study assessed the characteristics of Medicaid patients admitted to substance use disorder (SUD) treatment programs for heroin and methamphetamine use compared with patients admitted for heroin only.The study identified patients who entered treatment for heroin and methamphetamine and those admitted for heroin only between 2014 and 2017 from the Oregon Treatment Episode Data Set linked with Medicaid enrollment, and medical and pharmacy claims. We used a cross-sectional design to compare demographics, type of treatment, and substance use characteristics between the two groups. We used logistic regression models to assess differences in the odds of opioid-related and all-cause adverse events.Among the 3802 study sample, 2004 (53%) were admitted for both heroin and methamphetamine use. The heroin and methamphetamine group were more likely to be younger, female, White or American Indian/Alaska Native; and had more comorbidities than patients admitted for heroin only. Patients admitted for heroin and methamphetamine treatment were less likely to receive any medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) (56% vs 75%, p 0.001) and received fewer days of MOUD treatment (mean 188 vs. 265 days, p 0.001) compared to the heroin only group. The heroin and methamphetamine group were more likely to receive buprenorphine (28.1% vs 24.2%) and less likely to receive methadone (39.9% vs 62.5%). The heroin and methamphetamine group began use at a younger age, used and injected more frequently than those admitted for heroin only. Patients treated for heroin and methamphetamine had 17% lower odds of OUD-related adverse events (aOR 0.83; 95% CI 0.70-0.99) and 52% higher odds of all-cause adverse events (aOR 1.52; 95% CI 1.14-2.03) relative to the heroin only group.Patients admitted for both heroin and methamphetamine reported greater addiction severity (more frequent use, earlier onset of use, and injection use), yet less commonly received MOUD compared to those who were admitted for heroin only. These findings indicate substantial missed opportunities for MOUD treatment even among people who successfully engage with the SUD treatment system.

Background Although prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) have been widely implemented to potentially reduce abuse of prescription opioids, there is limited data on variations in PDMP use by prescriber specialty. Such knowledge may guide targeted interventions to improve PDMP use. Methods Using data from Washington state Medicaid program, we performed a retrospective cohort study of opioid prescribers and their PDMP queries between Nov 1, 2013 and Oct 31, 2014. PDMP registration was mandatory for emergency physicians, but not for other providers. The unit of analysis was the prescriber. The primary outcome was any prescriber queries of the PDMP. We used multivariate regression models to identify variations in PDMP queries by prescriber specialty, as well as to explore explanatory pathways for observed variations. Results We studied 17,390 providers who prescribed opioids, including 8718 (50%) who were not registered with PDMP, 4767 (27%) who were registered but had no recorded use of the PDMP, and 3905 (23%) PDMP users (queries/user: median 18, IQR 5–64). Compared to general medicine physicians, PDMP use was higher for emergency physicians (OR 1.4, 95%CI: 1.2–1.7), and lower for surgical specialists (OR 0.1, 95%CI: 0.08–0.1), obstetrician-gynecologists (OR 0.2, 95%CI: 0.1–0.2) and dentists (OR 0.4, 95%CI: 0.4–0.5). Higher use by emergency physicians appeared to be mediated by higher registration rates, rather than by provider level predilection to use the PDMP. Conclusions A minority of opioid prescribers to Medicaid beneficiaries used the PDMP. We identified variations in PDMP use by prescriber specialty. Interventions to increase PDMP queries should target both PDMP registration and PDMP use after registration, as well as specialties with current low use rates.

Through improved adherence, once-monthly injectable extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX) may provide an advantage over other oral agents approved for alcohol and opioid dependence treatment. The objective of this study was to evaluate cost and utilization outcomes between XR-NTX and other pharmacotherapies for treatment of alcohol and opioid dependence. Published studies were identified through comprehensive search of two electronic databases. Studies were included if they compared XR-NTX to other approved medicines and reported economic and healthcare utilization outcomes in patients with opioid or alcohol dependence. We identified five observational studies comparing 1,565 patients using XR-NTX to other therapies over six months. Alcohol dependent XR-NTX patients had longer medication refill persistence versus acamprosate and oral naltrexone. Healthcare utilization and costs was generally lower or as low for XR-NTX-treated patients relative to other alcohol dependence agents. Opioid dependent XR-NTX patients had lower inpatient substance abuse-related utilization versus other agents and $8170 lower total cost versus methadone.