Addiction Disorders and Therapy

Survey of Treatment Preferences for Opioid Use Disorder

*Ravi Nahata
Department Of Psychiatry, University Of Arkansas For Medical Sciences, United States

*Corresponding Author:
Ravi Nahata
Department Of Psychiatry, University Of Arkansas For Medical Sciences, United States
Email:ravi.nahata@va.gov

Published on: 2018-11-27

Abstract

Objectives: This study gathered preliminary information on the initial feasibility of using injection Naltrexone (NTX) therapy in opioid users.
Methods: One hundred opioid users (36% female, 8% minorities, mean age 34.5+11.4 yrs.) undergoing a health screen to determine initial eligibility for an ongoing study completed the survey.
Results: Of the 100 respondents, 26, 16, 16, 1 and 0 reported prior treatment episodes of opioid detoxification, buprenorphine (BUP), methadone (MTD), oral NTX and injection NTX, respectively. Ninety and 71% were interested in participating in a study involving oral and/or injection NTX treatment, respectively. Reasons for not wanting to try injection NTX included fear of needles (n=13), side effects (n=7), lack of pain relief (n=12) and cost (n=3). A significantly higher percentage of those interested in injection NTX had episodes of prior opioid agonist maintenance treatment relative to those uninterested (32.4% vs 10.3%; Chi2=5.2, p<0.03). Those preferring injection NTX therapy showed a higher level of interest in this therapy (3.08+1.01 vs 1.62+1.35; Rank Sum p<0.0001) and a lower degree of interest in BUP treatment (2.96+0.93 vs 3.38+0.90; Rank Sum p< 0.03) than those not preferring injection NTX. Conclusions: These preliminary results suggest that those with prior, failed experience with opioid agonist maintenance treatment are more likely to consider injection NTX therapy, suggesting it may be optimal as a second-line treatment for OUD.

Keywords

Naltrexone, prescription opioids, opioid use disorder

Copyright: © 2018 Ravi Nahata

Abstract

 

Objectives: This study gathered preliminary information on the initial feasibility of using injection Naltrexone (NTX) therapy in opioid users.

Methods: One hundred opioid users (36% female, 8% minorities, mean age 34.5+11.4 yrs.) undergoing a health screen to determine initial eligibility for an ongoing study completed the survey.

Results: Of the 100 respondents, 26, 16, 16, 1 and 0 reported prior treatment episodes of opioid detoxification, buprenor- phine (BUP), methadone (MTD), oral NTX and injection NTX, respectively. Ninety and 71% were interested in partic- ipating in a study involving oral and/or injection NTX treatment, respectively. Reasons for not wanting to try injection NTX included fear of needles (n=13), side effects (n=7), lack of pain relief (n=12) and cost (n=3). A significantly higher percentage of those interested in injection NTX had episodes of prior opioid agonist maintenance treatment relative to those uninterested (32.4% vs 10.3%; Chi2=5.2, p<0.03). Those preferring injection NTX therapy showed a higher level of interest in this therapy (3.08+1.01 vs 1.62+1.35; Rank Sum p<0.0001) and a lower degree of interest in BUP treatment (2.96+0.93 vs 3.38+0.90; Rank Sum p< 0.03) than those not preferring injection NTX.

Conclusions: These preliminary results suggest that those with prior, failed experience with opioid agonist maintenance treatment are more likely to consider injection NTX therapy, suggesting it may be optimal as a second-line treatment for OUD.

Keywords: Naltrexone, prescription opioids, opioid use disorder

Abbreviations: NTX – Naltrexone, MTD – Methadone, BUP – Buprenorphine and PO – Prescription Opioids

Introduction

Opioid dependence continues to be a serious public health problem, particularly with the dramatic rise in abuse of prescription opioids (PO) [1]. PO abuse is as- sociated with serious negative consequences that include physiological dependence, high-risk behaviors [2, 3], over- dose [4], [5], and death [6-8].

PO abusers appear to differ from heroin users in that PO user tend to be younger, have less treatment history, less severe opioid and injection use, greater social stability, and less income from illegal sources [9, 10]. PO abusers are also more likely to be female [11, 12] and may have different treatment outcomes than heroin users [9, 13, 14]. Current FDA-approved treatments for opioid dependence were de- veloped in heroin users and efficacies of these interventions may differ in PO dependent individuals. Our project targets a critical barrier to the field in that optimal treatments for PO dependence have not been identified. Despite the scope of the PO problem, a paucity of data exists regarding those subpopulations of PO abusers most likely to benefit from a particular treatment [10, 15-17] and few studies have exam- ined predictors, mediators, and moderators of outcome for medication treatment for opioid dependence [17-20]. Be- cause many PO abusers have characteristics that may indi- cate better treatment prognosis than heroin abusers [9, 10], long-term maintenance treatment strategies with long-act- ing opioid agonists such as methadone or buprenorphine may not be the optimal or preferred treatment among PO abusers. At the same time, it is unclear whether maintenance treatment with the opioid antagonist naltrexone following opioid detoxification as a form of relapse prevention would be acceptable to these individuals, much less efficacious.

In 2016, Arkansas had the second highest rate of opioid prescriptions in the US [21] and more Arkansas young adults use POs than then national average (Office of Adoles- cent Health 2017). In 2014, 94% of Arkansans admitted to treatment for opioid use disorder used POs [22]. Thus, this study sought to gather preliminary information regarding the initial feasibility of conducting research using naltrex- one as a treatment agent for this population. Specifically, this survey protocol was designed to accomplish the fol-

 

lowing: to determine treatment preferences for opioid de- pendence; to determine initial interest and willingness to participate in a study using a long acting form of naltrexone for maintenance treatment following opioid detoxification; and to assess whether particular subject characteristics are associated with preference for naltrexone mainte- nance treatment. We postulated that participants with pri- or episodes of treatment with opioid agonists would be less likely to consider treatment with injection NTX.

Methods

 

Participants:

Opioid-using male and female volunteers (>18 years of age) were recruited to respond to this anon- ymous survey from those individuals attending a screening interview to determine eligibility to participate in ongo- ing clinical trials to treat opioid use disorder. Respondents were recruited between October 2013 and February 2016. Written consent was not obtained because the only record linking the participant to the research would have been the consent document itself and the principal risk would be the potential harm from a breach of confidentiality. Instead, a copy of the following statement was placed before the po- tential participant so that the individual could follow along as it was read aloud: “You are invited to participate in a sur- vey designed to determine what people’s treatment prefer- ences are for addressing their opioid addiction and whether you might be interested in being part of a research study that involves a long-acting form of Naltrexone (Vivitrol) for maintenance treatment after detoxification from opioids. A few questions regarding demographics and opioid addic- tion treatment history are included also. The survey will take approximately 5-10 minutes to complete. The informa- tion will not be linked to you in any way. Your completing this survey is completely voluntary and will not determine in any way your eligibility to participate in one of our re- search studies. You do not have to answer any question that makes you uncomfortable and you can end the survey at any time without penalty. Are you willing to participate?” This protocol was deemed exempt by the University of Ar-

kansas for Medical Sciences Institutional Review  Board.

 

 

 

Survey:

The survey interviews were conducted on the 4th floor of the Psychiatric Research Institute at University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock. For those who agreed to complete the survey, the interviewer proceed- ed to ask questions from the survey assessment, called the “Treatment Preferences for Opioid Dependence.” This 21-item questionnaire obtained basic demographic in- formation age (yrs.), sex (male or female), race (Cauca- sian, African American, Native American, Asian, Other, re- fused), ethnicity (Latino/Hispanic, Non-Latino/Hispanic, refused), primary substance of abuse (Opioids, Cocaine, methamphetamine /Amphetamines, Alcohol, Marijuana, Other), prior treatments for opioid dependence (Detox,

Buprenorphine (BUP), Methadone (MTD), Naltrexone (NTX) tablets or injection, Other), level of interest in treat- ment with long acting form of naltrexone and reasons  for not considering it. In addition, the degree to which respondents’ drug use affected physical health, mental health, finances/work, relationships, and legal problems were measured on a scale of 0 (not at all) to extremely (4). Interviewees were not compensated for their time.

 

Data Analyses:

Descriptive statistics were performed to summarize the data. The sample was split into two groups based on respondents’ answers to the two questions, “Are you interested in participating in a study that involves oral NTX” or “Are you interested in participating in a study that involves injection NTX?” Single Logistic Regression mod- els were run for continuous variables to test their effect on interest in injection NTX (Yes/No). Due to non-normality, Two-sample Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests were performed on continuous variables with level of interest in injection NTX (Yes/No) as the between-subjects factor. Dichotomous vari- ables were analyzed using chisquareteststoexamine wheth- er differences in acceptability were due to subject character- istics. Number of episodes of maintenance treatment, either with buprenorphine or methadone, was reclassified into the categories: “zero” and “one or more”. A p value < 0.05 was used to infer statistical significance. All statistical analysis was performed with SAS v9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC).

Results

 Of the 100 respondents, 90 (90%) and 71 (71%) expressed an interest in participating in a study involving oral or injection NTX respectively. Willingness to participate in a study receiving injection NTX did not differ by gender (% Females, χ2=1.38, p=0.24), education (%> HS, χ2=0.09, p=0.77), or relationship status (% Married/In relationship, χ2=0.09, p=0.77); See Table 1. Age did not differ between those willing to participate and those not willing (Yes (mean

+/- standard deviation): 35.83 +/-12.06 years, No: 31.38+/- 9.08 years; odds ratio=1.04, χ2=3.04, p-value=0.0814). Similarly, years of opioid abuse (Yes: 9.28+/-7.36, No: 6.86+/-6.18; odds ratio=1.06, χ2=2.32, p-value=0.1281), legal (odds ratio=1.28, χ2=2.48, p-value=0.1151), financial (odds ratio=1.03, χ2=0.02, p-value=0.8936) or psychiatric problems (odds ratio=0.93, χ2=0.11, p-value=0.7377) also did not differ between the groups (See Table 2). All respon- dents identified opioids as their primary drug of abuse.

No differences were observed regarding prior episodes with specific medication-assisted treatments (p’s>0.1), with 26, 16, 16, 1 and 0 of all respondents reporting pri- or treatment episodes of opioid detoxification, BUP main- tenance, MTD maintenance, oral NTX treatment and injection NTX treatment, respectively. However, a sig- nificantly higher percentage of those interested in in- jection NTX had episodes of prior opioid agonist (i.e., buprenorphine or methadone) maintenance treatment relative to those uninterested (χ2=5.3, p<0.03; Figure 1).

Those interested in this therapy showed a higher level of interest in injection NTX therapy (3.08+/-1.01 vs 1.62+/- 1.35; Rank Sum p< 0.0001) and a lower degree of interest in BUP treatment (2.96+/-0.93 vs 3.38+/-0.90; Rank Sum p< 0.03) than those not preferring injection NTX. The two most cited reasons for not preferring injection naltrexone were fear of needles and lack of pain relief (see Figure 2).

 

 

 

 

a Long Acting Injection of Naltrexone b Buprenorphine

c Methadone

Table 1. Subject Characteristics – Dichotomous Variables

 

 

 

a Long Acting Injection Naltrexone

 

Table 2. Subject Characteristics – Continuous Variables

 

 

Figure1. Episodes of prior opioid agonist (i.e., buprenor- phine or methadone) maintenance treatment in those interested in Long Acting Injection of Naltrexone relative to those uninterested. Results of those without and with at least one prior treatment episodes are represented by the black columns and white columns, respectively.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2. Reasons provided by participants for not consid- ering Long acting injection of Naltrexone.

 

Discussion

 

The main finding of this survey indicates that those with prior, failed experience with opioid agonist mainte- nance treatment are more likely to consider injection NTX therapy than those who have not had prior opioid agonist treatment experience. This result is opposite of our hypoth- esis. The reasons for this are unclear but stigma, poor re- sponse in a prior treatment episode and fear of withdrawal on cessation of treatment have been reported [23]. Never- theless, this finding suggests injection NTX may be optimal as a second-line treatment for opioid use disorder in the ab- sence of a strong campaign to educate opioid use disordered individuals about the relative benefits of this intervention.

The demographic characteristics of participants inter- ested in injection NTX treatment generally did not differ from those who were not. In contrast, a survey of 657 in- jection opioid users found Caucasian race was negative- ly associated with willingness to consider long acting in- jection of naltrexone for treatment of opioid use disorder [24]. Nevertheless, in a study of acceptability of extend- ed-release naltrexone among heroin-dependent patients in Netherlands, neither age, sex, race nor employment status predicted interest in treatment with this medica- tion [25]. Although naltrexone has been found to be more useful in individuals with external motivation to remain abstinent from opioids (e.g., involvement in criminal jus- tice system) [26], interest in treatment with injection NTX did not differ by degree of legal problems in our study.

Study participants identified several barriers to consider- ation of injection NTX therapy that are similar to those iden- tified in surveys of acceptability among injection opioid [24] and heroin users [25]. Needle aversion, the most commonly reported issue in the current study, has also been cited as affecting acceptability of injection NTX for alcohol use dis- order [27] and injectable medications for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus [28]. Needle-free injection technology has shown promise to mitigate pain associated with injectable medi- cations and can improve acceptance [29, 30]. The second most-cited barrier, concern about not getting pain relief, may be alleviated by educating patients about  treatment

 

 

 

options for pain management among patients on injection NTX [31]. Thus, developing a needle-free naltrexone injec- tion along with education about pain management availabil- ity while taking injectable naltrexone may increase accep- tance of this therapy among opioid-use-disordered patients.

In addition to the importance of having a broad portfolio of medication-assisted treatments available to enhance optimal matching of patients to appropriate treatment for opioid use disorder, increasing the utilization of injection NTX is important from a financial perspective. For in- stance, Baser et. al. [32], using retrospective claims data- base analysis, showed that patients who received injection NTX had lower inpatient healthcare utilization at compa- rable or lower total costs than those receiving oral/sub- lingual opioid agonist medications, including methadone and buprenorphine. This report suggests that increased utilization of injection NTX treatment may lead to lower medical costs compared with opioid agonist approaches.

To our knowledge, this is the first study to determine char- acteristics of individuals in an area with a high prevalence of PO abuse that are associated with willingness to con- sider injection NTX. A significant strength of our study is inclusion of several variables including treatments recom- mended by people important to participants [33], common reasons for not considering injection NTX [34, 35] and in- terest in taking a medication which does not make them feel like being on methadone [36] which have been associated with acceptability of injection NTX in published literature.

Our study has several limitations as well. For instance, re- spondents were recruited from those seeking to participate in a treatment research study. Thus, it is unclear whether these individuals may differ from the general PO abusing patient population. Moreover, respondents did not under- go structured diagnostic interviews to establish diagnosis of opioid use disorder, which limits conclusions about opi- oid use disordered patients. In addition, we did not obtain the specific opioids being abused by respondents. Never- theless, given that all but three participants identified their drug of choice as opioids, mean years of regular opioid use, and varying degree of impact on various aspects of their life

 

reported by participants suggest their data are likely gen- eralizable to the opioid use disordered population in gen- eral. At the same time, this survey was conducted in rural Arkansas, so whether findings are generalizable to opioid users in more urban areas is unknown. Lastly, our survey has not been validated, although several questions were adopted from published surveys on similar populations.

 

Conclusions

 

Injection NTX therapy may be optimal as a second line treatment for opioid use disorder in indi- viduals with prior treatment episodes for opioid use disorder in the absence of strong efforts to educate opi- oid use disordered individuals about the relative ben- efits of NTX  therapy.  Use  of  injection-free  technolo-  gy and education to mitigate fears of needles and side effects may improve overall acceptability of this approach.

Acknowledgments

 

  • Supported by NIDA grants 5R01DA039088-02 and 5R21DA035325-02.
  • Nahata, , Mancino, M., Thostenson, J., Oliveto, A. (2017) Survey of treatment preferences for opioid use disorder. Presented at the 79th Annual Scientific Meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence. June 20, 2017.

Conflict of Interest

 

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest to

report

 

The total number of words of the manuscript, including

entire text from title page to figure legends: 3830

 

The number of words of the abstract: 221

 

The number of figures: 2

 

The number of tables: 2

 

References:

 

  1. SAMHSA, Results from the 2009  National  Sur-  vey  on Drug Use and Health: Volume Summary   of National Findings. . NSDUH Series H-38A, HHS Publication No. SMA 10-4586 Findings). , 2010.
  2. PrescriptionDrugAbuse:AnEpidemicDilem- ma. Journalof Psychoactive Drugs. 2010, 42(2): 127-132.
  3. McCabe SE, West TB, Michele Morales, Cranford AJ, Boyd Does early onset of non-medical use of pre- scription drugs predict subsequent prescription  drug abuse and dependence? Results from a na- tional study. Addiction. 2007, 102(12): 1920-1930.
  4. Coben JH, Davis SM, Furbee PM, Sikora RD, Til- lotson RD et      Hospitalizations   for   Poisoning   by Prescription Opioids, Sedatives, and  Tran-  quilizers. Am J Prev Med. 2010, 38(5): 517-524.
  5. Cai R, Crane E, Poneleit K, Paulozzi    Emer-  gency Department  Visits  Involving  Nonmedical  Use of  Selected  Prescription  Drugs  in  the  Unit-  ed States, 2004-2008. 2010, 24(3): 293-297.
  6. Paulozzi LJ, Xi Y. Recent changes in drug poi- soning mortality in the United States by ur- ban–rural status and by drug type. Pharmaco- epidemiol Drug Saf. 2008, 17(10): 997-1005.
  7. Hanson A pill problem: prescription drug abuse is the fastest growing form of substance abuse. State Legis. 2010, 36(3): 22-25.
  8. K    A   pill   problem:    prescription    drug    abuse  is  the  fastest  growing   form   of   sub-   stance abuse. State Legis. 2010, 36(3): 22-25.
  9. Moore BA, Fiellin DA, Barry DT, Sullivan LE, Chawarski MC et Primary Care Office-based Buprenorphine Treat- ment: Comparisonof Heroin and Prescription Opioid De- pendentPatients.JGenInternMed.2007,22(4):527-530.
  10. Sigmon SC. Characterizing the Emerging Population of Prescription Opioid Abusers. Am J Addict. 2006. 15(3):

 

208-212.

 

  1. Green CT, Grimes Serrano MJ, Andrea Licari, Bud- man HS, Butler FS. Women who abuse prescription opioids: Findings from the Addiction Severity In- dex-Multimedia Version Connect prescription opioid database. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2009, 103(1): 65-73.
  2. Back SE, Payne RL, Simpson AN, Brady   Gen- der   and   Prescription   Opioids:   Findings   from the National Survey on Drug Use  and  Health. Addict Behav. 2010, 35(11): 1001-1007.
  3. Brands B,  Blake  J,  Sproule  B,  Gourlay  D,   Bus-  to Prescription opioid abuse in patients pre- senting for methadone maintenance  treatment.  Drug Alcohol Depend. 2004, 73(2): 199-207.
  4. Weiss RD, Potter JS, Fiellin DA, Byrne M, Connery HS et Adjunctive counseling during brief and extended buprenorphine-naloxone treatment for prescription opioid dependence: A 2-phase randomized controlled trial. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2011, 68(12): 1238-1246.
  5. Zacny J, Bigelow G, Compton P, Foley K, Iguchi M et College on Problems of Drug Dependence taskforce on prescription opioid non-medical use and abuse: position statement. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2003, 69(3): 215-232.
  6. Sigmon SC, Dunn KE, Badger GJ, Heil SH, Higgins et al. Brief Buprenorphine Detoxification for the Treatment of Prescription Opioid Dependence: A Pilot Study. Addict Behav. 2009, 34(3): 304-311.
  7. Dreifuss JA, Griffin ML, Frost K, Fitzmaurice GM, Pot- ter JS et Patient characteristics associated with bu- prenorphine/naloxone treatment outcome for pre- scription opioid dependence: Results from a multisite study. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2013, 131(1-2): 112-118.
  8. Morral AR, Iguchi MY, Belding MA, Lamb   Natural classes   of   treatment   response.   J   Con-  sult Clin Psychol. 1997, 65(4): 673-685.
  9. Ziedonis DM, Amass L, Steinberg M, Woody G, Krejci J et Predictors of outcome for short-term medically su-

 

pervised opioid withdrawal during a randomized, mul- ticenter trial of buprenorphine-naloxone and clonidine in the NIDA clinical trials network drug and alcohol de- pendence. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2009, 99(1-3): 28-36.

  1. McHugh RK, Devito EE, Dodd D, Carroll KM, Potter JSet Gender differences in a clinical trial for prescription opi- oid dependence. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2013, 45(1): 38-43.
  2. U.S. State Opioid Prescribing Rates. 2016 July 31, 2017 [cited 2018 May 29]; Available from: https:// www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/maps/rxstate2016.html.
  3. SAMHSA, Treatment    Episode    Data    Set  (TEDS) 2004-2014. State Admissions to  Sub-  stance Abuse Treatment Services.
  4. Nunes EV, Krupitsky E, Ling W, Zummo J, Memisog- lu A et al., Treating Opioid Dependence With Inject- able Extended-Release Naltrexone (XR-NTX): Who Will Respond? J Addict Med. 2015, 9(3): 238-243.
  5. Ahamad K, Milloy MJ, Nguyen P, Uhlmann S, John- son C et al., Factors associated with willingness to take extended release naltrexone among injection drug users. Addict Sci Clin Pract. 2015, 10(1):
  6. Zaaijer ER, Goudriaan AE, Koeter MW,  Booij  J,  van den Brink Acceptability of Extended-Re-  lease Naltrexone by  Heroin-Dependent  Patients  and Addiction Treatment Providers in the Nether- lands. Subst Use Misuse. 2016, 51(14): 1905-1911.
  7. O’Brien C, Cornish Naltrexone for probationers and parolees. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2006, 31(2): 107-111.
  8. Chokron Garneau H, Venegas A, Rawson R, Ray LA, Glasner S. Barriers to initiation of extended release naltrexone among HIV-infected adults with alcohol use J Subst Abuse Treat. 2018, 85: 34-37.
  9. Spain CV, Wright JJ, Hahn RM, Wivel A, Martin AA. Self-reported Barriers to Adherence and Persistence to Treatment With Injectable Medications for Type 2 Diabetes. Clin 2016, 38(7): 1653-1664.

  10. Ravi DA, Sadhna D,  Nagpaal  D,  Chawla    Nee-
    dle  free  injection  technology:  A  complete  in-  sight. Int J Pharm Investig. 2015, 5(4): 192-199.
  11. Weissmueller TN, Marsay L, Schiffter AH, Carlisle CR, Rollier SC et al. Alternative vaccine administra- tion by powder injection: Needle-free dermal de- livery of the glycoconjugate  meningococcal  group  Y PLOS ONE. 2017, 12(8): e0183427.
  12. Coluzzi F, Bifulco F, Cuomo A, Dauri M, Leonardi C et al. The challenge of perioperative pain manage- ment in opioid-tolerant patients. Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management. 2017, 13: 1163-1173.
  13. Baser O, Chalk M, Fiellin DA, Gastfriend Cost and Utilization Outcomes of Opioid-Dependence Treat- ments. Am J Manag Care. 2011, Suppl 8: S235-248.
  14. Fram DH, Marmo J, Holden R. Naltrexone treat- ment-the problem      of      patient         J Subst Abuse Treat. 1989, 6(2): 119-122.
  15. Friedmann PD, Mello D, Lonergan S, Bourgault C, O’Toole Aversion to Injection Limits Acceptability of Extend- ed-Release Naltrexone Among Homeless, Alcohol-De- pendent Patients. Subst Abus. 2013, 34(2): 94-96.
  16. Swift RM, Duncan D, Nirenberg T, Femino J. Al- coholic Patients’     Experience     and     Attitudes on   Pharmacotherapy    for        Jour-   nal of Addictive Diseases, 1998. 17(3): 35-48.
  17. Jones Acceptance of Naltrexone by Pregnant Women Enrolled in Comprehensive Drug Addiction Treatment: An Initial Survey. Am J Addict. 2012, 21(3): 199-201.

 

 

 

 

: