Search the Library
Enter keywords and hit Enter (or click the magnifying glass) to search. You can then also select document type or subject/topic to narrow results further (or just use those for searching without a keyword). Results display below this search form.
Document types
Subjects
Use:
"exact phrase" word1 NOT word2 (finds items with word 1 but NOT word2) word1 word2 (finds both words)
Results:
Title opens document
“Show details” reveals abstract & other info
Checkboxes select items for copy/pasting or printing
Search results
Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), such as methadone, buprenorphine, and extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX), have been shown to reduce or eliminate opioid use and craving, protecting against opioid overdose and death. Stopping medication is associated with risk of relapse and potential overdose. Unsurprisingly, patients may desire to stop MOUD because of adverse effects, burden, or preference for recovery without medication, asking, “How long do I need to take medication?” Clinicians who treat OUD often encounter this uncomfortable risk-benefit discussion with patients who want to stop MOUD, hoping that the patients can do so successfully, while acknowledging the major risks. Prospective data are needed to inform those discussions. In designing one of the first clinical trials focused on MOUD discontinuation—the Discontinuation Phase of the Optimizing Retention, Duration, and Discontinuation Strategies for Opioid Use Disorder Pharmacotherapy (RDD) trial (NCT04464980)2—the investigators identified ethical issues that needed consideration in designing the study.
The authors of this Viewpoint are study investigators, including a social worker (S.E.P.) and 2 psychiatrists experienced with MOUD (R.D.W. and E.V.N.). In this Viewpoint, we describe those ethical challenges and our attendant solutions to inform the design of other studies of medication discontinuation, where discontinuing treatment could have grave consequences.
Related protocols: CTN-0100
This editorial in JAMA describes the outcomes and implications of the primary outcomes paper for CTN-0099, the ED-INNOVATION trial, which compared the use of a 7-day extended-release buprenorphine injection to 7 days of sublingual buprenorphine for patients in the ED presenting with opioid use disorder and found no difference in treatment engagement at 7 days or 30 days among the two groups. They also reported low rates of precipitated withdrawal in both groups, despite a high rate of fentanyl use.
In the context of an ongoing public health emergency related to drug toxicity deaths, emergency department visits are undeniably important opportunities to identify people with high-risk opioid use and engage them in care. Increasing access to evidence-based harm reduction and treatment options for people with OUD in EDs is a crucial aspect of the response to this public health emergency.
Increasing the choices of opioid agonist therapies available in EDs is important. Providers should be careful to monitor their own biases regarding which approach might work best for an individual patient (for example, many providers might assume an injection is the easiest or best approach for a patient, while the patient may feel differently).
This study provides further evidence that EDs can and must lead ED-specific studies and initiatives that confirm best practices and increase access to lifesaving opioid agonist therapies. The way forward requires that clinician-scientists continue to foster a discussion of what is possible in EDs, while prioritizing patient-centered decision-making and consent, and clearly establishing both safety and benefit of interventions prior to implementation.
Related protocols: CTN-0099