IMPORTANCE Extended-release buprenorphine (XRB), a monthly injectable long-acting opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment, has not been studied for use in corrections facilities.OBJECTIVE To compare treatment retention following release from jail among adults receiving daily sublingual buprenorphine-naloxone (SLB) vs those receiving XRB. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis open-label, randomized comparative effectiveness study included 52 incarcerated adults in New York City observed for 8 weeks postrelease between June 2019 and May 2020. Participants were soon-to-be-released volunteers from 1 men's and 1 women's jail facility who had OUDs already treated with SLB. Follow-up treatment was received at a primary care clinic in Manhattan. Data were analyzed between June 2020 and December 2020.INTERVENTIONS XRB treatment was offered prior to release and continued monthly through 8 weeks after release. SLB participants continued to receive daily directly observed in-jail SLB administration, were provided a 7-day SLB supply at jail release, and followed up at a designated clinic (or other preferred clinics). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Buprenorphine treatment retention at 8 weeks postrelease.RESULTS A total of 52 participants were randomized 1:1 to XRB (26 participants) and SLB (26 participants). Participants had a mean (SD) age of 42.6 (10.0) years; 45 participants (87%) were men; and 40 (77%) primarily used heroin prior to incarceration. Most participants (30 [58%]) reported prior buprenorphine use; 18 (35%) reported active community buprenorphine treatment prior to jail admission. Twenty-one of 26 assigned to XRB received 1 or more XRB injection prior to release; 3 initiated XRB postrelease; and 2 did not receive XRB. Patients in the XRB arm had fewer jail medical visits compared with daily SLB medication administration (mean [SD] visits per day: XRB, 0.11 [0.03] vs SLB, 1.06 [0.08]). Community buprenorphine treatment retention at week 8 postrelease was 18 participants in the XRB group (69.2%) vs 9 in the SLB group (34.6%), and rates of opioid-negative urine tests were 72 of 130 tests in the XRB group (55.3%) and 50 of 130 tests in the SLB group (38.4%). There were no differences in rates of serious adverse events, no overdoses, and no deaths. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE XRB was acceptable among patients currently receiving SLB, and patients had fewer in-jail clinic visits and increased community buprenorphine treatment retention when compared with standard daily SLB treatment. These results support wider use and further study of XRB as correctional and reentry OUD treatment.

Buprenorphine, an effective treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD), remains underutilized in many U.S. jails and prisons. However, use of non-prescribed (i.e., diverted) buprenorphine has been reported in these settings. The current study examined non-prescribed buprenorphine use experiences in correctional and community contexts. The study conducted face-to-face interviews with 300 adults with OUD/opioid misuse and recent incarceration, recruited in Baltimore, MD, and New York, NY (n = 150 each). Illicit/non-prescribed opioid use during incarceration was reported by 63% of participants; 39% reported non-prescribed buprenorphine. Non--prescribed buprenorphine was considered the most widely available opioid in jails/prisons in both states (81% reported "very" or "somewhat" easy to get). The average price of non-prescribed buprenorphine in jail/prison was ~10× higher than in the community (p < 0.001). Participants were more likely to endorse getting high/ mood alteration as reasons for using non-prescribed buprenorphine during incarceration, but tended to ascribe therapeutic motives to use in the community (e.g., self-treatment; p < 0.001). Multivariable logistic regression analyses showed that different individual-level characteristics were associated with history of non-prescribed buprenorphine use during incarceration and in the community. Use of non-prescribed buprenorphine during incarceration was associated with younger age (p = 0.006) and longer incarceration history (p < 0.001), while use of non-prescribed buprenorphine in the community was associated with MD recruitment site (p = 0.001), not being married (p < 0.001), prior buprenorphine treatment experience (p < 0.001), and housing situation (p = 0.01). These findings suggest that different dynamics and demand characteristics underlie the use of non--prescribed buprenorphine in community and incarceration contexts, with implications for efforts to expand OUD treatment in correctional settings.

No abstract

Background: Extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX, Vivitrol®) and daily oral naltrexone tablets (O-NTX) are FDA-approved mu opioid receptor antagonist medications for alcohol dependence treatment. Despite the efficacy of O-NTX, non-adherence and poor treatment retention have limited its adoption into primary care. XR-NTX is a once-a-month injectable formulation that offers a potentially more effective treatment option in reducing alcohol consumption and heavy drinking episodes among persons with alcohol use disorders. Methods: This pragmatic, open-label, randomized controlled trial examines the effectiveness of XR-NTX vs. ONTX in producing a Good Clinical Outcome, defined as abstinence or moderate drinking (< 2 drinks/day, men; < 1 drink/day, women; and < 2 heavy drinking occasions/month) during the final 20 of 24 weeks of primary care-based Medical Management treatment for alcohol dependence. Secondary aims will estimate the cost effectiveness of XR-NTX vs. O-NTX, in conjunction with primary-care based Medical Management for both groups, and patient-level characteristics associated with effectiveness in both arms. Alcohol dependent persons are recruited from the community into treatment in a New York City public hospital primary care setting (Bellevue Hospital Center) for 24 weeks of either XR-NTX (n = 117) or O-NTX (n = 120). Results: We describe the rationale, specific aims, design, and recruitment results to date. Alternative design considerations and secondary aims and outcomes are reported. Conclusions: XR-NTX treatment in a primary care setting is potentially more efficacious, feasible, and cost-effective than oral naltrexone when treating community-dwelling persons with alcohol use disorders. This study will estimate XR-NTX’s treatment and cost effectiveness relative to oral naltrexone.

No abstract