Introduction: The majority of people with schizophrenia have a diagnosis of tobacco dependence during their lifetime. A major obstacle to reducing the burden of cigarette smoking in this population is that these smokers have lower quit rates when undergoing standard treatment compared to smokers with no mental illness. We sought to determine if combination extended treatment (COMB-EXT) and home visits (HV) would lead to improved outcomes in smokers with schizophrenia. Methods: Thirty-four cigarette smokers with schizophrenia completed either COMB-EXT with HV, COMB-EXT without HV, or treatment as usual (TAU) (random assignment). COMB-EXT consisted of group cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), bupropion, nicotine patch, and nicotine lozenge, which were initiated within 2 weeks and continued for 26 weekly visits. HV consisted of biweekly visits to the home with assessment of secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure and brief behavioral therapy with participants and others in the home environment. TAU consisted of group CBT plus serial single or combination medication trials as per standard care. Results: Smokers with schizophrenia who received COMB-EXT (with or without HV) had greater reductions in cigarettes per day than those treated with TAU (both ps < .01). In addition, 7-day point prevalence abstinence rates for the three groups were 45%, 20%, and 8%, respectively, which was significantly higher for COMB-EXT plus HV than TAU (χ 2 (1) = 4.8, p = .03). Groups did not differ significantly in the number of adverse events, and HV were easily scheduled. Conclusion: COMB-EXT improves outcomes for smokers with schizophrenia. HV appeared to provide additional benefit for smoking cessation in this treatment-resistant population. Implications: The clear benefit found here of rapidly initiated, combination, extended treatment over TAU suggests that aggressive and extended treatment should be considered in clinical practice for smokers with schizophrenia. Furthermore, HV to address SHS exposure showed initial promise for assisting smokers with schizophrenia in maintaining abstinence, indicating that this intervention may be worthy of future research.

Pennsylvania has the third highest rate of death due to drug overdose (44.3 per 100,000) in the country, which is significantly higher than the national rate. This continues to have drastic societal impact. Medication assisted treatment (MAT), which includes opioid agonist medications, is the gold standard in treatment for OUD; however, a significant gap remains between the number of individuals in need of treatment and the number of MAT providers. Penn State Health established a system to address the opioid epidemic through the Pennsylvania Coordinated Medication Assisted Treatment program utilizing lessons learned from existing validated models. Connecting primary care sites and hospital systems through a combination of Hub and Spoke, bridge clinic services provided at the Hub, peer recovery services, Project Extension for Community Health Outcomes (ECHO), and layered emergency department (ED) initiation of buprenorphine, this model is an innovative approach that addresses many known barriers to MAT treatment initiation. Early results within the first six months indicate significantly shortened wait time for patients seeking treatment, provision of waiver training to 70 local physicians to prescribe buprenorphine, and improved knowledge and ability to provide patient care for providers participating in our first Project ECHO cohort.

No abstract

In the US, methadone treatment can only be provided to patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) through federal and state-regulated opioid treatment programs (OTPs). There is a shortage of OTPs, and racial and geographic inequities exist in access to methadone treatment. The National Institute on Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network convened the Methadone Access Research Task Force to develop a research agenda to expand and create more equitable access to methadone treatment for OUD. This research agenda included mechanisms that are available within and outside the current regulations. The task force identified 6 areas where research is needed: (1) access to methadone in general medical and other outpatient settings; (2) the impact of methadone treatment setting on patient outcomes; (3) impact of treatment structure on outcomes in patients receiving methadone; (4) comparative effectiveness of different medications to treat OUD; (5) optimal educational and support structure for provision of methadone by medical providers; and (6) benefits and harms of expanded methadone access. In addition to outlining these research priorities, the task force identified important cross-cutting issues, including the impact of patient characteristics, treatment, and treatment system characteristics such as methadone formulation and dose, concurrent behavioral treatment, frequency of dispensing, urine or oral fluid testing, and methods of measuring clinical outcomes. Together, the research priorities and cross-cutting issues represent a compelling research agenda to expand access to methadone in the US.

Treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) with buprenorphine has evolved considerably in the last decade as the scale of the OUD epidemic has increased along with the emergence of high-potency synthetic opioids (HPSOs) and stimulants in the drug supply. These changes have outpaced the development of prospective research, so a clinical consideration document based on expert consensus is needed to address pressing clinical questions. This clinical considerations document is based on a narrative literature review and expert consensus and will specifically address considerations for changes to the clinical practice of treatment of OUD with buprenorphine for individuals using HPSO. An expert panel developed 6 key questions addressing buprenorphine initiation, stabilization, and long-term treatment for individuals with OUD exposed to HPSO in various treatment settings. Broadly, the clinical considerations suggest that individualized strategies for buprenorphine initiation may be needed. The experience of opioid withdrawal negatively impacts the success of buprenorphine treatment, and attention to its management before and during buprenorphine initiation should be proactively addressed. Buprenorphine dose and dosing frequency should be individualized based on patients’ treatment needs, the possibility of novel components in the drug supply should be considered during OUD treatment, and all forms of opioid agonist treatment should be offered and considered for patients. Together, these clinical considerations attempt to be responsive to the challenges and opportunities experienced by frontline clinicians using buprenorphine for the treatment of OUD in patients using HPSOs and highlight areas where prospective research is urgently needed.