Office-Based Opioid Treatment Keeps Ex-Inmates Out of Jail

MINNEAPOLIS – Opioid-dependent patients with a history of incarceration do well with office-based buprenorphine/naloxone therapy and have fewer interactions over time with the legal and criminal justice systems, according to a data analysis of a previous randomized, controlled trial.

“Our findings should offer some reassurance for community health care providers about initiating buprenorphine/naloxone treatment in the office setting,” Dr. David Fiellin reported. The office-based treatment also can be an avenue for addressing other negative health consequences of chronic addiction, including referral for hepatitis C treatment, when indicated, as well as vocational and mental health programs.

Dr. Fiellin, along with lead investigator Dr. Emily Wang and colleagues at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., performed a secondary data analysis of a previous trial of three levels of psychosocial counseling and medication dispensing in conjunction with buprenorphine/naloxone maintenance treatment in a primary care clinic (N. Engl. J. Med. 2006;355:365–74). The investigators compared demographics, clinical characteristics, and treatment outcomes for 166 adults receiving primary care–based buprenorphine/naloxone treatment, stratifying by history of incarceration as determined by the legal domain of the Addiction Severity Index.

Of the 166 patients, 52 had previously been incarcerated, Dr. Fiellin reported. Former inmates were more likely than other patients to be older, male, an ethnic minority, and unemployed. Also, they were more likely to have long histories of opioid dependence, have received methadone treatment, and have hepatitis C infection. The mean dose of buprenorphine/naloxone (Suboxone) was 17.9 mg and 18.0 mg for the previously incarcerated and never incarcerated patients, respectively, he said.

Among the previously incarcerated patients, the mean consecutive weeks of opioid abstinence was 6.2 based on opioid-negative urine samples. For other patients, it was 5.9 weeks. Mean treatment duration was 17.9 weeks and 17.6 weeks. The percentage of previously incarcerated patients completing treatment was 38%; for other patients, it was 46%.

Among patients who remained in treatment, a subsequent longitudinal analysis of self-reported illegal activity and interactions with the legal and criminal justice systems, conducted at 4-week intervals, showed “office-based buprenorphine/naloxone treatment was associated with a statistically significant decrease in participants reporting illegal activity, from 19% to 2%, and in interactions with the legal system, from 16% to 1%,” Dr. Fiellin said.

“Approximately 25% of all of those dependent on heroin pass through the criminal justice system each year,” Dr. Fiellin said. Correctional facilities provide an obvious opportunity to engage opioid-dependent individuals with treatment. “Unfortunately, less than 0.5% of all opioid-dependent individuals receive treatment while they are incarcerated, and as such they are more likely to connect with services in office-based programs upon release,” he said.

Limitations of the study include reliance on self-reported data for assessing incarceration and delinquency, said Dr. Fiellin, though he noted that all of the measures were obtained from previously validated instruments.

In addition, “the initial randomized trial was not designed to detect differences based on history of incarceration,” he said.

MINNEAPOLIS – Opioid-dependent patients with a history of incarceration do well with office-based buprenorphine/naloxone therapy and have fewer interactions over time with the legal and criminal justice systems, according to a data analysis of a previous randomized, controlled trial.

“Our findings should offer some reassurance for community health care providers about initiating buprenorphine/naloxone treatment in the office setting,” Dr. David Fiellin reported. The office-based treatment also can be an avenue for addressing other negative health consequences of chronic addiction, including referral for hepatitis C treatment, when indicated, as well as vocational and mental health programs.

Dr. Fiellin, along with lead investigator Dr. Emily Wang and colleagues at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., performed a secondary data analysis of a previous trial of three levels of psychosocial counseling and medication dispensing in conjunction with buprenorphine/naloxone maintenance treatment in a primary care clinic (N. Engl. J. Med. 2006;355:365–74). The investigators compared demographics, clinical characteristics, and treatment outcomes for 166 adults receiving primary care–based buprenorphine/naloxone treatment, stratifying by history of incarceration as determined by the legal domain of the Addiction Severity Index.

Of the 166 patients, 52 had previously been incarcerated, Dr. Fiellin reported. Former inmates were more likely than other patients to be older, male, an ethnic minority, and unemployed. Also, they were more likely to have long histories of opioid dependence, have received methadone treatment, and have hepatitis C infection. The mean dose of buprenorphine/naloxone (Suboxone) was 17.9 mg and 18.0 mg for the previously incarcerated and never incarcerated patients, respectively, he said.

Among the previously incarcerated patients, the mean consecutive weeks of opioid abstinence was 6.2 based on opioid-negative urine samples. For other patients, it was 5.9 weeks. Mean treatment duration was 17.9 weeks and 17.6 weeks. The percentage of previously incarcerated patients completing treatment was 38%; for other patients, it was 46%.

Among patients who remained in treatment, a subsequent longitudinal analysis of self-reported illegal activity and interactions with the legal and criminal justice systems, conducted at 4-week intervals, showed “office-based buprenorphine/naloxone treatment was associated with a statistically significant decrease in participants reporting illegal activity, from 19% to 2%, and in interactions with the legal system, from 16% to 1%,” Dr. Fiellin said.

“Approximately 25% of all of those dependent on heroin pass through the criminal justice system each year,” Dr. Fiellin said. Correctional facilities provide an obvious opportunity to engage opioid-dependent individuals with treatment. “Unfortunately, less than 0.5% of all opioid-dependent individuals receive treatment while they are incarcerated, and as such they are more likely to connect with services in office-based programs upon release,” he said.

Limitations of the study include reliance on self-reported data for assessing incarceration and delinquency, said Dr. Fiellin, though he noted that all of the measures were obtained from previously validated instruments.

In addition, “the initial randomized trial was not designed to detect differences based on history of incarceration,” he said.

MINNEAPOLIS – Opioid-dependent patients with a history of incarceration do well with office-based buprenorphine/naloxone therapy and have fewer interactions over time with the legal and criminal justice systems, according to a data analysis of a previous randomized, controlled trial.

“Our findings should offer some reassurance for community health care providers about initiating buprenorphine/naloxone treatment in the office setting,” Dr. David Fiellin reported. The office-based treatment also can be an avenue for addressing other negative health consequences of chronic addiction, including referral for hepatitis C treatment, when indicated, as well as vocational and mental health programs.

Dr. Fiellin, along with lead investigator Dr. Emily Wang and colleagues at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., performed a secondary data analysis of a previous trial of three levels of psychosocial counseling and medication dispensing in conjunction with buprenorphine/naloxone maintenance treatment in a primary care clinic (N. Engl. J. Med. 2006;355:365–74). The investigators compared demographics, clinical characteristics, and treatment outcomes for 166 adults receiving primary care–based buprenorphine/naloxone treatment, stratifying by history of incarceration as determined by the legal domain of the Addiction Severity Index.

Of the 166 patients, 52 had previously been incarcerated, Dr. Fiellin reported. Former inmates were more likely than other patients to be older, male, an ethnic minority, and unemployed. Also, they were more likely to have long histories of opioid dependence, have received methadone treatment, and have hepatitis C infection. The mean dose of buprenorphine/naloxone (Suboxone) was 17.9 mg and 18.0 mg for the previously incarcerated and never incarcerated patients, respectively, he said.

Among the previously incarcerated patients, the mean consecutive weeks of opioid abstinence was 6.2 based on opioid-negative urine samples. For other patients, it was 5.9 weeks. Mean treatment duration was 17.9 weeks and 17.6 weeks. The percentage of previously incarcerated patients completing treatment was 38%; for other patients, it was 46%.

Among patients who remained in treatment, a subsequent longitudinal analysis of self-reported illegal activity and interactions with the legal and criminal justice systems, conducted at 4-week intervals, showed “office-based buprenorphine/naloxone treatment was associated with a statistically significant decrease in participants reporting illegal activity, from 19% to 2%, and in interactions with the legal system, from 16% to 1%,” Dr. Fiellin said.

“Approximately 25% of all of those dependent on heroin pass through the criminal justice system each year,” Dr. Fiellin said. Correctional facilities provide an obvious opportunity to engage opioid-dependent individuals with treatment. “Unfortunately, less than 0.5% of all opioid-dependent individuals receive treatment while they are incarcerated, and as such they are more likely to connect with services in office-based programs upon release,” he said.

Limitations of the study include reliance on self-reported data for assessing incarceration and delinquency, said Dr. Fiellin, though he noted that all of the measures were obtained from previously validated instruments.

In addition, “the initial randomized trial was not designed to detect differences based on history of incarceration,” he said.