Elsevier

Drug and Alcohol Dependence

Volume 160, 1 March 2016, Pages 112-118
Drug and Alcohol Dependence

Full length article
Methadone, buprenorphine and preferences for opioid agonist treatment: A qualitative analysis

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2015.12.031Get rights and content

Highlights

Abstract

Background

Patients and clinicians have begun to recognize the advantages and disadvantages of buprenorphine relative to methadone, but factors that influence choices between these two medications remain unclear. For example, we know little about how patients' preferences and previous experiences influence treatment decisions. Understanding these issues may enhance treatment engagement and retention.

Methods

Adults with opioid dependence (n = 283) were recruited from two integrated health systems to participate in interviews focused on prior experiences with treatment for opioid dependence, knowledge of medication options, preferences for treatment, and experiences with treatment for chronic pain in the context of problems with opioids. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded using Atlas.ti.

Results

Our analysis revealed seven areas of consideration for opioid agonist treatment decision-making: (1) awareness of treatment options; (2) expectations and goals for duration of treatment and abstinence; (3) prior experience with buprenorphine or methadone; (4) need for accountability and structured support; (5) preference to avoid methadone clinics or associated stigma; (6) fear of continued addiction and perceived difficulty of withdrawal; and (7) pain control.

Conclusion

The availability of medication options increases the need for clear communication between clinicians and patients, for additional patient education about these medications, and for collaboration and patient influence over choices in treatment decision-making. Our results suggest that access to both methadone and buprenorphine will increase treatment options and patient choice and may enhance treatment adherence and outcomes.

Introduction

In the United States, methadone is the opioid agonist most studied and most frequently used for agonist therapy of opioid use disorders (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), 2014), and there is ample, longstanding evidence of its effectiveness (Bart, 2012, Mattick et al., 2008). Yet for some people with opioid dependence, there are substantial barriers to methadone treatment and premature discontinuation of treatment is common. Federal regulations restrict use of methadone for opioid dependence to federally approved opioid treatment programs that inhibit access to care, especially in rural communities (Deck and Carlson, 2004). In addition, barriers to engagement and retention in methadone treatment exist, including discordance between patients' goals and motivations for seeking treatment and those of treatment programs (e.g., abstinence), patients' disagreement with program rules, and inconvenient requirements for onsite dosing that interfere with family and work obligations (Reisinger et al., 2009).

The Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 2000 (United States Congress, 2000) allowed physicians to prescribe Schedule 3, 4, or 5 medications for opioid dependence if the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) specifically approved a medication for detoxification from or maintenance of opioid dependence. Buprenorphine (a partial opioid agonist), the only medication to meet the DATA 2000 requirements (SAMHSA, 2012), is available as a sublingual film or tablet in two formulations—buprenorphine (Subutex®) and a combination of buprenorphine and naloxone (Suboxone®). Generic versions of the medication are now available. Because buprenorphine can be prescribed in a variety of settings and taken daily at home, its introduction held promise as an alternative to methadone that could increase access to treatment and be more acceptable to patients (Gryczynski et al., 2013). Adoption of buprenorphine was slow, however, in part because its availability was hindered by limits imposed by DATA 2000 on the number of empaneled patients who could receive the medication (United States Congress, 2000) and the type of practitioners able to prescribe it (Fornili and Burda, 2012). In 2011, nearly 10 years after buprenorphine first became available, 43% of US counties had no buprenorphine-waivered physicians (Murphy et al., 2014). Organizational- and practitioner-level barriers also prevented diffusion (Gordon et al., 2011, Green et al., 2014, Hutchinson et al., 2014, Roman et al., 2011, Savage et al., 2012).

Despite these barriers, patients and clinicians have begun to recognize the advantages and disadvantages of buprenorphine relative to methadone, and as restrictions on buprenorphine have been relaxed, its use has spread (SAMHSA, 2014). Factors driving physicians' and patients' decisions between these two medications, however, remain unclear. Likewise, we know little about how opioid-dependent patients' preferences and previous experiences influence treatment decisions. What is known is based on studies of predominantly male heroin users; privately insured patients have been understudied. Understanding the factors that enhance treatment engagement and retention (Institute of Medicine, 2006), while identifying the factors that influence treatment preferences could lead to improved patient-centered treatment for substance use disorders.

As part of a larger study examining the adoption of buprenorphine, we conducted semi-structured interviews with a sample of individuals with opioid dependence. Using text from these interviews, we examined: (1) participants' comparisons of buprenorphine vs. methadone treatment; (2) interactions with clinicians about treatment options; and (3) choices participants made about opioid agonist therapy.

Section snippets

Methods

The Treatment Options Study (TOP) was a mixed-methods study of the adoption of buprenorphine in two health plans that provide integrated, comprehensive inpatient and outpatient care, including addiction and mental health treatment. This paper's qualitative analysis of patient interviews complements prior analyses of service use (McCarty et al., 2010), costs of care (Lynch et al., 2014), and clinician and health system administrator perspectives (Green et al., 2014).

Participant characteristics

Mean age of participants (N = 283) was 40 years (SD = 12.2) and did not differ from mean age of eligible participants in the integrated health systems. Just over half were women (55.5%), slightly over representing women in the eligible population. Other data (e.g., race/ethnicity) were not available in the health system records for comparison of the recruited sample to the eligible membership. Among interview participants 56% reported some college or technical schooling (56%), while 56% were also

Discussion

Our results reinforce and extend a small literature on opioid-dependent patients' preferences for medication-assisted treatment. Consistent with earlier research documenting decision processes regarding treatment for opioid dependence were our findings that prior experience with medications, fear of continued addiction or withdrawal (particularly with methadone), and desire to avoid methadone and its associated stigma all can play an important role in treatment decision-making (Gryczynski et

Role of funding source

An award from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01 DA016341) supported data collection and analysis. The sponsoring agency had no role in the study design, the analysis or interpretation of the results, the writing of the report, or the decision to submit the paper for publication.

Contributors

Bobbi Jo Yarborough led the qualitative analysis, interpreted the results, and drafted the manuscript. Scott P. Stumbo contributed to the qualitative analysis and revisions of the text. Jennifer Mertens participated in the qualitative analysis and interpretation. Dennis McCarty and Carla A. Green participated in the qualitative analysis and interpretation. Drs. McCarty, Weisner, and Green designed the study and contributed to critical revisions of the text.

Funding

Dr. Yarborough has received grant support from NIDA, NIMH, NIDDK, NCCAM, AHRQ, the Kaiser Permanente Center for Safety and Effectiveness Research, the Kaiser Permanente Community Benefit Initiative, Purdue Pharma LP, and the Industry PMR Consortium, a consortium of ten companies working together to conduct FDA-required post-marketing studies that assess known risks related to extended-release, long-acting opioid analgesics. The Industry PMR consortium is comprised of Pfizer, Purdue Pharma,

Acknowledgements

We appreciate and thank the patients who gave us their time to participate in interviews. Thanks also go to the interviewers: Sue Leung, Ph.D.; Alison Firemark M.A.; Cynthia Perry-Baker, B.S.; Christine Lou, Ph.D.; and Melanie Jackson, B.S. We thank project managers Agatha Hinman, Shannon Janoff, Leah Wolfe, and Alison Firemark.

References (31)

  • D. Deck et al.

    Access to publicly funded methadone maintenance treatment in two western states

    J. Behav. Health Serv. Res.

    (2004)
  • K. Fornili et al.

    Buprenorphine prescribing: why physicians aren't and nurse prescribers can't

    J. Addict. Nurs.

    (2012)
  • S. Friese

    User's Manual for ATLAS.ti 6.0

    (2011)
  • B.G. Glaser et al.

    The Discovery Of Grounded Theory: Strategies For Qualitative Research

    (1967)
  • A.J. Gordon et al.

    Facilitators and barriers in implementing buprenorphine in the Veterans Health Administration

    Psychol. Addict. Behav.

    (2011)
  • Cited by (112)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text