Primary care and medication management characteristics among patients receiving office-based opioid treatment with buprenorphine

3Citations
Citations of this article
33Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: Office-based opioid treatment (OBOT) is an evidence-based treatment model for opioid use disorder (OUD) offered by both addiction and general primary care providers (PCPs). Calls exist for more PCPs to offer OBOT. Few studies have been conducted on the primary care characteristics of OBOT patients. Objective: To characterize medical conditions, medications, and treatment outcomes among patients receiving OBOT with buprenorphine for OUD, and to describe differences among patients by age and by time in care. Methods: This study is a retrospective review of medical records on or before 4/29/2019 at an outpatient primary care clinic within a nonprofit addiction treatment setting. Inclusion criterion was all clinic patients actively enrolled in the OBOT program. Patients not prescribed buprenorphine or with no OBOT visits were excluded. Results: Of 355 patients, 42.0% had another PCP. Common comorbid conditions included chronic pain and psychiatric diagnosis. Few patients had chronic viral hepatitis or HIV. Patients reported a median of 4 medications. Common medications were cardiovascular, antidepressant, and nonopioid pain agents. Older patients had a higher median number of medications. There was no significant difference in positive opioid urine toxicology (UT) based on age, chronic pain status, or psychoactive medications. Patients retained >1 year were less likely to have positive opioid UT. Conclusion: Clinical needs of many patients receiving OBOT are similar to those of the general population, supporting calls for PCPs to provide OBOT.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Du, C. X., Shi, J., Tetrault, J. M., Madden, L. M., & Barry, D. T. (2022). Primary care and medication management characteristics among patients receiving office-based opioid treatment with buprenorphine. Family Practice, 39(2), 234–240. https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmab166

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free