Study protocol of the ESUB-MG cluster randomized trial: a pragmatic trial assessing the implementation of urine drug screening in general practice for buprenorphine maintained patients

ESUB-MG Study Group, Julie Dupouy, Nicolas Authier, Philippe Binder, Paolo Di Patrizio, Gaétan Gentile, Jean-Pierre Kahn, Maryse Lapeyre-Mestre, Catherine Laporte, Laurent Letrilliart, Michel Mallaret, Christine Maynie, Joelle Micallef, Stéphane Oustric, Marie-Christine Perault-Pochat, ESUB-MG Study Group, Julie Dupouy, Nicolas Authier, Philippe Binder, Paolo Di Patrizio, Gaétan Gentile, Jean-Pierre Kahn, Maryse Lapeyre-Mestre, Catherine Laporte, Laurent Letrilliart, Michel Mallaret, Christine Maynie, Joelle Micallef, Stéphane Oustric, Marie-Christine Perault-Pochat

Abstract

Background: In addiction care, urine drug screening tests are recommended to assess psychoactive substances use. While intrinsic diagnostic value of these tests is demonstrated, the consequences of carrying out these tests on opiate maintenance treatment (OMT) have not been established. The main objective will be to assess the impact of on-site urine drug screening tests (OS-UDS) in general practice compared to routine medical care on OMT retention at 6 months in opioid-dependent patients initiating buprenorphine.

Methods/design: The ESUB-MG study uses a pragmatic, cluster randomized controlled trial design. General Practitioners (GPs) regularly managing patients treated with buprenorphine and consenting for participating will be invited to participate. GPs will be randomly assigned to one of two groups for 6 to 24 months: (a) control group (usual care: standard medical strategy for assessing drug use); (b) interventional group (including 1/ a training session on practice and interpretation of OS-UDS; 2/ the supply of OS-UDS at GPs' medical offices; 3/ performing an OS-UDS before the first prescription of buprénorphine). GPs will have to include 1 to 10 patients aged 18 years-old or more, consulting for starting treatment by buprenorphine, not opposed to participate. The primary outcome will be OMT retention at 6 months.

Discussion: This randomized interventional trial should bring sufficient level of evidence to assess effectiveness of performing OS-UDS in general practice for patients treated by buprenorphine. Training GPs to drug tests and supplying them in their office should lead to an improvement of opioid-addicted patients' care through helping decision.

Trials registration: NCT02345655 (first registration May 14, 2014).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Design of the ESUB-MG pragmatic randomized controlled trial

References

    1. Dole VP, Nyswander ME. Heroin addiction--a metabolic disease. Arch Intern Med. 1967;120:19–24. doi: 10.1001/archinte.1967.00300010021004.
    1. Nyswander M, Dole VP. The present status of methadone blockade treatment. Am J Psychiatry. 1967;123:1441–2. doi: 10.1176/ajp.123.11.1441.
    1. Darke S, Hall W. Heroin overdose: research and evidence-based intervention. J Urban Health. 2003;80:189–200. doi: 10.1093/jurban/jtg022.
    1. Amato L, Davoli M, Perucci CA, Ferri M, Faggiano F, Mattick RP. An overview of systematic reviews of the effectiveness of opiate maintenance therapies: available evidence to inform clinical practice and research. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2005;28:321–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2005.02.007.
    1. Mattick RP, Kimber J, Breen C, Davoli M. Buprenorphine maintenance versus placebo or methadone maintenance for opioid dependence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;3:CD002207.
    1. Bruce RD, Govindasamy S, Sylla L, Kamarulzaman A, Altice FL. Lack of Reduction in Buprenorphine Injection After Introduction of Co-Formulated Buprenorphine/Naloxone to the Malaysian Market. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2009;35:68–72. doi: 10.1080/00952990802585406.
    1. Simojoki K, Vorma H, Alho H. A retrospective evaluation of patients switched from buprenorphine (subutex) to the buprenorphine/naloxone combination (suboxone) Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2008;3:16. doi: 10.1186/1747-597X-3-16.
    1. Commission nationale des stupefiants et psychotropes - Seance du 17/02/2011. Available from:
    1. Fatseas M, Auriacombe M. Why buprenorphine is so successful in treating opiate addiction in France. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2007;9:358–64. doi: 10.1007/s11920-007-0046-2.
    1. Auriacombe M, Fatséas M, Dubernet J, Daulouède J-P, Tignol J. French field experience with buprenorphine. Am J Addict. 2004;13(Suppl 1):S17–28. doi: 10.1080/10550490490440780.
    1. Dupouy J, Bismuth S, Oustric S, Lapeyre-Mestre M. On-Site Drugs of Abuse Urinary Screening Tests for the Management of Opiate-Addicted Patients: A Survey among French General Practitioners. Eur Addict Res. 2012;18:175–83. doi: 10.1159/000336540.
    1. Lavie E, Fatséas M, Daulouède J-P, Denis C, Dubernet J, Cattan L, et al. Comparison of prescriber evaluations and patient-directed self-reports in office-based practice for buprenorphine treatment of opiate-dependent individuals in France, 2002. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2008;2:369–78.
    1. Lapeyre-Mestre M, Llau M-E, Gony M, Navel A-M, Bez J, Grau M, et al. Opiate maintenance with buprenorphine in ambulatory care: a 24-week follow-up study of new users. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2003;72:297–303. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2003.08.005.
    1. Galletly CA, Field CD, Prior M. Urine drug screening of patients admitted to a state psychiatric hospital. Hosp Community Psychiatry. 1993;44:587–9.
    1. Kilpatrick B, Howlett M, Sedgwick P, Ghodse AH. Drug use, self report and urinalysis. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2000;58:111–6. doi: 10.1016/S0376-8716(99)00066-6.
    1. Lundy A, Gottheil E, McLellan AT, Weinstein SP, Sterling RC, Serota RD. Underreporting of cocaine use at posttreatment follow-up and the measurement of treatment effectiveness. J Nerv Ment Dis. 1997;185:459–62. doi: 10.1097/00005053-199707000-00007.
    1. Olshaker JS, Browne B, Jerrard DA, Prendergast H, Stair TO. Medical clearance and screening of psychiatric patients in the emergency department. Acad Emerg Med. 1997;4:124–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.1997.tb03718.x.
    1. Perrone J, De Roos F, Jayaraman S, Hollander JE. Drug screening versus history in detection of substance use in ED psychiatric patients. Am J Emerg Med. 2001;19:49–51. doi: 10.1053/ajem.2001.20003.
    1. Mordal J, Holm B, Mørland J, Bramness JG. Recent substance intake among patients admitted to acute psychiatric wards: physician’s assessment and on-site urine testing compared with comprehensive laboratory analyses. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2010;30:455–9. doi: 10.1097/JCP.0b013e3181e61923.
    1. Zullino DF, Krenz S, Eap CB, Benguettat D, Khan R. Over- and underreporting of recent drug use in subjects entering an inpatient detoxification unit. Eur J Med Res. 2008;13:15–20.
    1. Haute Autorité de Santé. Stratégie thérapeutique pour les personnes dépendantes des opiacés: place des traitements de substitution. 2004. Available from:
    1. AFSSAPS. Initiation et suivi du traitement substitutif de la pharmacodépendance majeure aux opiacés par buprénorphine haut dosage (BHD) - Mise au point. 2011. Available from:
    1. Pesce A, Rosenthal M, West R, West C, Crews B, Mikel C, et al. An evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry versus immunoassay drug testing in pain patients. Pain Physician. 2010;13:273–81.
    1. Bagøien G, Morken G, Zahlsen K, Aamo T, Spigset O. Evaluation of a urine on-site drugs of abuse screening test in patients admitted to a psychiatric emergency unit. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2009;29:248–54. doi: 10.1097/JCP.0b013e3181a45e78.
    1. Manchikanti L, Manchukonda R, Pampati V, Damron KS, Brandon DE, Cash KA, et al. Does random urine drug testing reduce illicit drug use in chronic pain patients receiving opioids? Pain Physician. 2006;9:123–9.
    1. Manchikanti L, Malla Y, Wargo BW, Fellows B. Comparative evaluation of the accuracy of benzodiazepine testing in chronic pain patients utilizing immunoassay with liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) of urine drug testing. Pain Physician. 2011;14:259–70.
    1. Dupouy J, Dassieu L, Bourrel R, Poutrain J-C, Bismuth S, Oustric S, et al. Effectiveness of drug tests in outpatients starting opioid substitution therapy. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2013;44:515–21. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2012.11.006.
    1. McCowan C, Kidd B, Fahey T. Factors associated with mortality in Scottish patients receiving methadone in primary care: retrospective cohort study. BMJ. 2009;338:b2225. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2225.
    1. Jouanjus E, Gibaja V, Kahn J-P, Haramburu F, Daveluy A. Signal identification in addictovigilance: the functioning of the French system. Therapie. 2015;70:113–31. doi: 10.2515/therapie/2015009.
    1. Baumevieille M, Daveluy A, Maurain C, Bégaud B, Haramburu F. Medicines submitted to narcotics regulations in France, 1992–2007. Fundam Clin Pharmacol. 2009;23:345–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1472-8206.2009.00678.x.
    1. National Institute on Drug Abuse. Research Monograph 73: Urine testing for drugs of abuse. 1986. Available from:
    1. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Mandatory guidelines for federal workplace drug testing progams; notice. 2008. Available from:
    1. Moeller KE, Lee KC, Kissack JC. Urine drug screening: practical guide for clinicians. Mayo Clin Proc. 2008;83:66–76. doi: 10.4065/83.1.66.
    1. Nordmann S, Frauger E, Pauly V, Orléans V, Pradel V, Mallaret M, et al. Misuse of buprenorphine maintenance treatment since introduction of its generic forms: OPPIDUM survey. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2012;21:184–90. doi: 10.1002/pds.2263.
    1. Roux P, Lions C, Michel L, Cohen J, Mora M, Marcellin F, et al. Predictors of Non-Adherence to Methadone Maintenance Treatment in Opioid-Dependent Individuals: Implications for Clinicians. Curr Pharm Des. 2013;20:4097–105. doi: 10.2174/13816128113199990623.
    1. Leino A, Loo B-M. Comparison of three commercial tests for buprenorphine screening in urine. Ann Clin Biochem. 2007;44:563–5. doi: 10.1258/000456307782268129.
    1. Cornish R, Macleod J, Strang J, Vickerman P, Hickman M. Risk of death during and after opiate substitution treatment in primary care: prospective observational study in UK General Practice Research Database. BMJ. 2010;341:c5475. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c5475.
    1. Schwarz R, Zelenev A, Bruce RD, Altice FL. Retention on buprenorphine treatment reduces emergency department utilization, but not hospitalization, among treatment-seeking patients with opioid dependence. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2012;43:451–7. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2012.03.008.
    1. Moulis G, Lapeyre-Mestre M, Palmaro A, Pugnet G, Montastruc J-L, Sailler L. French health insurance databases: What interest for medical research? Rev Med Interne. 2015;34:411–7. doi: 10.1016/j.revmed.2014.11.009.
    1. da Silveira DP, Artmann E. Accuracy of probabilistic record linkage applied to health databases: systematic review. Rev Saude Publica. 2009;43:875–82. doi: 10.1590/S0034-89102009005000060.
    1. Perlbarg J, Allonier C, Boisnault P, Daniel F, Le Fur P, Szidon P, et al. Feasibility and practical value of statistical matching of a general practice database and a health insurance database applied to diabetes and hypertension. Sante Publique. 2014;26:355–63.
    1. Wears RL. Advanced statistics: statistical methods for analyzing cluster and cluster-randomized data. Acad Emerg Med. 2002;9:330–41. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2002.tb01332.x.
    1. van Breukelen GJP, Candel MJJM, Berger MPF. Relative efficiency of unequal versus equal cluster sizes in cluster randomized and multicentre trials. Stat Med. 2007;26:2589–603. doi: 10.1002/sim.2740.
    1. Laurence C, Gialamas A, Yelland L, Bubner T, Ryan P, Willson K, et al. A pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial to evaluate the safety, clinical effectiveness, cost effectiveness and satisfaction with point of care testing in a general practice setting - rationale, design and baseline characteristics. Trials. 2008;9:50. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-9-50.
    1. Hayes RJ, Moulton LH. Cluster randomised trials. Chapman & Hall / CRC: CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group; 2009.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer och medarbetare

Medicinska tillstånd

Läkemedelsinterventioner

3
Prenumerera