Medication-assisted treatment for opioid addiction: the family physician's role

- Kenny Lin, MD, MPH

Millions of Americans suffer from a potentially fatal disease that has become so common over the past decade that it has lowered the average life expectancy and has particularly devastated vulnerable populations, such as adults with mental health disorders. Although effective medications exist to treat this national health emergency, only a small fraction of family physicians can prescribe them, and even certified physicians face numerous obstacles to providing treatment where their services were most needed. Instead, most efforts have focused on disseminating guidelines to prevent this condition, mostly by reducing known risk factors. Unfortunately, most of what we know about prevention is only supported by low-quality evidence on patient outcomes.

I am writing, of course, about the epidemic of opioid use disorder and overdoses. In an editorial in the Sept. 15 issue of AFP, Dr. Jennifer Middleton argued that while reducing the risk of addiction through the selective and responsible prescribing of opioid medications for pain is important, it is not sufficient to turn the tide. Observing that there is a critical shortage of substance abuse subspecialists, she encouraged family physicians to obtain a Drug Abuse Treatment Act of 2000 (DATA 2000) waiver to prescribe buprenorphine:

Family physicians ... are already adept at combining behavioral interventions with medication management for chronic diseases such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; addiction treatment requires a similar combination of lifestyle coaching and prescription oversight. ... 

Buprenorphine is no more complex or difficult to manage than many other treatments routinely used in primary care. Additionally, our specialty has historically embraced the needs of populations labeled as difficult or challenging, such as homeless persons, refugees, and those with developmental disabilities or mental illness. Patients who are struggling with addiction are no less deserving of our attention.

Whether or not medication-assisted treatment (MAT) for opioid use disorder should become part of every family physician's scope of practice is a subject of intense debate, most recently in a pair of Point/Counterpoint editorials in the Annals of Family Medicine. Echoing Dr. Middleton, Dr. David Loxtercamp wrote about his "conversion experience" - the 19 year-old patient with whom he realized that he needed to be able to prescribe MAT to provide adequate care to her and so many others like her. "I am still involved [in MAT]," he wrote, "because I am a doctor and this is the epidemic of our time, a social tsunami that can be traced to my prescription - and yours. ... Addiction is a chronic disease that is decimating our communities. We need no other reason to embrace its treatment within every primary care practice."

Taking the opposite view that not every family physician can "be at the front lines" of the fight against the opioid epidemic, Dr. Richard Hill outlined several other factors that weigh against most family physicians prescribing MAT: specialized treatment required, comorbid psychiatric illness, methods shortcomings of emerging models of care, and the risk that taking on this additional responsibility would create more job dissatisfaction and burnout. "Even if further research establishes an 'optimal' model of care for use in primary care," he asserted, "the nature of the disease [opioid use disorder] itself will place undue clinical burden on an already overextended clinical workforce. Perhaps future efforts and funding should be directed toward the development of readily accessible referral networks of mental health/addiction centers, both public and private."

Both sides of the debate make compelling points. What do you think the family physician's role should be in MAT for opioid addiction?

Prompting physicians and patients increases colorectal cancer screening

- Jennifer Middleton, MD, MPH

Despite multiple available options for colorectal cancer screening, a significant portion of adults aged 50-74 in the United States do not get screened as frequently as recommended by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). A pair of studies this past week describe moderately successful outreach strategies to patients and physicians, respectively, to boost rates.

The first study randomized nearly 6000 US adults aged 50-64 who were not up to date on their colon cancer screening into 3 groups: a colonoscopy outreach group, a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach group, and a usual care group. Participants in the colonoscopy outreach group received mailings encouraging them to call to schedule a colonoscopy; if they didn't within 2 weeks, research staff called them. Participants in the FIT outreach group received mailings with a FIT kit and accompanying instructions. 38.4% of the colonoscopy outreach group and 28.0% of the FIT outreach group completed screening compared to only 10.7% of the usual care group. In the discussion section, the authors note some disappointment that "screening process completion for both outreach groups remained below 40%, highlighting the potential for further improvement."

The second study randomized nearly 1500 general practitioners in France into 3 groups: physicians in the first group received a personalized letter listing all of their patients who were not up to date on colorectal cancer screening, physicians in the second group received a letter describing their region's overall screening rate, and physicians in the third group received no communication at all. The researchers found a small increase in colorectal cancer screening rates in the physician group that received personalized letters (24.8% versus 21.7% for the regional screening information group versus 20.6% for the usual care group) that was statistically significant compared to the other 2 groups. In the discussion section, these authors note that this increase was "modest" and that they, similar to the study described above, also expected a higher screening rate than their results found.

Dr. Lin has written previously on the blog about the various methods available to screen for colorectal cancer in the US and the USPSTF's lack of guidance regarding which method to choose. The USPSTF states that, in addition to colonoscopy and FIT, fecal DNA testing and CT colonography are also options, and the task force encourages physicians to choose the test "that would most likely result in completion." You can read more about these methods in this 2015 AFP article and in the AFP By Topic on Colorectal Cancer.

I'd like to see a study that combines outreach efforts to physicians and patients; it would be interesting to see if the effect is additive in terms of increasing rates. In the meantime, perhaps your own office might create or review a registry of patients not up to date on their colorectal cancer screening, while also providing physicians with a list of these patients. Perhaps you might implement a standard script to discuss colorectal cancer screening with patients at appointments. Or, perhaps you might hire or train an existing staff member to serve as a care coordinator to manage these lists and reach out to patients.

With so many methods to choose from, which one will your office try next to improve colorectal cancer screening rates?

Blood pressure goals in patients with CKD: how low should we go?

- Kenny Lin, MD, MPH

In 2013, the Eighth Joint National Committee (JNC 8) recommended that adults with hypertension and chronic kidney disease (CKD) be treated to a blood pressure (BP) goal of lower than 140/90, after finding no evidence that treating to lower BP goals showed the progression of CKD. At the same time, the American College of Physicians published a guideline on screening, monitoring, and treatment of Stage 1 to 3 CKD that suggested pharmacologic therapy with an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin II receptor blocker, but noted "no difference in end-stage renal disease or mortality between strict blood pressure control (128 to 133/75 to 81 mm Hg) and standard control (134 to 141/81 to 87 mm Hg)."

Less than two years later, however, findings from the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) suggested that some older adults at high risk of cardiovascular disease, including those with CKD, may experience additional benefits if treated to a systolic BP goal of 120. After reviewing SPRINT and other recent studies, the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American College of Physicians decided in a new guideline for adults aged 60 years or older to stick with a systolic BP goal of 140 for adults at high cardiovascular risk.

Two systematic reviews and meta-analyses published recently in JAMA Internal Medicine ensure that debate about BP goals for adults with CKD will continue. The first study, by Dr. Wan-Chuan Tsai and colleagues, identified 9 randomized trials (n=8127) that compared intensive BP control (less than 130/80 mm Hg) with standard BP control (less than 140/90 mm Hg) in nondiabetic patients with chronic kidney disease. They found no significant differences between the groups in annual rate of change in glomerular filtration rate (GFR), doubling of serum creatinine level, a composite renal outcome, or all-cause mortality over a median follow-up of 3.3 years.

The second study, by Dr. Rakesh Malhotra and colleagues, extracted data from 18 randomized trials that included 15,924 participants with CKD to determine if more intensive (mean systolic BP 132 mm Hg) compared with less intensive (mean systolic BP 140 mm Hg) control reduced mortality risk in persons with CKD stages 3 to 5. The authors found that more intensive BP control was associated with a statistically significant 14% lower relative risk of all-cause mortality.

An accompanying editorial by Dr. Csaba Kovesdy did a good job of putting these findings into perspective. Dr. Kovesdy pointed out that the benefits of a systolic BP goal of 120 for persons with CKD remain uncertain, and that the meta-analysis could have low external validity because trials had much lower absolute mortality rates than those in observational cohorts of adults with CKD. Finally, he observed that any incremental mortality benefit from intensive BP control is small in comparison to that already achieved by standard BP control:

We must remember that the highest risks of hypertension occur in those with extremely elevated BP levels, and the benefits accrued with treating systolic BP to levels below about 140 mm Hg are much smaller. ... More intensive vs less intensive BP lowering resulted in a [number needed to treat] to prevent 1 death of 167 based on the absolute risk reduction estimated in the meta-analysis by Malhotra et al and an NNT to prevent 1 composite renal failure event of 250 based on the results of another meta-analysis. These diminishing absolute benefits have to be weighed against the increased likelihood of adverse effects and the higher costs associated with more intensive BP lowering.

Bottom line: if family physicians choose to devote more resources to patients with CKD or other cardiovascular risk factors who might benefit from lower-than-usual BP goals, they should not lose focus on improving care for the 46% of U.S. adults with hypertension whose BPs are not adequately controlled by any standard.

Using clinical risk scores wisely

- Jennifer Middleton, MD, MPH

Physicians have several clinical calculator apps to choose from, but guidance about choosing the right score and interpreting its results isn't always as readily available. Busy family physicians looking to enhance their use of clinical risk scores will find several discussed among the articles in the current issue of AFP; understanding the nuances of each may help physicians choose the best ones to "favorite" in their calculator app of choice.

A practice guideline on "Newly Detected Atrial Fibrillation" and an editorial on the "Differences Between the AAFP Atrial Fibrillation Guideline and the AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline" both include a discussion on risk scores to predict stroke and bleeding risk in these patients. Using the CHA2DS2-VASc score increases the number of persons recommended to receive anticoagulation compared to the CHADS2 score, but the authors of both articles argue that these risk scores' ability to predict stroke risk is identical. Interestingly, neither of the clinical calculator apps that I have on my smartphone include the CHA2DS2-VASc score. The practice guideline does describe the HAS-BLED score's ability to predict bleeding risk as "slightly better" than other bleeding risk scores for patients on anticoagulation.

"Pleuritic Chest Pain: Sorting Through the Differential Diagnosis" discusses the importance of ruling out pulmonary embolism (PE), the most common life-threatening cause of pleuritic chest pain. The authors advocate for using a validated risk score in patients presenting with pleuritic chest pain to guide decisions about testing for PE; one of the reference articles describes several available validated risk scores but lists the Wells rule as "widely validated and commonly used;" regardless of the score used, a negative D-dimer test in a patient with a low pre-test probability score usually negates the need for further testing.

Similarly, "Exercise Stress Testing: Indications and Common Questions" discusses the use of the Diamond and Forrester score to calculate the pre-test probability of coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with chest pain. Exercise stress testing provides the highest diagnostic utility in patients with an intermediate pre-test probability for CAD; low risk patients with negative cardiac enzymes typically require no further testing, and high risk patients should receive prompt intervention.

The AFP By Topic on Point-of-Care Guides provides not only numerous risk scores to use with patients but also an evidence-based summary of how to use them each in practice. You can bookmark this department collection and also save your most-used clinical calculator websites under your AAFP "Favorites" tab for easy future reference.