Comparative costs and potential affordability of a multifaceted intervention to improve treatment outcomes among people with HIV who inject drugs in Russia: economic evaluation of the LINC-II randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: The LINC-II randomized controlled trial in St. Petersburg, Russia for HIV-positive adults who inject drugs found that a multi-component intervention including initiation of antiretroviral therapy (ART) during admission to an addiction hospital, strengths-based case management and naltrexone significantly increased 12-month HIV viral suppression and ART retention. We conducted a comparative cost analysis to determine if the 12-month cost of the intervention is affordable within the current Russian health system. METHODS: We used LINC-II trial records and questionnaire responses to calculate the resources utilized by each participant in the study, including inpatient days, medications, laboratory tests, outpatient consultations, case manager interactions and opioid medication treatment. Quantities of resources utilized were multiplied by unit costs for each resource estimated from the service fee or price lists used by the study facilities for each specific service delivered. We report the average cost/study primary (viral suppression at 12 months) or secondary (retention in care at 12 months) outcome/participant in 2021 USD and compare costs between study arms. RESULTS: The trial enrolled 225 participants (111 intervention, 114 control) between September 2018 and December 2020. Viral suppression, non-suppression and missing suppression results were 28% and 14%, 49% and 37%, and 31% and 41% for the control and intervention arms, respectively. Retention results were 35% and 51% for the control and intervention arms, respectively. The average cost per study participant was $2714 in the control arm and $4342 in the intervention arm. The average cost per participant virally suppressed at 12 months was $3662 (control) and $6355 (intervention). The average cost per participant retained at 12 months was $4050 (control) and $5448 (intervention). For those retained, the cost difference between the arms was comprised of opioid treatment (35%), case management (31%), outpatient visits (18%) and additional days of ART (12%). CONCLUSIONS: The LINC-II intervention increased the cost of care for HIV-positive people who inject drugs in Russia significantly, but some components of the intervention, particularly earlier initiation of ART and case management, may be justifiable due to their success in reaching a challenging subgroup of the population in need. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NCT03290391.

A cross sectional survey of provider experiences with patient drug overdose death.

INTRODUCTION: A record number of drug overdose (OD) deaths occurred in the United States in 2021. We know little regarding the impact of patient drug OD deaths on providers within health care settings. The aim of this study was to assess provider preparedness and experience with patient drug OD death. METHODS: The study distributed an email invitation to individuals in the Provider Clinical Support System database in December 2020 to complete an anonymous web-based survey. We used multiple choice questions to assess provider demographics, preparedness to cope with patient OD death, and experience with patient OD death. The study evaluated stress associated with patient OD death using the Impact of Event Scale-Revised. We summarized responses using descriptive statistics. Associations between high stress after patient OD death and the impact of the death on clinical practice and the helpfulness of individuals and processes were assessed using Chi-square and Fisher's Exact tests. RESULTS: Among the 12,204 individuals who read the email invitation, 1064 opened the survey link, and 523 completed the survey. Participants were predominantly physicians (40.2 %) and counselors (25 %), 70 % female, 78.4 % white, with a mean age of 52 years. Among the participants 26.4 % felt at least very well prepared to cope with an OD death, and 27.7 % felt at least very well prepared to support a colleague with a patient OD death. Most respondents (55.1 %) had a history of a patient OD death. Many patient OD deaths were not discussed by providers with other colleagues, but when providers did discuss these deaths providers identified colleagues as being very helpful. Compared to providers with low stress after patient OD death, those with high levels of stress were more likely to refer patients to a higher level of care (p = 0.035). CONCLUSIONS: Many providers did not feel prepared themselves to cope with a patient OD death or support a colleague following this type of event. Patient OD deaths were a common experience, and providers did not frequently discuss their patient's deaths with others. A patient OD death can change clinical decision-making for providers experiencing high levels of stress related to the OD death.

Evaluation of a student clinical research education program in addiction medicine.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate an experiential student clinical addiction research program by analyzing its components, evaluation survey data, and scientific outputs. METHODS: In 1995, we established a summer research program supporting trainees to gain exposure to clinical addiction research careers. This curriculum employed a three-pronged approach that combined mentored research training, didactic education, and clinical observerships for medical students and other trainees to acquire experience with addiction medicine and research. Utilizing the Kirkpatrick model as program evaluation framework, we analyzed evaluation data from programmatic surveys (didactic seminar evaluations, overall program surveys) and conducted qualitative feedback exploration. RESULTS: Between 2007 and 2019, 56 trainees and 26 faculty mentors participated in the curriculum. To date, 25 students published 38 papers with their faculty mentor. Analysis of the past 12 years of program evaluation data demonstrated that students highly valued individually-mentored research experiences. They indicated that seminars familiarized them with the foundations of different clinical care models and career trajectories in addiction medicine. Clinical observerships provided students with patient contacts in various multidisciplinary addiction treatment settings. These experiences, perhaps most importantly hearing about patients' lived experiences, meaningfully informed various research and didactic activities. CONCLUSIONS: This summer student research program successfully introduced students to addiction medicine and research, manifested by high peer-reviewed publication productivity. While our program engaged and involved committed mentors and inspired mentees to pursue professional paths in addiction research, it did not specifically incorporate attention to equity and diversity into program planning and implementation. Going forward, the program will improve equity by increasing the recruitment of trainees from disadvantaged groups and engaging underrepresented faculty.KEY MESSAGESSummer programs can be effective in engaging medical students and trainees in research early in their trajectory and inspire them to incorporate research into their careers.Programs that integrate experiential addiction research learning, i.e. mentored research activities, didactic sessions, and clinical observerships, can provide trainees with a profound understanding of substance use disorder treatment and research.

Evaluation of an experiential clinical learning option during pandemic teaching suspensions.

BACKGROUND: As students' direct patient contact was suspended because of COVID-19-related restrictions, we revised our clinical addiction medicine curriculum for students to learn about the different multidisciplinary clinical models delivered at our hospital and in community settings. Our aim was to provide an overview of clinical modalities and familiarize learners with clinician and patient experiential perspectives. METHODS: We implemented a multi-pronged approach, offering an overview of clinical care programs through remote panels involving care providers at the clinics where students had previously been scheduled for in-person rotations. This included inpatient and office-based addiction services, addiction treatment program for adolescents and young adults, integrated addiction care and HIV primary care clinic, and opioid use urgent care clinic. Beyond having them join outpatient telehealth clinic visits, students also participated in an online panel involving patients in recovery to gain familiarity with their care perspectives; and joined a panel with recovery coaches to get further insights into patient challenges in clinical settings. Students further participated in remote opioid treatment trainings and observed clinical rounds of inpatient addiction consults and adolescent clinic team meetings. RESULTS: With this revised curriculum, students learned about the variety of clinical modalities at the height of our hospital's COVID-19 pandemic burden. The evaluation suggested that students appreciated the authenticity of accounts from patients and providers about their challenges and satisfaction related to clinical care. While in a remote learning setting, students overall wished for more personal interaction with patients and providers. They also noted a lack of group cohesion and connection that they felt would otherwise have been met in an in-person program. CONCLUSIONS: Remote learning allowed our program to connect trainees to the multidisciplinary field of addiction medicine despite the COVID-19 pandemic. In future program iterations, we will consider hybrid formats of in-person learning experiences with direct patient and faculty contact where possible, combined with online provider and patient panels possibly, in addition to virtual breakout formats to facilitate more personal student-patient and student-faculty interactions.