Self-reported pain severity and use of cannabis and opioids in persons with HIV in an urban primary care setting in Northern California: A cross-sectional study.

Persons with HIV (PWH) experience high levels of pain. We examined the relationship of pain severity with use of cannabis and prescription opioids among PWH. This cross-sectional study evaluated associations between self-reported pain (moderate/severe vs mild/none) and cannabis and prescription opioid use in a primary care sample of PWH enrolled in an alcohol use treatment study at Kaiser Permanente, San Francisco. Prevalence ratios (PR) for moderate/severe pain associated with cannabis, opioid use, or both in the prior 30 days were obtained from Poisson regression models. Adjusted models included race/ethnicity, education, employment, HIV ribonucleic acid levels, depression, and anxiety. Overall, 614 PWH completed baseline questionnaires from May 2013 to May 2015, among whom 182/614 (29.6%) reported moderate/severe pain. The prevalence of moderate/severe pain varied by substances: 19.1% moderate/severe pain among study participants who reported neither cannabis or opioids, 30.2% for cannabis alone, 41.2% for opioids alone, and 60.9% for those reporting both substances. In adjusted models, compared with PWH who reported neither substance (reference), prevalence of moderate/severe pain was higher for those using cannabis alone (PR 1.54; 95% CI 1.13-2.09), opioids alone (PR 1.96; 95% CI 1.31-2.94), and those reporting both (PR 2.66; 95% CI 1.91-3.70). PWH who reported opioid and/or cannabis use were more likely to report moderate/severe pain compared with PWH who did not report use of these substances. To improve patient care, it is vital to assess patients' approaches to pain management including substance use and target appropriate interventions to reduce pain in PWH.

Addiction Medicine Treatment Utilization by Race/Ethnicity Among Adolescents With Substance Use Problems Before Versus During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

PURPOSE: To examine changes in addiction medicine treatment utilization during the COVID-19 pandemic among adolescents (aged 13-17 years) and differences by race/ethnicity. METHODS: We compared treatment initiation (overall and telehealth), engagement, and 12-week retention between insured adolescents with substance use problems during pre-COVID-19 (March to December 2019, n = 1,770) and COVID-19 (March to December 2020, n = 1,177) using electronic health record data from Kaiser Permanente Northern California. RESULTS: Compared to pre-COVID-19, odds of treatment initiation, overall (adjusted odds ratio [95% confidence interval] = 1.42 [1.21-1.67]), and telehealth (5.98 [4.59-7.80]) were higher during COVID-19, but odds of engagement and retention did not significantly change. Depending on the outcome, Asian/Pacific Islander, Black, and Latino/Hispanic (vs. White) adolescents had lower treatment utilization across both periods. Changes in utilization over time did not differ by race/ethnicity. DISCUSSION: Addiction medicine treatment initiation increased among insured adolescents during the pandemic, especially via telehealth. Although racial/ethnic disparities in treatment utilization persisted, they did not worsen.

Association of Adverse Childhood Experiences and Resilience With Depression and Anxiety During Pregnancy.

This was a retrospective cohort study of pregnant individuals in the Kaiser Permanente Northern California system who were screened for adverse childhood experiences and resilience as part of standard prenatal care at about 16 weeks of gestation. Overall, 14,625 pregnancies were included; 17.0% had newly identified depression; 9.8% had newly identified depression symptoms; and 8.9% had newly identified anxiety during the pregnancy with no known preexisting diagnosis. We found that adverse childhood experiences and low resilience were independently associated with newly identified depressive disorders, depression symptoms, and anxiety disorders during pregnancy. When adverse childhood experiences and resilience were modeled in combination, the greatest odds of each outcome occurred in individuals with a combination of four or more adverse childhood experiences and low resilience (vs no adverse childhood experiences and high resilience): depression adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 6.43 (95% CI, 5.23-7.90), depression symptoms aOR 9.49 (95% CI, 7.50-12.0), and anxiety disorder aOR 4.79 (95% CI, 3.81-6.02). Routine screening for adverse childhood experiences and resilience may identify individuals at risk of developing prenatal depression and anxiety, allowing faster resource linkage and potentially improved maternal and child outcomes.

Tools to implement measurement-based care (MBC) in the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD): toward a consensus.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence and associated overdose death rates from opioid use disorder (OUD) have dramatically increased in the last decade. Despite more available treatments than 20 years ago, treatment access and high discontinuation rates are challenges, as are personalized medication dosing and making timely treatment changes when treatments fail. In other fields such as depression, brief measures to address these tasks combined with an action plan-so-called measurement-based care (MBC)-have been associated with better outcomes. This workgroup aimed to determine whether brief measures can be identified for using MBC for optimizing dosing or informing treatment decisions in OUD. METHODS: The National Institute on Drug Abuse Center for the Clinical Trials Network (NIDA CCTN) in 2022 convened a small workgroup to develop consensus about clinically usable measures to improve the quality of treatment delivery with MBC methods for OUD. Two clinical tasks were addressed: (1) to identify the optimal dose of medications for OUD for each patient and (2) to estimate the effectiveness of a treatment for a particular patient once implemented, in a more granular fashion than the binary categories of early or sustained remission or no remission found in The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition (DSM-5). DISCUSSION: Five parameters were recommended to personalize medication dose adjustment: withdrawal symptoms, opioid use, magnitude (severity and duration) of the subjective effects when opioids are used, craving, and side effects. A brief rating of each OUD-specific parameter to adjust dosing and a global assessment or verbal question for side-effects was viewed as sufficient. Whether these ratings produce better outcomes (e.g., treatment engagement and retention) in practice deserves study. There was consensus that core signs and symptoms of OUD based on some of the 5 DSM-5 domains (e.g., craving, withdrawal) should be the basis for assessing treatment outcome. No existing brief measure was found to meet all the consensus recommendations. Next steps would be to select, adapt or develop de novo items/brief scales to inform clinical decision-making about dose and treatment effectiveness. Psychometric testing, assessment of acceptability and whether the use of such scales produces better symptom control, quality of life (QoL), daily function or better prognosis as compared to treatment as usual deserves investigation.

A patient activation intervention in primary care for patients with chronic pain on long term opioid therapy: results from a randomized control trial.

BACKGROUND: Given significant risks associated with long-term prescription opioid use, there is a need for non-pharmacological interventions for treating chronic pain. Activating patients to manage chronic pain has the potential to improve health outcomes. The ACTIVATE study was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of a 4-session patient activation intervention in primary care for patients on long-term opioid therapy. METHODS: The two-arm, pragmatic, randomized trial was conducted in two primary care clinics in an integrated health system from June 2015-August 2018. Consenting participants were randomized to the intervention (n = 189) or usual care (n = 187). Participants completed online and interviewer-administered surveys at baseline, 6- and 12- months follow-up. Prescription opioid use was extracted from the EHR. The primary outcome was patient activation assessed by the Patient Activation Measure (PAM). Secondary outcomes included mood, function, overall health, non-pharmacologic pain management strategies, and patient portal use. We conducted a repeated measure analysis and reported between-group differences at 12 months. RESULTS: At 12 months, the intervention and usual care arms had similar PAM scores. However, compared to usual care at 12 months, the intervention arm demonstrated: less moderate/severe depression (odds ratio [OR] = 0.40, 95%CI 0.18-0.87); higher overall health (OR = 3.14, 95%CI 1.64-6.01); greater use of the patient portal's health/wellness resources (OR = 2.50, 95%CI 1.42-4.40) and lab/immunization history (OR = 2.70, 95%CI 1.29-5.65); and greater use of meditation (OR = 2.72; 95%CI 1.61-4.58) and exercise/physical therapy (OR = 2.24, 95%CI 1.29-3.88). At 12 months, the intervention arm had a higher physical health measure (mean difference 1.63; 95%CI: 0.27-2.98). CONCLUSION: This trial evaluated the effectiveness of a primary care intervention in improving patient activation and patient-reported outcomes among adults with chronic pain on long-term opioid therapy. Despite a lack of improvement in patient activation, a brief intervention in primary care can improve outcomes such as depression, overall health, non-pharmacologic pain management, and engagement with the health system. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered on 10/27/14 on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02290223).

Association of initial opioid prescription duration and an opioid refill by pain diagnosis: Evidence from outpatient settings in ten US health systems.

OBJECTIVE: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's 2022 Clinical Practice Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Pain cautioned that inflexible opioid prescription duration limits may harm patients. Information about the relationship between initial opioid prescription duration and a subsequent refill could inform prescribing policies and practices to optimize patient outcomes. We assessed the association between initial opioid duration and an opioid refill prescription. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adults ≥19 years of age in 10 US health systems between 2013 and 2018 from outpatient care with a diagnosis for back pain without radiculopathy, back pain with radiculopathy, neck pain, joint pain, tendonitis/bursitis, mild musculoskeletal pain, severe musculoskeletal pain, urinary calculus, or headache. Generalized additive models were used to estimate the association between opioid days' supply and a refill prescription. RESULTS: Overall, 220,797 patients were prescribed opioid analgesics upon an outpatient visit for pain. Nearly a quarter (23.5%) of the cohort received an opioid refill prescription during follow-up. The likelihood of a refill generally increased with initial duration for most pain diagnoses. About 1 to 3 fewer patients would receive a refill within 3 months for every 100 patients initially prescribed 3 vs. 7 days of opioids for most pain diagnoses. The lowest likelihood of refill was for a 1-day supply for all pain diagnoses, except for severe musculoskeletal pain (9 days' supply) and headache (3-4 days' supply). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term prescription opioid use increased modestly with initial opioid prescription duration for most but not all pain diagnoses examined.

Prescription Opioid Dose Reductions and Potential Adverse Events: a Multi-site Observational Cohort Study in Diverse US Health Systems.

BACKGROUND: In response to the opioid crisis in the United States, population-level prescribing of opioids has been decreasing; there are concerns, however, that dose reductions are related to potential adverse events. OBJECTIVE: Examine associations between opioid dose reductions and risk of 1-month potential adverse events (emergency department (ED) visits, opioid overdose, benzodiazepine prescription fill, all-cause mortality). DESIGN: This observational cohort study used electronic health record and claims data from eight United States health systems in a prescription opioid registry (Clinical Trials Network-0084). All opioid fills (excluding buprenorphine) between 1/1/2012 and 12/31/2018 were used to identify baseline periods with mean morphine milligram equivalents daily dose of  ≥ 50 during six consecutive months. PATIENTS: We identified 60,040 non-cancer patients with  ≥ one 2-month dose reduction period (600,234 unique dose reduction periods). MAIN MEASURES: Analyses examined associations between dose reduction levels (1- < 15%, 15- < 30%, 30- < 100%, 100% over 2 months) and potential adverse events in the month following a dose reduction using logistic regression analysis, adjusting for patient characteristics. KEY RESULTS: Overall, dose reduction periods involved mean reductions of 18.7%. Compared to reductions of 1- < 15%, dose reductions of 30- < 100% were associated with higher odds of ED visits (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.10, 1.17), opioid overdose (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.09-1.81), and all-cause mortality (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.16-1.67), but lower odds of a benzodiazepine fill (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.81-0.85). Dose reductions of 15- < 30%, compared to 1- < 15%, were associated with higher odds of ED visits (OR 1.08, 95% CI 1.05-1.11) and lower odds of a benzodiazepine fill (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.92-0.95), but were not associated with opioid overdose and all-cause mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Larger reductions for patients on opioid therapy may raise risk of potential adverse events in the month after reduction and should be carefully monitored.

Nurse Care Management for Opioid Use Disorder Treatment: The PROUD Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Few primary care (PC) practices treat patients with medications for opioid use disorder (OUD) despite availability of effective treatments. Objective: To assess whether implementation of the Massachusetts model of nurse care management for OUD in PC increases OUD treatment with buprenorphine or extended-release injectable naltrexone and secondarily decreases acute care utilization. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Primary Care Opioid Use Disorders Treatment (PROUD) trial was a mixed-methods, implementation-effectiveness cluster randomized clinical trial conducted in 6 diverse health systems across 5 US states (New York, Florida, Michigan, Texas, and Washington). Two PC clinics in each system were randomized to intervention or usual care (UC) stratified by system (5 systems were notified on February 28, 2018, and 1 system with delayed data use agreement on August 31, 2018). Data were obtained from electronic health records and insurance claims. An implementation monitoring team collected qualitative data. Primary care patients were included if they were 16 to 90 years old and visited a participating clinic from up to 3 years before a system's randomization date through 2 years after. Intervention: The PROUD intervention included 3 components: (1) salary for a full-time OUD nurse care manager; (2) training and technical assistance for nurse care managers; and (3) 3 or more PC clinicians agreeing to prescribe buprenorphine. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a clinic-level measure of patient-years of OUD treatment (buprenorphine or extended-release injectable naltrexone) per 10 000 PC patients during the 2 years postrandomization (follow-up). The secondary outcome, among patients with OUD prerandomization, was a patient-level measure of the number of days of acute care utilization during follow-up. Results: During the baseline period, a total of 130 623 patients were seen in intervention clinics (mean [SD] age, 48.6 [17.7] years; 59.7% female), and 159 459 patients were seen in UC clinics (mean [SD] age, 47.2 [17.5] years; 63.0% female). Intervention clinics provided 8.2 (95% CI, 5.4-∞) more patient-years of OUD treatment per 10 000 PC patients compared with UC clinics (P = .002). Most of the benefit accrued in 2 health systems and in patients new to clinics (5.8 [95% CI, 1.3-∞] more patient-years) or newly treated for OUD postrandomization (8.3 [95% CI, 4.3-∞] more patient-years). Qualitative data indicated that keys to successful implementation included broad commitment to treat OUD in PC from system leaders and PC teams, full financial coverage for OUD treatment, and straightforward pathways for patients to access nurse care managers. Acute care utilization did not differ between intervention and UC clinics (relative rate, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.47-2.92; P = .70). Conclusions and Relevance: The PROUD cluster randomized clinical trial intervention meaningfully increased PC OUD treatment, albeit unevenly across health systems; however, it did not decrease acute care utilization among patients with OUD. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03407638.

Telemedicine-delivered treatment for substance use disorder: A scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID pandemic prompted a significant increase in the utilization of telemedicine (TM) for substance use disorder (SUD) treatment. As we transition towards a "new normal" policy, it is crucial to comprehensively understand the evidence of TM in SUD treatment. This scoping review aims to summarize existing evidence regarding TM's acceptability, quality, effectiveness, access/utilization, and cost in the context of SUD treatment in order to identify knowledge gaps and inform policy decisions regarding TM for SUDs. METHOD: We searched studies published in 2012-2022 from PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, and other sources. Findings were synthesized using thematic analysis. RESULTS: A total of 856 relevant articles were screened, with a final total of 42 articles included in the review. TM in SUD treatment was perceived to be generally beneficial and acceptable. TM was as effective as in-person SUD care in terms of substance use reduction and treatment retention; however, most studies lacked rigorous designs and follow-up durations were brief (≤3 months). Telephone-based TM platforms (vs video) were positively associated with older age, lower education, and no prior overdose. Providers generally consider TM to be affordable for patients, but no relevant studies were available from patient perspectives. CONCLUSIONS: TM in SUD treatment is generally perceived to be beneficial and acceptable and as effective as in-person care, although more rigorously designed studies on effectiveness are still lacking. Access and utilization of TM may vary by platform. TM service quality and costs are the least studied and warrant further investigations.

Patient Engagement in a Multimodal Digital Phenotyping Study of Opioid Use Disorder.

BACKGROUND: Multiple digital data sources can capture moment-to-moment information to advance a robust understanding of opioid use disorder (OUD) behavior, ultimately creating a digital phenotype for each patient. This information can lead to individualized interventions to improve treatment for OUD. OBJECTIVE: The aim is to examine patient engagement with multiple digital phenotyping methods among patients receiving buprenorphine medication for OUD. METHODS: The study enrolled 65 patients receiving buprenorphine for OUD between June 2020 and January 2021 from 4 addiction medicine programs in an integrated health care delivery system in Northern California. Ecological momentary assessment (EMA), sensor data, and social media data were collected by smartphone, smartwatch, and social media platforms over a 12-week period. Primary engagement outcomes were meeting measures of minimum phone carry (≥8 hours per day) and watch wear (≥18 hours per day) criteria, EMA response rates, social media consent rate, and data sparsity. Descriptive analyses, bivariate, and trend tests were performed. RESULTS: The participants' average age was 37 years, 47% of them were female, and 71% of them were White. On average, participants met phone carrying criteria on 94% of study days, met watch wearing criteria on 74% of days, and wore the watch to sleep on 77% of days. The mean EMA response rate was 70%, declining from 83% to 56% from week 1 to week 12. Among participants with social media accounts, 88% of them consented to providing data; of them, 55% of Facebook, 54% of Instagram, and 57% of Twitter participants provided data. The amount of social media data available varied widely across participants. No differences by age, sex, race, or ethnicity were observed for any outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first study to capture these 3 digital data sources in this clinical population. Our findings demonstrate that patients receiving buprenorphine treatment for OUD had generally high engagement with multiple digital phenotyping data sources, but this was more limited for the social media data. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.3389/fpsyt.2022.871916.

Overall and Telehealth Addiction Treatment Utilization by Age, Race, Ethnicity, and Socioeconomic Status in California After COVID-19 Policy Changes.

Importance: Addiction treatment rapidly transitioned to a primarily telehealth modality (telephone and video) during the COVID-19 pandemic, raising concerns about disparities in utilization. Objective: To examine whether there were differences in overall and telehealth addiction treatment utilization after telehealth policy changes during the COVID-19 pandemic by age, race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study examined electronic health record and claims data from Kaiser Permanente Northern California for adults (age ≥18 years) with drug use problems before the COVID-19 pandemic (from March 1, 2019, to December 31, 2019) and during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic (March 1, 2020, to December 31, 2020; hereafter referred to as COVID-19 onset). Analyses were conducted between March 2021 and March 2023. Exposure: The expansion of telehealth services during COVID-19 onset. Main Outcomes and Measures: Generalized estimating equation models were fit to compare addiction treatment utilization during COVID-19 onset with that before the COVID-19 pandemic. Utilization measures included the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set of treatment initiation and engagement (including inpatient, outpatient, and telehealth encounters or receipt of medication for opioid use disorder [OUD]), 12-week retention (days in treatment), and OUD pharmacotherapy retention. Telehealth treatment initiation and engagement were also examined. Differences in changes in utilization by age group, race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status (SES) were examined. Results: Among the 19 648 participants in the pre-COVID-19 cohort (58.5% male; mean [SD] age, 41.0 [17.5] years), 1.6% were American Indian or Alaska Native; 7.5%, Asian or Pacific Islander; 14.3%, Black; 20.8%, Latino or Hispanic; 53.4%, White; and 2.5%, unknown race. Among the 16 959 participants in the COVID-19 onset cohort (56.5% male; mean [SD] age, 38.9 [16.3] years), 1.6% were American Indian or Alaska Native; 7.4%, Asian or Pacific Islander; 14.6%, Black; 22.2%, Latino or Hispanic; 51.0%, White; and 3.2%, unknown race. Odds of overall treatment initiation increased from before the COVID-19 pandemic to COVID-19 onset for all age, race, ethnicity, and SES subgroups except for patients aged 50 years or older; patients aged 18 to 34 years had the greatest increases (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.31; 95% CI, 1.22-1.40). Odds of telehealth treatment initiation increased for all patient subgroups without variation by race, ethnicity, or SES, although increases were greater for patients aged 18 to 34 years (aOR, 7.17; 95% CI, 6.24-8.24). Odds of overall treatment engagement increased (aOR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.03-1.24) without variation by patient subgroups. Retention increased by 1.4 days (95% CI, 0.6-2.2 days), and OUD pharmacotherapy retention did not change (adjusted mean difference, -5.2 days; 95% CI, -12.7 to 2.4 days). Conclusions: In this cohort study of insured adults with drug use problems, there were increases in overall and telehealth addiction treatment utilization after telehealth policies changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. There was no evidence that disparities were exacerbated, and younger adults may have particularly benefited from the transition to telehealth.

Psychoactive plant derivatives (ayahuasca, ibogaine, kratom) and their application in opioid withdrawal and use disorder - a narrative review.

The opioid epidemic and limited access to treatment for opioid withdrawal (OW) and opioid use disorder (OUD) has led individuals to seek alternative treatments. This narrative review aims to educate clinicians on the mechanisms of action, toxicity, and applications of psychoactive plant-based substances patients may be using to self-treat OUD and OW. We specifically discuss ayahuasca, ibogaine, and kratom as they have the most evidence for applications in OUD and OW from the last decade (2012-2022). Evidence suggests these substances may have efficacy in treating OW and OUD through several therapeutic mechanisms including their unique pharmacodynamic effects, rituals performed around ingestion, and increased neuroplasticity. The current evidence for their therapeutic application in OUD and OW is primarily based on small observational studies or animal studies. High-quality, longitudinal studies are needed to clarify safety and efficacy of these substances in treatment of OW and OUD.

Cannabis Use for Medical Reasons Among Patients in a Large California Health Care System After Legalization of Nonmedical Use.

OBJECTIVE: In 2018, California legalized the sale of cannabis for adult nonmedical use. To understand use of cannabis after legalization, we surveyed a stratified random sample of adults in a large health system (ages 19-64 years) with and without documented chronic pain about their reasons for cannabis use from November 2018 to March 2019. METHOD: We compared patients with and without chronic pain on measures for medical, nonmedical, pain-related, and mental health-related cannabis use based on self-reported symptoms. RESULTS: Patients with chronic pain reported higher past-year medical use (34.6%) compared to patients without chronic pain (22.8%), past-year pain-related use (29.7% vs. 15.5%), and past-year mental health-related use (24.8% vs. 18.9%). In adjusted models, relative to patients without chronic pain, those with chronic pain had a 6.2% (95% CI [0.010, 0.11]) higher probability of past-year medical cannabis use and an 8.0% (95% CI [0.035, 0.13]) higher probability of past-year pain-related cannabis use. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to patients without chronic pain, patients with chronic pain were more likely to use cannabis for reasons related to medical and pain symptoms in the past year. Use for past-year mental health symptoms did not differ between these two groups. Cannabis use among patients with and without chronic pain is common after legalization for nonmedical use, and understanding reasons for use is important to improve overall patient care.

Disparities in the receipt of alcohol brief intervention: The intersectionality of sex, age, and race/ethnicity.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The increasing trend in alcohol consumption among women, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, is of growing concern. Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment in primary care is an efficacious and cost-effective treatment approach for unhealthy alcohol use. However, disparities exist in delivery of brief interventions by sex, age and race/ethnicity. This study measures brief intervention rates among eligible patients by sex, age and race/ethnicity and their intersectionality, in the context of a program of systematic alcohol screening and brief intervention program in adult primary care in a large, integrated health-care delivery system. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a population-based observational study among primary care clinics in an integrated health-care delivery system in Northern California, USA. The participants comprised adult (18+) patients (n = 287 551) screening positive for unhealthy alcohol use between January 2014 and December 2017. MEASUREMENTS: Receipt of brief intervention, patient and provider characteristics from electronic health records. FINDINGS: Multi-level logistic regression showed that women had lower odds of receiving brief intervention than men among all age, racial/ethnic groups and drinking levels. Sex differences were greater among those aged 35-49 years [odds ratio (OR) = 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.64, 0.69]) and 50-65 years (OR = 0.69, 95% CI =0.66, 0.72) than among other age groups. Sex differences in odds of receiving brief intervention were greater for the Latino/Hispanic group for women versus men (OR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.66, 0.72) and smaller for the Asian/Pacific Islander group (OR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.72, 0.81). CONCLUSION: In the United States, compared with men, women appear to have lower odds of receiving brief intervention for unhealthy alcohol use across all age groups, particularly during middle age. Black women and Latina/Hispanic women appear to be less likely to receive brief intervention than women in other race/ethnicity groups. Receipt of brief intervention does not appear to differ by drinking levels between men and women.

The association between buprenorphine treatment duration and mortality: a multi-site cohort study of people who discontinued treatment.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Buprenorphine is an effective medication for opioid use disorder that reduces mortality; however, many patients are not retained in buprenorphine treatment, and an optimal length of treatment after which patients can safely discontinue treatment has not been identified. This study measured the association between buprenorphine treatment duration and all-cause mortality among patients who discontinued treatment. Secondary objectives were to measure the association between treatment duration and drug overdose and opioid-related overdoses. DESIGN: Multi-site cohort study. SETTING: Eight US health systems. PARTICIPANTS: Patients who initiated and discontinued buprenorphine treatment between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2018 (n = 6550). Outcomes occurring after patients discontinued buprenorphine treatment were compared between patients who initiated and discontinued treatment after 8-30, 31-90, 91-180, 181-365 and > 365 days. MEASUREMENTS: Covariate data were obtained from electronic health records (EHRs). Mortality outcomes were derived from EHRs and state vital statistics. Non-fatal opioid and drug overdoses were obtained from diagnostic codes. Four sites provided cause-of-death data to identify fatal drug and opioid-related overdoses. Adjusted frailty regression was conducted on a propensity-weighted cohort to assess associations between duration of the final treatment episode and outcomes. FINDINGS: The mortality rate after buprenorphine treatment was 1.82 per 100 person-years (n = 191 deaths). In regression analyses with > 365 days as the reference group, treatment duration was not associated with all-cause mortality and drug overdose (P > 0.05 for both). However, compared with > 365 days of treatment, 91-180 days of treatment was associated with increased opioid overdose risk (hazard ratio = 2.94, 95% confidence interval = 1.11-7.79). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who discontinue buprenorphine treatment, there appears to be no treatment duration period associated with a reduced risk for all-cause mortality. Patients who discontinue buprenorphine treatment after 91-180 days appear to be at heightened risk for opioid overdose compared with patients who discontinue after > 365 days of treatment.

Tobacco Smoking and Risk of SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Disease Severity Among Adults in an Integrated Healthcare System in California.

INTRODUCTION: The relationship between tobacco smoking status and SARS-CoV-2 infection and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) severity is highly debated. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of >2.4 million adults in a large healthcare system to evaluate whether smoking is associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection and disease severity. AIMS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study of 2,427,293 adults in KPNC from March 5, 2020 (baseline) to December 31, 2020 (pre-vaccine) included smoking status (current, former, never), socio-demographics, and comorbidities from the electronic health record. SARS-CoV-2 infection (identified by a positive PCR test) and COVID-19 severity (hospitalization, ICU admission or death ≤ 30 days of COVID-19 diagnosis) were estimated in time-to-event analyses using Cox proportional hazard regression models adjusting for covariates. Secondary analyses examined COVID-19 severity among patients with COVID-19 using logistic regression. RESULTS: During the study, 44,270 patients had SARS-CoV-2 infection. Current smoking was associated with lower adjusted rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection (aHR = 0.64 95% CI: 0.61-0.67), COVID-19-related hospitalization (aHR = 0.48 95% CI: 0.40-0.58), ICU admission (aHR = 0.62 95% CI: 0.42-0.87), and death (aHR = 0.52 95% CI: 0.27-0.89) than never-smoking. Former smoking was associated with a lower adjusted rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection (aHR = 0.96 95% CI: 0.94-0.99) and higher adjusted rates of hospitalization (aHR = 1.10 95% CI: 1.03-1.08) and death (aHR = 1.32 95% CI: 1.11-1.56) than never-smoking. Logistic regression analyses among patients with COVID-19 found lower odds of hospitalization for current versus never-smoking and higher odds of hospitalization and death for former versus never-smoking. CONCLUSIONS: In the largest US study to date on smoking and COVID-19, current and former smoking showed lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection than never-smoking, while a history of smoking was associated with higher risk of severe COVID-19. IMPLICATIONS: In this cohort study of 2.4 million adults, adjusting for socio-demographics and medical comorbidities, current tobacco smoking was associated with a lower risk of both SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe COVID-19 illness compared to never-smoking. A history of smoking was associated with a slightly lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and a modestly higher risk of severe COVID-19 illness compared to never-smoking. The lower observed COVID-19 risk for current versus never-smoking deserves further investigation. Results support prioritizing individuals with smoking-related comorbidities for vaccine outreach and treatments as they become available.

Accuracy of diagnostic codes for prenatal opioid exposure and neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: Determine the accuracy of diagnostic codes in identifying Prenatal Opioid Exposure (POE) and Neonatal Opioid Withdrawal Syndrome (NOWS). STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional study of 374,222 mother-infant dyads with delivery from 01/01/2010 to 12/31/2019. We ascertained maternal diagnostic codes for opioid use during pregnancy and infant diagnostic codes for drug exposure and withdrawal. We assessed sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) for POE and NOWS, defined using laboratory, pharmacy, and clinical data. RESULTS: Maternal codes had low sensitivity (36.4%) and PPV (34.7%) for POE. Infant codes for drug exposure were neither sensitive for POE (14%) nor NOWS (31.6%) and had low PPV. Codes for newborn withdrawal had low sensitivity (31.6%) for detecting NOWS, but high PPV (85%). Sensitivity improved (95.1%) for NOWS requiring pharmacologic treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic codes identify POE and NOWS poorly. Improved case identification would include pharmacy and laboratory results, and clearly defined criteria for evidence of withdrawal.

Telemedicine along the cascade of care for substance use disorders during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the landscape of healthcare service delivery. This review aims to describe telemedicine-delivered substance use disorder (SUD) treatments and services along the cascade of care in the U.S. after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A literature review was conducted on PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library (Wiley). English-language articles that describe any healthcare services for patients with SUDs using telemedicine in the U.S. since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic were identified (N = 33). We narratively summarized telemedicine-based service provision along the cascade of SUD care, such as screening/assessment, prescription, monitoring, recovery support, and other services. RESULTS: Soon after the onset of COVID-19 and mandated restrictions, cadres of healthcare providers from different specialties mobilized to ramp up video- and audio-based services to remotely treat patients with SUDs. Medication prescription (48.5%) and individual counseling (39.4%) were the most frequently reported services delivered via telemedicine. Other steps of SUD care delivered by telemedicine characterized in our review included SUD screening and assessment (30.3%), induction (21.2%), medication management (27.3%), monitoring (27.3%), recovery support (15.2%), and referral (24.2%). Feasibility issues and challenges to implementing telemedicine included patients' lack of access to technology and health insurance coverage, providers' capacity limits and concerns, and clinics' financial and office-space constraints. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic has offered a window of opportunity to advance telemedicine expertise by formalizing clinical guidance and routinizing provider in-service training in virtual SUD treatment. Findings suggest enhanced efforts to reduce disparities in telemedicine-based services.

Baseline representativeness of patients in clinics enrolled in the PRimary care Opioid Use Disorders treatment (PROUD) trial: comparison of trial and non-trial clinics in the same health systems.

BACKGROUND: Pragmatic primary care trials aim to test interventions in "real world" health care settings, but clinics willing and able to participate in trials may not be representative of typical clinics. This analysis compared patients in participating and non-participating clinics from the same health systems at baseline in the PRimary care Opioid Use Disorders treatment (PROUD) trial. METHODS: This observational analysis relied on secondary electronic health record and administrative claims data in 5 of 6 health systems in the PROUD trial. The sample included patients 16-90 years at an eligible primary care visit in the 3 years before randomization. Each system contributed 2 randomized PROUD trial clinics and 4 similarly sized non-trial clinics. We summarized patient characteristics in trial and non-trial clinics in the 2 years before randomization ("baseline"). Using mixed-effect regression models, we compared trial and non-trial clinics on a baseline measure of the primary trial outcome (clinic-level patient-years of opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment, scaled per 10,000 primary care patients seen) and a baseline measure of the secondary trial outcome (patient-level days of acute care utilization among patients with OUD). RESULTS: Patients were generally similar between the 10 trial clinics (n = 248,436) and 20 non-trial clinics (n = 341,130), although trial clinics' patients were slightly younger, more likely to be Hispanic/Latinx, less likely to be white, more likely to have Medicaid/subsidized insurance, and lived in less wealthy neighborhoods. Baseline outcomes did not differ between trial and non-trial clinics: trial clinics had 1.0 more patient-year of OUD treatment per 10,000 patients (95% CI: - 2.9, 5.0) and a 4% higher rate of days of acute care utilization than non-trial clinics (rate ratio: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.76, 1.42). CONCLUSIONS: trial clinics and non-trial clinics were similar regarding most measured patient characteristics, and no differences were observed in baseline measures of trial primary and secondary outcomes. These findings suggest trial clinics were representative of comparably sized clinics within the same health systems. Although results do not reflect generalizability more broadly, this study illustrates an approach to assess representativeness of clinics in future pragmatic primary care trials.

Patterns of Health Care Use 5 Years After an Intervention Linking Patients in Addiction Treatment With a Primary Care Practitioner.

Importance: Substance use disorders are associated with high rates of emergency department (ED) use and challenges engaging with primary care services. Objective: To examine 5-year health care engagement and utilization outcomes for participants in the LINKAGE trial, given previously reported associations of LINKAGE with improved care engagement in the short term. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this post hoc analysis of a nonrandomized controlled trial, participants were assigned to the LINKAGE or usual care (UC) groups using a nonrandomized 3-month alternating off and on strategy over 30 months. Baseline through 5-year follow-up data were collected from April 2011 to October 2018. The trial was conducted at an urban outpatient addiction treatment clinic within a large health system among patients newly enrolled in addiction treatment. Data analysis was conducted from April 2021 to February 2022. Intervention: The LINKAGE intervention included 6 group-based sessions emphasizing patient agency, skill, and motivation in navigating health care services as well as a facilitated telephone or email connection with a primary care practitioner. The UC group received medical education. Main Outcomes and Measures: Substance use problem discussions with primary care practitioners (by patient self-report at 1-, 2-, and 5-year follow-up interview) and annual use of the electronic patient portal, primary care, and ED based on electronic health records. Results: A total of 503 participants, with a mean (SD) age of 42 (12) years, 346 (69%) male participants and 37 (7%) African American, 34 (7%) Asian, and 101 (20%) Hispanic participants, were assigned to LINKAGE (252 participants) or UC (251 participants). Compared with UC participants, LINKAGE participants were significantly more likely to discuss substance use problems with a primary care practitioner at 1-year follow-up (risk ratio [RR], 1.30; 95% CI, 1.03-1.65; P = .03) and use the electronic patient portal at 1- and 2-year follow-up (eg, messaging clinicians at 2 years: RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.04-1.47; P = .02). The LINKAGE group had small, statistically significant 5-year annual increases in primary care use (RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.003-1.07; P = .03) and significant annual decreases in substance-related ED use (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.97; P = .03), relative to UC. The LINKAGE group did not significantly differ from the UC group on other types of ED utilization. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, a patient activation intervention embedded in outpatient addiction treatment was associated with sustained improvements in health care engagement beyond previously reported 6-month outcomes and with long-term improvements in health care use patterns. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01621711.