Telehealth for opioid use disorder: retention as a function of demographics and rurality.

Background: Despite lifesaving medications such as buprenorphine and methadone, the majority of individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) face access barriers to evidence-based treatment. COVID-19 era regulatory reforms have shown that telehealth can improve access to care, although disparities in clinical outcomes are likely to persist.Objective: We aimed to analyze 180-day and 365-day retention in treatment with buprenorphine for OUD overall and by demographics, hypothesizing that retention would be lower among racial/ethnic minorities and rural patients.Methods: We analyzed data from a cohort of individuals with OUD enrolled in treatment from April 1, 2020 to September 30, 2021, in Pennsylvania and New York using a virtual-first telehealth OUD treatment platform to assess rates of 180-day and 365-day retention. Associations between demographic characteristics and retention were assessed using unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression models.Results: Among 1,378 patients (58.8% male), 180-day retention was 56.4%, and 365-day retention was 48.3%. Adjusted analyses found that only an association between older age and greater odds of 180-day retention was significant (aOR for patients aged 30-50 vs. <30: 1.83 [1.37-2.45]). There were no significant associations between sex, race/ethnicity, state, or rurality with retention.Conclusion: While we were unable to control for socioeconomic variables, we found retention within telehealth services for buprenorphine was high irrespective of geography or race/ethnicity, but disparities with age indicate a subset of patients who may benefit from more intensive services early in care.

Perceived Causes of Personal versus Witnessed Overdoses among People who Inject Opioids.

Background: Studies show that people who inject drugs (PWID) underestimate their overdose risk. We sought to explore this phenomenon by comparing how PWID perceive causes of personal overdoses compared to witnessed overdoses. Methods: We analyzed 40 interviews from participants enrolled in a randomized-controlled behavioral intervention to reduce overdose among at-risk PWID in San Francisco from 2014 to 2016. Subjects were current illicit opioid injectors with opioid use disorder, had received take-home naloxone, and had overdosed within five years. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Using thematic content analysis, three analysts coded the interviews and measured interrater reliability. The analysts developed a codebook of a priori and inductively generated codes, and applied it to all interviews. Coding discrepancies were discussed. Results: We used two theoretical frameworks - actor observer bias (AOB) and intragroup stigma - to analyze participants' descriptions of personal and witnessed overdoses. AOB suggests individuals may assign responsibility of their actions to external factors, while assigning responsibility for others' actions to internal mechanisms. Intragroup stigma describes the process whereby people perpetuate stigma within their own group. Related to these concepts, two principal themes were used to describe personal overdose: (1) drug volatility and (2) ascribing blame to others, and witnessed overdoses: (1) greed and (2) inexperience/foolishness. Conclusion/Importance: The differences in perceived causes of personal versus witnessed overdose align with AOB and intragroup stigma. Understanding how these theories shape overdose experiences may improve behavioral interventions by introducing peer based supports and encouraging PWIDs to employ evidence-based safety precautions when using opioids.

Acceptability and feasibility of naloxone prescribing in primary care settings: A systematic review.

Naloxone access through established healthcare settings is critical to responding to the opioid crisis. We conducted a systematic review to assess the acceptability and feasibility of prescribing naloxone to patients in primary care. We queried PubMed, EmBase and CINAHL for US-based, peer-reviewed, full-length, original articles relating to acceptability or feasibility of prescribing naloxone in primary care. Searches yielded 270 unduplicated articles; one analyst reviewed all titles and abstracts. Two analysts independently reviewed eligible articles for study design, study outcome, and acceptability and/or feasibility. Analyses were compared and a third reviewer consulted if discrepancies emerged. Seventeen articles were included. Providers' willingness to prescribe naloxone appeared to increase over time. Most studies provided prescribers in-person naloxone trainings, including how to write a prescription and indications for prescribing. Most studies implemented universal prescribing, whereby anyone prescribed long-term opioids or otherwise at risk for overdose was eligible for naloxone. Patient education was largely provided by prescribers and most studies provided take-home educational materials. Providers reported concerns around naloxone prescribing including lack of knowledge around prescribing and educating patients. Providers also reported benefits such as improving difficult conversations around opioids and resetting the culture around opioids and overdose. Current literature supports the acceptability and feasibility of naloxone prescribing in primary care. Provision of naloxone through primary care may help normalize such medication safety interventions, support larger opioid stewardship efforts, and expand access to patients not served by a community distribution program.

Acceptability of Naloxone Co-Prescription Among Primary Care Providers Treating Patients on Long-Term Opioid Therapy for Pain.

BACKGROUND: Naloxone co-prescription is recommended for patients on long-term opioids for pain, yet there are few data on the practice. OBJECTIVE: To explore naloxone co-prescribing acceptability among primary care providers for patients on long-term opioids. DESIGN: We surveyed providers at six safety-net primary care clinics in San Francisco that had initiated naloxone co-prescribing. Providers were encouraged to offer naloxone to patients on long-term opioids or otherwise at risk of witnessing or experiencing an overdose. Surveys were administered electronically 4 to 11 months after co-prescribing began. KEY RESULTS: One hundred eleven providers (69 %) responded to the survey, among whom 41.4 % were residents; 40.5 % practiced internal medicine and 55.0 % practiced family medicine. Most (79.3 %) prescribed naloxone, to a mean of 7.7 patients; 99.1 % were likely to prescribe naloxone in the future. Providers reported they were likely to prescribe naloxone to most patients, including those on low doses, defined as <20 morphine equivalent mg daily (59.8 %), ≥65 years old (83.9 %), with no overdose history (80.7 %), and with no substance use disorder (73.6 %). Most providers felt that prescribing naloxone did not affect their opioid prescribing, 22.5 % felt that they might prescribe fewer opioids, and 3.6 % felt that they might prescribe more. Concerns about providing naloxone were largely administrative, relating to time and pharmacy or payer logistics. Internists (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 0.49, 95 % CI = 0.26-0.93, p = 0.029), those licensed for 5-20 years (IRR = 2.10, 95 % CI = 1.35-3.25, p = 0.001), and those with more patients prescribed long-term opioids (IRR = 1.10, 95 % CI = 1.05-1.14, p <0.001) were independently more likely to prescribe a greater number of naloxone compared to participants without these exposures. CONCLUSIONS: Naloxone co-prescription is considered acceptable among primary care providers. Barriers such as time and dispensing logistics may be alleviated by novel naloxone formulations intended for laypersons recently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Nonrandomized Intervention Study of Naloxone Coprescription for Primary Care Patients Receiving Long-Term Opioid Therapy for Pain.

BACKGROUND: Unintentional overdose involving opioid analgesics is a leading cause of injury-related death in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility and effect of implementing naloxone prescription to patients prescribed opioids for chronic pain. DESIGN: 2-year nonrandomized intervention study. SETTING: 6 safety-net primary care clinics in San Francisco, California. PARTICIPANTS: 1985 adults receiving long-term opioid therapy for pain. INTERVENTION: Providers and clinic staff were trained and supported in naloxone prescribing. MEASUREMENTS: Outcomes were proportion of patients prescribed naloxone, opioid-related emergency department (ED) visits, and prescribed opioid dose based on chart review. RESULTS: 38.2% of 1985 patients receiving long-term opioids were prescribed naloxone. Patients prescribed higher doses of opioids and with an opioid-related ED visit in the past 12 months were independently more likely to be prescribed naloxone. Patients who received a naloxone prescription had 47% fewer opioid-related ED visits per month in the 6 months after receipt of the prescription (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.53 [95% CI, 0.34 to 0.83]; P = 0.005) and 63% fewer visits after 1 year (IRR, 0.37 [CI, 0.22 to 0.64]; P < 0.001) compared with patients who did not receive naloxone. There was no net change over time in opioid dose among those who received naloxone and those who did not (IRR, 1.03 [CI, 0.91 to 1.27]; P = 0.61). LIMITATION: Results are observational and may not be generalizable beyond safety-net settings. CONCLUSION: Naloxone can be coprescribed to primary care patients prescribed opioids for pain. When advised to offer naloxone to all patients receiving opioids, providers may prioritize those with established risk factors. Providing naloxone in primary care settings may have ancillary benefits, such as reducing opioid-related adverse events. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.

Primary Care Patient Experience with Naloxone Prescription.

PURPOSE: Notwithstanding a paucity of data, prescription of the opioid antagonist naloxone to patients prescribed opioids is increasingly recommended in opioid stewardship guidelines. The aim of this study was to evaluate chronic pain patients' attitudes toward being offered a naloxone prescription and their experience with naloxone. METHODS: We interviewed 60 patients who received naloxone prescriptions across 6 safety-net primary care clinics (10 patients per clinic) from October 2013 to October 2015. We used a standardized questionnaire to collect information on substance use, perception of personal overdose risk, history of overdose, and experiences with naloxone prescription, including initial reaction, barriers to filling the prescription, storage and use of naloxone, associated behavioral changes, and opinions about future prescribing. RESULTS: Respondents were demographically similar to all clinic patients receiving opioid prescriptions. Ninety percent had never previously received a naloxone prescription, 82% successfully filled a prescription for naloxone, and 97% believed that patients prescribed opioids for pain should be offered naloxone. Most patients had a positive (57%) or neutral (22%) response to being offered naloxone, and 37% reported beneficial behavior changes after receiving the prescription; there were no harmful behavior changes reported. Although 37% had personally experienced an opioid-poisoning event (17% of which were described as bad reactions but consistent with an overdose) and 5% reported that the prescribed naloxone had been used on them, 77% estimated their risk of overdose as low. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care patients on opioids reported that receiving a prescription for naloxone was acceptable, the prescription reached patients who had not had access to naloxone, and having naloxone may be associated with beneficial changes in opioid use behaviors. Patients prescribed opioids may not interpret the terminology describing overdose to imply unintentional opioid poisoning.

"Because of this rotation, this is what I want to do": Implementation and evaluation of a telehealth opioid use disorder clinical placement for nurse practitioner students.

ABSTRACT: The lack of clinicians comfortable prescribing buprenorphine is a barrier to access for people with opioid use disorder (OUD). Accordingly, a telehealth OUD treatment clinic, Ophelia, launched a clinical training program for nurse practitioner (NP) students. The goal of this study was to assess a telehealth-based model of OUD clinical training. To evaluate the program, we (1) identified students' knowledge related to providing OUD care to patients before and after their clinical rotation with Ophelia and (2) characterized students' attitudes about providing OUD care following their clinical rotation with Ophelia. Online pre- and postsurveys were conducted with 57 and 29 students, respectively, and semistructured interviews were conducted with 19 students who completed clinical rotations with Ophelia. We used quantitative descriptive analysis to compare presurvey and postsurvey results and conducted thematic analysis to analyze qualitative interview data. We identified three themes from the interviews: the continuum of learning opportunities, the comfort providing OUD treatment following participants' clinical rotation, and the relevance of a substance use disorder clinical rotation for all NP students. The survey also supported these findings. Of note, there were descriptive differences between presurvey and postsurvey responses related to an increase in knowledge, preparedness, and acquisition of skills to treat OUD. Using a telehealth clinical rotation for NP students to learn about OUD treatment may represent an important step in increasing the number of clinicians who can prescribe buprenorphine. These findings can inform interventions and policies that target clinician training barriers.

Acceptability of Naloxone Dispensing Among Pharmacists.

BACKGROUND: The San Francisco Department of Public Health initiated naloxone prescribing at 6 safety net clinics. We evaluated this intervention, demonstrating that naloxone prescribing from primary care clinics is feasible and acceptable. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate acceptability of naloxone dispensing to patients prescribed opioids among pharmacists serving clinics participating in a naloxone intervention. METHODS: We surveyed 58 pharmacists from November 2013 through January 2015 at pharmacies that serviced San Francisco safety net clinics. Surveys collected information on demographics, experiences in dispensing naloxone, and interest in prescriptive authority. We conducted descriptive analyses and assessed bivariate relationships. RESULTS: Most respondents were staff (56.9%) or supervising pharmacists (34.5%). Most (92.9%) were aware their pharmacy stocked naloxone and 86.8% felt it should be prescribed to some or all patients on long-term opioids. Most (82.1%) dispensed naloxone at least once in the past 12 months. More than half were comfortable providing naloxone education. Nearly half (43.4%) indicated they would want authority to furnish without a prescription. Over half (55.2%) reported no problems dispensing. The common problem was insufficient naloxone knowledge. Only 12% reported more than one problem in dispensing naloxone, which was associated with being uncomfortable with educating patients (P = .03). CONCLUSION: Naloxone dispensing was acceptable among pharmacists. Their most cited problem was insufficient naloxone education. This may be resolved with improved instructional materials, incentives for patient education, or mandatory training.

"Chasing the pain relief, not the high": Experiences managing pain after opioid reductions among patients with HIV and a history of substance use.

BACKGROUND: Opioid overdose mortality continues to increase in the United States despite significant investments to reverse the epidemic. The national response to-date has focused primarily on reducing opioid prescribing, yet reductions in prescribing have been associated with patients reporting uncontrolled pain, psychological distress, and transition to illicit substances. The aim of this study is to qualitatively explore chronic pain management experiences among PLWH with a history of illicit substance use after long-term opioid therapy reductions or discontinuations. METHODS: We analyzed 18 interviews, stopping upon reaching thematic saturation, with HIV-positive participants with a history of substance use who were enrolled in a longitudinal cohort study to assess the impact of prescribing changes among patients with chronic pain. Participants in this nested qualitative study had been reduced/discontinued from opioid pain relievers (OPRs) within the 12 months prior to interview. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Two analysts coded all interviews, interrater reliability was measured, and coding discrepancies discussed. The study took place in San Francisco, California in 2018. RESULTS: Eleven participants were male with a mean age of 55; 8 were African American and 8 were White. All participants were HIV-positive, actively engaged in primary care, and had a lifetime history of illicit substance use. Twelve reported using illicit substances within the past year, including non-prescription opioids/heroin (10), and stimulant use (10). After being reduced/discontinued from their long-term opioid therapy, patients reported developing complex multimodal pain management systems that often included both nonpharmacological approaches and illicit substance use. Participants encountered a range of barriers to nonpharmacological therapies including issues related to accessibility and availability. Participants often reported attempts to replicate their prior OPR prescription by seeking out the same medication and dose from illicit sources and reported transitioning to heroin after exhausting other options. CONCLUSION: After being reduced/discontinued from OPRs, HIV-positive patients with a history of substance use reported experimenting with a range of pain management modalities including nonpharmacological therapies and illicit substance use to manage symptoms of opioid withdrawal and pain. Providers should consider that any change to a patients' long-term opioid therapy may result in experimentation with pain management outside of the medical setting and may want to employ patient-centered, holistic approaches when managing patients' opioid prescriptions and chronic pain.

Bridging the Digital Divide Among Racial and Ethnic Minority Men Who Have Sex With Men to Reduce Substance Use and HIV Risk: Mixed Methods Feasibility Study.

BACKGROUND: Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) is a promising data collection tool for mobile health interventions targeting episodic health behaviors. For substance-using men who have sex with men (SUMSM), EMA is becoming more widely utilized in efforts to characterize substance use and sexual risk factors for HIV transmission. However, recent literature demonstrates emerging concerns over compliance and lower EMA engagement and data concordance among racial and ethnic minority SUMSM. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to provide a qualitative evaluation of the barriers and facilitators of EMA as a data collection tool among racial and ethnic minority SUMSM. METHODS: Between October and November 2017, 45 racial and ethnic minority SUMSM were recruited from a list of prior research participants at the San Francisco Department of Public Health to participate in daily EMA surveys on their substance use and sexual health behaviors for 1 week, followed by in-person focus groups (FGs). A total of 4 FGs explored the participants' experiences with the surveys, issues regarding privacy and confidentiality, and suggestions for improvement. Qualitative analysis was performed using content analysis. Descriptive statistics and Fisher exact tests were used to assess the associations between demographics or substance use behaviors and EMA completion. RESULTS: Overall, 93.9% (295/314) of all delivered surveys were initiated, and of those, 98.0% (289/295) were completed. Neither participant demographics, including race (P=.65) or age (P=.43), nor substance use behaviors, including the frequency of alcohol (P=.40) or methamphetamine (P=.91) use or any cocaine (P=.28), crack (P=.99), or polysubstance use (P=.24), were found to be associated with survey completion. Overall, participants were receptive to the text message-based EMA surveys. Facilitators included survey timing, user-friendly survey design, survey-stimulated self-reflection, coding of sensitive phrases, and other privacy benefits of a mobile survey. Barriers included an inability to correct texting errors and participants' perception of judgment or stigmatization related to questions about condomless sex. To improve EMA compliance and uptake, participants suggested adding response confirmations, clarifying survey language, and continuing to diversify the study audience. CONCLUSIONS: EMA appears to be feasible and acceptable among this sample of racial and ethnic minority SUMSM. Close attention to EMA study design and the development of nonjudgmental, contextualized questions regarding stigmatized health behaviors may be critical to further improve EMA compliance.

Narratives of people who inject drugs on factors contributing to opioid overdose.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, there has been increasing national and global attention to opioid overdoses. In San Francisco, it is estimated that the population of people who inject drugs (PWID) has more than doubled in the past ten years. The risk factors for opioid overdose have been examined closely, but firsthand accounts of PWID who have experienced overdoses are less documented. In this paper, we use two theories - lay expertise and structural vulnerabilities - as frameworks to frame and qualitatively examine the narratives of PWID surrounding their recent overdose experiences. METHODS: Audio-recorded semi-structured open-ended motivational interviewing counseling sessions were conducted with PWID in San Francisco who have experienced at least one non-fatal overdose event (N = 40). Participants discussed the context of recent opioid overdoses, either witnessed or personally experienced, focusing on their perceptions of unique contributing factors. Interview data were coded and analysed using ATLAS.ti. We used a thematic content analysis approach to qualitatively analyze data queries and generate themes. We used theories of structural vulnerability and lay expertise to frame the analysis. RESULTS: Using quotes from the participants, we report four central themes that contributed to participants' overdose experiences: 1) Social Dynamics and Opioid Expertise; 2) Uncertain Supply, Composition, Source; 3) Balancing Polysubstance Use, and 4) Emotional Pain. CONCLUSION: As PWID described their overdose experiences, many factors that contributed to their overdoses were situated at the structural level. The everyday, lived experiences of PWID often competed or conflicted with public health messages and approaches. The accumulated expertise of PWID about everyday risk factors can be leveraged by public health practitioners to inform and improve overdose prevention interventions and messages.

Randomized feasibility trial of directly observed versus unobserved hepatitis C treatment with ledipasvir-sofosbuvir among people who inject drugs.

AIMS: The advent of direct-acting antivirals for hepatitis C virus (HCV) and limited effectiveness of prevention have generated interest in "Treatment as Prevention" (TasP), in which those most likely to transmit HCV (i.e. people who inject drugs [PWID]) are treated to reduced secondary transmission. However, there are scant data regarding the feasibility of treating PWID at high risk for secondary transmission or the optimal approach to treatment delivery. METHODS: We conducted a 2:1 randomized trial of modified directly-observed (mDOT) versus unobserved HCV treatment with ledipasvir-sofosbuvir daily for 8 weeks among PWID with 36 weeks of follow-up in San Francisco from 2015-2017. We evaluated recruitment-enrollment, treatment completion, end-of-treatment and 12-week response, and reinfection rate. RESULTS: Of 83 individuals eligible for screening, 72 (87.6%) attended the screening visit, 33 were eligible, and 31 enrolled; mean age was 42 years, 81% were male, 74% white. All but one participant (in the mDOT arm) completed treatment and 89.4% of mDOT and 96.6% of unobserved arm visits were attended. HCV was undetectable for 96.8% (30/31) at end of treatment and 89.7% (26/29) 12 weeks later (1 relapse, 1 reinfection), with no differences by arm. Two additional reinfections were subsequently identified, for a reinfection rate of 16.3 (95% CI 5.3-50.5) per 100 person-years of observation. CONCLUSIONS: It was feasible to recruit active PWID for HCV treatment and achieve high retention, viral response, and satisfaction with either mDOT or unobserved protocols, supporting treatment of PWID at risk of transmitting HCV to others. The reinfection rate suggests we successfully reached a high-risk population and that successful HCV TasP initiatives may aim to be sufficient in scope to significantly lower prevalence in the community. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov NCT02609893.

Quantity fluctuations of illicitly used opioids and overdose risk.

BACKGROUND: Reduced opioid tolerance is believed to be associated with overdose risk, although this relationship has primarily been examined in the context of gaps and frequency of opioid use. We sought to assess how changes in the quantity of opioids used, as opposed to periods of abstinence or overall frequency of use, relate to overdose risk. METHODS: Among repeated visits of participants of a behavioral intervention trial from 2014 to 2016, we used multivariable logistic regression models fit with generalized estimating equations to examine the relationship between the percentage of opioid use days on which individuals used more or less than the quantity they used on average (i.e., quantity volatility) and the occurrence of opioid overdose. RESULTS: Our sample included 290 four-month reporting periods among 63 participants (67% male). Opioid overdose events were reported by 28 (44%) participants during 48 (17%) reporting periods. Our measure of quantity volatility had a median of 20% (IQR 0.0-50.0). In multivariable analysis, using a quantity different than the quantity used on average on more than 20% of all opioid use days in the reporting period was significantly associated with odds of any opioid overdose (Adjusted OR = 3.55, 95%CI = 1.55-8.13, p = 0.003), controlling for confounders. CONCLUSION: Quantity volatility of illicitly used opioids was positively associated with overdose risk and may contribute to the complex system of overlapping factors that influence overdose risk. Future observational research among opioid users should collect detailed opioid use data, including quantity used over time, to clarify the patterns that most elevate overdose risk.

Using medical examiner case narratives to improve opioid overdose surveillance.

BACKGROUND: Current opioid overdose mortality surveillance methods do not capture the complexity of the overdose epidemic. Most rely on death certificates, which may underestimate both opioid analgesic and heroin deaths. Categorizing deaths using other characteristics from the death record including route of drug administration may provide useful information to design and evaluate overdose prevention interventions. METHODS: We reviewed California Electronic Death Reporting System records and San Francisco Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME) toxicology reports and investigative case narratives for all unintentional opioid overdose deaths in San Francisco County from 2006 to 2012. We chose this time period because it encompassed a period of evolution in local opioid use patterns and expansion of overdose prevention efforts. We created a classification system for heroin-related and injection-related opioid overdose deaths and compared demographic, death scene, and toxicology characteristics among these groups. RESULTS: We identified 816 unintentional opioid overdose deaths. One hundred fifty-two (19%) were standard heroin deaths, as designated by the OCME or by the presence of 6-monoacetylmorphine. An "expanded" classification for heroin deaths incorporating information from toxicology reports and case narratives added 20 additional heroin deaths (13% increase), accounting for 21% of all opioid deaths. Two hundred five deaths (25%) were injection-related, 60% of which were attributed to heroin. A combined classification of expanded heroin and injection-related deaths accounted for 31% of opioid overdose deaths during this period. CONCLUSIONS: Using additional sources of information to classify opioid overdose cases resulted in a modest increase in the count of heroin overdose deaths but identified a substantial number of non-heroin injection-related opioid analgesic deaths. Including the route of administration in the characterization of opioid overdose deaths can identify meaningful subgroups of opioid users to enhance surveillance efforts and inform targeted public health programming including overdose prevention programs.

Low-threshold extended-release naltrexone for high utilizers of public services with severe alcohol use disorder: A pilot study.

Extended-release naltrexone (XRNTX) is an effective treatment for alcohol use disorder (AUD). We sought to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of XRNTX delivered as a stand-alone service to persons with severe AUD who are high utilizers of multiple urgent and emergency medical services (HUMS). Of 15 HUMS persons with severe AUD selected based on chart review, 11 agreed to participate. Participants received a mean of 4.5 injections (range 2-7). Modest benefits from XRNTX were observed in terms of patients' Urge-to-Drink Score and the costs of emergency medical services utilized. Though limited by a small sample size, costs including client utilization and study related expenses during the post-enrollment period were less than client utilization costs in the pre-enrollment period. We also observed non-significant improvements in the number of drinking days, but no change in quality of life as measured by the EQ-5D. Eighty-eight percent of participants perceived XRNTX as helping with their drinking. Findings need to be replicated in a larger study, however if replicated, the cost savings could be substantial.

Academic Detailing Pilot for Naloxone Prescribing Among Primary Care Providers in San Francisco.

BACKGROUND: Improving the safety of prescribed opioids in clinical settings is a national priority. While co-prescribing naloxone is increasingly recommended, there is little understanding of the optimal way to implement this practice. METHODS: We developed and delivered an academic detailing intervention to 40 randomly selected opioid-prescribing primary care providers in San Francisco from February to May 2015. Process outcomes were tracked and included provider demographics, number and type of contact attempts, reason for refusal (if applicable), name of detailer, duration of intervention, topics covered, provider concerns, and follow-up plan. Outcome evaluation included changes in the rate of naloxone prescriptions 4 months before and after academic detailing by provider based on de-identified Medi-Cal claims data. Using a difference-in-differences approach, we developed a negative binomial regression model to compare changes in naloxone prescribing to Medi-Cal patients between providers that did and did not receive the intervention. RESULTS: Eighty-three percent of 48 providers contacted accepted the intervention after a mean of 2.6 contacts. Detailing lasted a mean of 28 minutes (range 5-60 minutes) and most frequently covered indications for naloxone, examples of naloxone prescriptions, language to use with patients, and pharmacy outreach. Those who received the academic detailing had a significantly greater increase in naloxone prescriptions compared to those who did not receive the intervention (IRR=11.0, 95%CI=1.8-67.8, P=.010). CONCLUSIONS: Academic detailing addressing opioid safety and naloxone prescribing was well-received by primary care providers and associated with an increase in naloxone prescriptions filled by Medi-Cal patients.

Performance Measures of Diagnostic Codes for Detecting Opioid Overdose in the Emergency Department.

OBJECTIVES: Opioid overdose mortality has tripled in the United States since 2000 and opioids are responsible for more than half of all drug overdose deaths, which reached an all-time high in 2014. Opioid overdoses resulting in death, however, represent only a small fraction of all opioid overdose events and efforts to improve surveillance of this public health problem should include tracking nonfatal overdose events. International Classification of Disease (ICD) diagnosis codes, increasingly used for the surveillance of nonfatal drug overdose events, have not been rigorously assessed for validity in capturing overdose events. The present study aimed to validate the use of ICD, 9th revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes in identifying opioid overdose events in the emergency department (ED) by examining multiple performance measures, including sensitivity and specificity. METHODS: Data on ED visits from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2014, including clinical determination of whether the visit constituted an opioid overdose event, were abstracted from electronic medical records for patients prescribed long-term opioids for pain from any of six safety net primary care clinics in San Francisco, California. Combinations of ICD-9-CM codes were validated in the detection of overdose events as determined by medical chart review. Both sensitivity and specificity of different combinations of ICD-9-CM codes were calculated. Unadjusted logistic regression models with robust standard errors and accounting for clustering by patient were used to explore whether overdose ED visits with certain characteristics were more or less likely to be assigned an opioid poisoning ICD-9-CM code by the documenting physician. RESULTS: Forty-four (1.4%) of 3,203 ED visits among 804 patients were determined to be opioid overdose events. Opioid-poisoning ICD-9-CM codes (E850.2-E850.2, 965.00-965.09) identified overdose ED visits with a sensitivity of 25.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 13.6% to 37.8%) and specificity of 99.9% (95% CI = 99.8% to 100.0%). Expanding the ICD-9-CM codes to include both nonspecified and general (i.e., without a decimal modifier) drug poisoning and drug abuse codes identified overdose ED visits with a sensitivity of 56.8% (95% CI = 43.6%-72.7%) and specificity of 96.2% (95% CI = 94.8%-97.2%). Additional ICD-9-CM codes not explicitly relevant to opioid overdose were necessary to further enhance sensitivity. Among the 44 overdose ED visits, neither naloxone administration during the visit, whether the patient responded to the naloxone, nor the specific opioids involved were associated with the assignment of an opioid poisoning ICD-9-CM code (p ≥ 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Tracking opioid overdose ED visits by diagnostic coding is fairly specific but insensitive, and coding was not influenced by administration of naloxone or the specific opioids involved. The reason for the high rate of missed cases is uncertain, although these results suggest that a more clearly defined case definition for overdose may be necessary to ensure effective opioid overdose surveillance. Changes in coding practices under ICD-10 might help to address these deficiencies.

Behavioral intervention to reduce opioid overdose among high-risk persons with opioid use disorder: A pilot randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The United States is amidst an opioid epidemic, including synthetic opioids that may result in rapid death, leaving minimal opportunity for bystander rescue. We pilot tested a behavioral intervention to reduce the occurrence of opioid overdose among opioid dependent persons at high-risk for subsequent overdose. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a single-blinded randomized-controlled trial of a repeated dose motivational interviewing intervention (REBOOT) to reduce overdose versus treatment as usual, defined as information and referrals, over 16 months at the San Francisco Department of Public Health from 2014-2016. Participants were 18-65 years of age, had opioid use disorder by Structured Clinical Interview, active opioid use, opioid overdose within 5 years, and prior receipt of naloxone kits. The intervention was administered at months 0, 4, 8, and 12, preceded by the assessment which was also administered at month 16. Dual primary outcomes were any overdose event and number of events, collected by computer-assisted personal interview, as well as any fatal overdose events per vital records. RESULTS: A total of 78 persons were screened and 63 enrolled. Mean age was 43 years, 67% were born male, 65% White, 17% African-American, and 14% Latino. Ninety-two percent of visits and 93% of counseling sessions were completed. At baseline, 33.3% of participants had experienced an overdose in the past four months, with a similar mean number of overdoses in both arms (p = 0.95); 29% overdosed during follow-up. By intention-to-treat, participants assigned to REBOOT were less likely to experience any overdose (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.62 [95%CI 0.41-0.92, p = 0.019) and experienced fewer overdose events (IRR 0.46, 95%CI 0.24-0.90, p = 0.023), findings that were robust to sensitivity analyses. There were no differences between arms in days of opioid use, substance use treatment, or naloxone carriage. CONCLUSIONS: REBOOT reduced the occurrence of any opioid overdose and the number of overdoses. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov NCT02093559.

Correlates of overdose risk perception among illicit opioid users.

BACKGROUND: Opioid-related mortality continues to increase in the United States. The current study assesses demographic and behavioral predictors of perceived overdose risk among individuals who use opioids illicitly. By examining these correlates in the context of established overdose risk factors, we aim to assess whether characteristics and behaviors that have been associated with actual overdose risk translate to higher perception of risk. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 172 adult illicit opioid users in San Francisco, CA and used multivariable logistic regression to identify predictors of perception of high risk for opioid overdose. RESULTS: Age (aOR=0.96, 95%CI=0.93-1.00) and number of injection days per month (0.91, 0.86-0.97) were associated with a lower odds of perceived high overdose risk. There was no independent association between use of opioid analgesics, concurrent use of opioids and benzodiazepines or cocaine, or HIV status and overdose risk perception. CONCLUSIONS: Opioid users who injected more frequently and those who were older were less likely to perceive themselves as being at risk of overdose, notwithstanding that those who inject more are at higher risk of overdose and those who are older are at higher risk overdose mortality. In addition, despite being established overdose risk factors, there was no relationship between use of opioid analgesics, concurrent use of opioids and cocaine or benzodiazepines, or self-reported HIV status and overdose risk perception. These findings highlight key populations of opioid users and established risk factors that may merit focused attention as part of education-based overdose prevention and opioid management strategies.