Internal Medicine Resident Addiction Training at the Veteran's Health Administration: A Qualitative Evaluation of Site Directors' Response to the 2022 ACGME Requirements.

BACKGROUND: Substance use disorders (SUDs) are prevalent in the USA yet remain dramatically undertreated. To address this care gap, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) approved revisions to the Program Requirements for Graduate Medical Education (GME) in Internal Medicine, effective July 1, 2022, requiring addiction medicine training for all internal medicine (IM) residents. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is a clinical training site for many academic institutions that sponsor IM residencies. This focus group project evaluated VHA IM residency site directors' perspectives about providing addiction medical education within VHA IM training sites. OBJECTIVE: To better understand the current state, barriers to, and facilitators of IM resident addiction medicine training at VHA sites. DESIGN: This was a qualitative evaluation based on semi-structured video-based focus groups. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were VHA IM site directors based at a VHA hospital or clinic throughout the USA. APPROACH: Focus groups were conducted using a semi-structured group interview guide. Two investigators coded each focus group independently, then met to create a final adjudicated coding scheme. Thematic analysis was used to identify key themes. KEY RESULTS: Forty-three participants from 38 VHA sites participated in four focus groups (average size: 11 participants). Six themes were identified within four pre-defined categories. Current state of training: most VHA sites offered no formal training in addiction medicine for IM residents. Barriers: addiction experts are often located outside of IM settings, and ACGME requirements were non-specific. Facilitators: clinical champions help support addiction training. Desired next steps: participants desired incentives to train or hire local champions and a pre-packaged didactic curriculum. CONCLUSIONS: Developing competent clinical champions and leveraging VHA addiction specialists from non-IM settings would create more addiction training opportunities for IM trainees at VHA sites. These insights can likely be applied to IM training at non-VHA sites.

Optimizing Patient Engagement in Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder: Primary Care Team Perspectives on Influencing Factors.

BACKGROUND: Opioid use disorder (OUD) care engagement rates in primary care (PC) settings are often low. Little is known about PC team experiences when delivering OUD treatment and potential factors that influence their capacity to engage patients in treatment. Exploring PC team experiences may inform needed supports that can optimize OUD care delivery and improve outcomes for patients with OUD. OBJECTIVE: We explored multidisciplinary PC team perspectives on barriers and facilitators to engaging patients in OUD treatment. DESIGN: Qualitative study using in-depth interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Primary care clinical teams. APPROACH: We conducted semi-structured interviews (n = 35) with PC team members involved in OUD care delivery, recruited using a combination of criterion and maximal variation sampling. Data collection and analysis were informed by existing theoretical literature about patient engagement, specifically that patient engagement is influenced by factors across individual (patient, provider), interpersonal (patient-provider), and health system domains. Interviews were professionally transcribed and doubled-coded using a coding schema based on the interview guide while allowing for emergent codes. Coding was iteratively reviewed using a constant comparison approach to identify themes and verified with participants and the full study team. KEY RESULTS: Analysis identified five themes that impact PC team ability to engage patients effectively, including limited patient contact (e.g., phone, text) in between visits, varying levels of provider confidence to navigate OUD treatment discussions, structural factors (e.g., schedules, productivity goals) that limited provider time, the role of team-based approaches in lessening discouragement and feelings of burnout, and lack of shared organizational vision for reducing harms from OUD. CONCLUSIONS: While the capacity of PC teams to engage patients in OUD care is influenced across multiple levels, some of the most promising opportunities may involve addressing system-level factors that limit PC team time and collaboration and promoting organizational alignment on goals for OUD treatment.

Naltrexone augmented with prazosin for alcohol use disorder: results from a randomized controlled proof-of-concept trial.

AIMS: We conducted a proof-of-concept randomized controlled trial of the mu-opioid receptor antagonist, naltrexone, augmented with the alpha-1 adrenergic receptor antagonist, prazosin, for alcohol use disorder in veterans. We sought a signal that the naltrexone plus prazosin combination regimen would be superior to naltrexone alone. METHODS: Thirty-one actively drinking veterans with alcohol use disorder were randomized 1:1:1:1 to naltrexone plus prazosin (NAL-PRAZ [n = 8]), naltrexone plus placebo (NAL-PLAC [n = 7]), prazosin plus placebo (PRAZ-PLAC [n = 7]), or placebo plus placebo (PLAC-PLAC [n = 9]) for 6 weeks. Prazosin was titrated over 2 weeks to a target dose of 4 mg QAM, 4 mg QPM, and 8 mg QHS. Naltrexone was administered at 50 mg QD. Primary outcomes were the Penn Alcohol Craving Scale (PACS), % drinking days (PDD), and % heavy drinking days (PHDD). RESULTS: In the NAL-PRAZ condition, % reductions from baseline for all three primary outcome measures exceeded 50% and were at least twice as large as % reductions in the NAL-PLAC condition (PACS: 57% vs. 26%; PDD: 51% vs. 22%; PHDD: 69% vs. 15%) and in the other two comparator conditions. Standardized effect sizes between NAL-PRAZ and NAL-PLAC for each primary outcome measure were >0.8. All but one participant assigned to the two prazosin containing conditions achieved the target prazosin dose of 16 mg/day and maintained that dose for the duration of the trial. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that prazosin augmentation of naltrexone enhances naltrexone benefit for alcohol use disorder. These results strengthen rationale for an adequately powered definitive randomized controlled trial.

Navigating new norms: Addiction specialists' perspectives on opioid use disorder treatments and policy challenges in the fentanyl era.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Amidst increasing opioid-related overdoses in the USA, opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment has seen few novel treatments emerge. High-potency synthetic opioids (HPSOs) have altered clinical approaches, prompting evaluation of existing medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) and interest in slow-release oral morphine (SROM) as another therapeutic option. Here we survey addiction specialists on the influence of HPSOs on clinical practice, views on current MOUD regulations, and openness to novel therapies such as SROM. METHODS: Anonymous, online survey conducted at a national conference of addiction specialists (N = 91). Pearson χ2 tests and Fisher's exact tests to compare respondent characteristics. RESULTS: Approximately 89% of respondents (N = 91) acknowledge that HPSOs shifted addiction treatment in recent years, with 86% modifying their MOUD prescribing accordingly. Moreover, 84% report having patients who could benefit from other full opioid agonists beyond methadone for OUD management. Many report off-label prescribing of full agonist opioids other than methadone for withdrawal symptoms or initiating MOUD. Eighty percent reported being in favor of incorporating SROM as a third-line monotherapy for OUD. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: This sample of addiction specialists supports innovative alternatives for MOUD in the USA to combat the challenges posed by fentanyl and related HPSOs. Future work should further addiction specialists' opinions on barriers to OUD treatment and exploration of these international strategies in the USA. SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE: This appears to be the first study exploring addiction specialists' perspectives on regulatory barriers to OUD treatment and their willingness to uptake internationally adopted strategies such as SROM.

Integrating Routine Screening for Opioid Use Disorder into Primary Care Settings: Experiences from a National Cohort of Clinics.

BACKGROUND: The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends routine population-based screening for drug use, yet screening for opioid use disorder (OUD) in primary care occurs rarely, and little is known about barriers primary care teams face. OBJECTIVE: As part of a multisite randomized trial to provide OUD and behavioral health treatment using the Collaborative Care Model, we supported 10 primary care clinics in implementing routine OUD screening and conducted formative evaluation to characterize early implementation experiences. DESIGN: Qualitative formative evaluation. APPROACH: Formative evaluation included taking detailed observation notes at implementation meetings with individual clinics and debriefings with external facilitators. Observation notes were analyzed weekly using a Rapid Assessment Process guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, with iterative feedback from the study team. After clinics launched OUD screening, we conducted structured fidelity assessments via group interviews with each site to evaluate clinic experiences with routine OUD screening. Data from observation and structured fidelity assessments were combined into a matrix to compare across clinics and identify cross-cutting barriers and promising implementation strategies. KEY RESULTS: While all clinics had the goal of implementing population-based OUD screening, barriers were experienced across intervention, individual, and clinic setting domains, with compounding effects for telehealth visits. Seven themes emerged characterizing barriers, including (1) challenges identifying who to screen, (2) complexity of the screening tool, (3) staff discomfort and/or hesitancies, (4) workflow barriers that decreased screening follow-up, (5) staffing shortages and turnover, (6) discouragement from low screening yield, and (7) stigma. Promising implementation strategies included utilizing a more universal screening approach, health information technology (HIT), audit and feedback, and repeated staff trainings. CONCLUSIONS: Integrating population-based OUD screening in primary care is challenging but may be made feasible via implementation strategies and tailored practice facilitation that standardize workflows via HIT, decrease stigma, and increase staff confidence regarding OUD.

Non-pharmacological Treatment for Chronic Pain in US Veterans Treated Within the Veterans Health Administration: Implications for Expansion in US Healthcare Systems.

BACKGROUND: Consensus guidelines recommend multimodal chronic pain treatment with increased use of non-pharmacological treatment modalities (NPM), including as first-line therapies. However, with many barriers to NPM uptake in US healthcare systems, NPM use may vary across medical care settings. Military veterans are disproportionately affected by chronic pain. Many veterans receive treatment through the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), an integrated healthcare system in which specific policies promote NPM use. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether veterans with chronic pain who utilize VHA healthcare were more likely to use NPM than veterans who do not utilize VHA healthcare. DESIGN: Cross-sectional nationally representative study. PARTICIPANTS: US military veterans (N = 2,836). MAIN MEASURES: In the 2019 National Health Interview Survey, veterans were assessed for VHA treatment, chronic pain (i.e., past 3-month daily or almost daily pain), symptoms of depression and anxiety, substance use, and NPM (i.e., physical therapy, chiropractic/spinal manipulation, massage, psychotherapy, educational class/workshop, peer support groups, or yoga/tai chi). KEY RESULTS: Chronic pain (45.2% vs. 26.8%) and NPM use (49.8% vs. 39.4%) were more prevalent among VHA patients than non-VHA veterans. After adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics, psychiatric symptoms, physical health indicators, and use of cigarettes or prescription opioids, VHA patients were more likely than non-VHA veterans to use any NPM (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.52, 95% CI: 1.07-2.16) and multimodal NPM (aOR = 1.80, 95% CI: 1.12-2.87) than no NPM. Among veterans with chronic pain, VHA patients were more likely to use chiropractic care (aOR = 1.90, 95% CI = 1.12-3.22), educational class/workshop (aOR = 3.02, 95% CI = 1.35-6.73), or psychotherapy (aOR = 4.28, 95% CI = 1.69-10.87). CONCLUSIONS: Among veterans with chronic pain, past-year VHA use was associated with greater likelihood of receiving NPM. These findings may suggest that the VHA is an important resource and possible facilitator of NPM. VHA policies may offer guidance for expanding use of NPM in other integrated US healthcare systems.

Moderation of buprenorphine therapy for cocaine dependence efficacy by variation of the Prodynorphin gene.

PURPOSE: The aim of this secondary analysis was to identify prodynorphin (PDYN) genetic markers moderating the therapeutic response to treatment of cocaine dependence with buprenorphine/naloxone (Suboxone®; BUP). METHODS: Cocaine-dependent participants (N = 302) were randomly assigned to a platform of injectable, extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX) and one of three daily medication arms: 4 mg BUP (BUP4), 16 mg BUP (BUP16), or placebo (PLB) for 8 weeks (Parent Trial Registration: Protocol ID: NIDA-CTN-0048, Clinical Trials.gov ID: NCT01402492). DNA was obtained from 277 participants. Treatment response was determined from weeks 3 to 7 over each 1-week period by the number of cocaine-positive urines per total possible urines. RESULTS: In the cross-ancestry group, the PLB group had more cocaine-positive urines than the BUP16 group (P = 0.0021). The interactions of genetic variant × treatment were observed in the rs1022563 A-allele carrier group where the BUP16 group (N = 35) had fewer cocaine-positive urines (P = 0.0006) than did the PLB group (N = 26) and in the rs1997794 A-allele carrier group where the BUP16 group (N = 49) had fewer cocaine-positive urines (P = 0.0003) than did the PLB group (N = 58). No difference was observed in the rs1022563 GG or rs1997794 GG genotype groups between the BUP16 and PLB groups. In the African American-ancestry subgroup, only the rs1022563 A-allele carrier group was associated with treatment response. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that PDYN variants may identify patients who are best suited to treatment with XR-NTX plus buprenorphine for cocaine use disorder pharmacotherapy.

Comparing mental and physical health of U.S. veterans by VA healthcare use: implications for generalizability of research in the VA electronic health records.

OBJECTIVE: The Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) electronic health records (EHR) offer a rich source of big data to study medical and health care questions, but patient eligibility and preferences may limit generalizability of findings. We therefore examined the representativeness of VA veterans by comparing veterans using VA healthcare services to those who do not. METHODS: We analyzed data on 3051 veteran participants age ≥ 18 years in the 2019 National Health Interview Survey. Weighted logistic regression was used to model participant characteristics, health conditions, pain, and self-reported health by past year VA healthcare use and generate predicted marginal prevalences, which were used to calculate Cohen's d of group differences in absolute risk by past-year VA healthcare use. RESULTS: Among veterans, 30.4% had past-year VA healthcare use. Veterans with lower income and members of racial/ethnic minority groups were more likely to report past-year VA healthcare use. Health conditions overrepresented in past-year VA healthcare users included chronic medical conditions (80.6% vs. 69.4%, d = 0.36), pain (78.9% vs. 65.9%; d = 0.35), mental distress (11.6% vs. 5.9%; d = 0.47), anxiety (10.8% vs. 4.1%; d = 0.67), and fair/poor self-reported health (27.9% vs. 18.0%; d = 0.40). CONCLUSIONS: Heterogeneity in veteran sociodemographic and health characteristics was observed by past-year VA healthcare use. Researchers working with VA EHR data should consider how the patient selection process may relate to the exposures and outcomes under study. Statistical reweighting may be needed to generalize risk estimates from the VA EHR data to the overall veteran population.

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.

Buprenorphine in safety-sensitive positions.

The permissibility of buprenorphine in safety-sensitive positions is a controversial topic. As an opioid medication, concerns have arisen regarding the potential for impairment and any effects that this would have on an employee's ability to safely perform job duties. While there are no definitive guidelines on the use of buprenorphine for those employed in safety-sensitive lines of work, most employers do not permit its use under any circumstance due to the potential risk of harm to the public. In addition to overlooking the fact that buprenorphine is a well-established and life-saving treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD), there are many flaws in making this determination. For one, buprenorphine is a partial mu opioid agonist which makes it inherently unique in comparison to other opioids. Most studies on impairment have examined acute use of full agonist opioids instead of chronic dosing of buprenorphine. Furthermore, assessments of impairment are not tailored to the tasks required of specific positions. Importantly, policies banning buprenorphine may contribute to treatment discontinuation and stigma, which can lead to relapse and overdose. Considering the morbidity and mortality associated with OUD, along with the surge in overdose deaths during the COVID19 pandemic, buprenorphine policies should be considered carefully. Given the lack of evidence showing definitive and specific impairments as a result of chronic buprenorphine use, coupled with the consequences of universal bans on its use, determinations on the permissibility of buprenorphine treatment for safety-sensitive positions should be made on a case-by-case basis.

Clinical documentation of patient-reported medical cannabis use in primary care: Toward scalable extraction using natural language processing methods.

Background: Most states have legalized medical cannabis, yet little is known about how medical cannabis use is documented in patients' electronic health records (EHRs). We used natural language processing (NLP) to calculate the prevalence of clinician-documented medical cannabis use among adults in an integrated health system in Washington State where medical and recreational use are legal. Methods: We analyzed EHRs of patients ≥18 years old screened for past-year cannabis use (November 1, 2017-October 31, 2018), to identify clinician-documented medical cannabis use. We defined medical use as any documentation of cannabis that was recommended by a clinician or described by the clinician or patient as intended to manage health conditions or symptoms. We developed and applied an NLP system that included NLP-assisted manual review to identify such documentation in encounter notes. Results: Medical cannabis use was documented for 16,684 (5.6%) of 299,597 outpatient encounters with routine screening for cannabis use among 203,489 patients seeing 1,274 clinicians. The validated NLP system identified 54% of documentation and NLP-assisted manual review the remainder. Language documenting reasons for cannabis use included 125 terms indicating medical use, 28 terms indicating non-medical use and 41 ambiguous terms. Implicit documentation of medical use (e.g., "edible THC nightly for lumbar pain") was more common than explicit (e.g., "continues medical cannabis use"). Conclusions: Clinicians use diverse and often ambiguous language to document patients' reasons for cannabis use. Automating extraction of documentation about patients' cannabis use could facilitate clinical decision support and epidemiological investigation but will require large amounts of gold standard training data.

Prevalence and Medication Treatment of Opioid Use Disorder Among Primary Care Patients with Hepatitis C and HIV.

BACKGROUND: Hepatitis C and HIV are associated with opioid use disorders (OUD) and injection drug use. Medications for OUD can prevent the spread of HCV and HIV. OBJECTIVE: To describe the prevalence of documented OUD, as well as receipt of office-based medication treatment, among primary care patients with HCV or HIV. DESIGN: Retrospective observational cohort study using electronic health record and insurance data. PARTICIPANTS: Adults ≥ 18 years with ≥ 2 visits to primary care during the study (2014-2016) at 6 healthcare systems across five states (CO, CA, OR, WA, and MN). MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was the diagnosis of OUD; the secondary outcome was OUD treatment with buprenorphine or oral/injectable naltrexone. Prevalence of OUD and OUD treatment was calculated across four groups: HCV only; HIV only; HCV and HIV; and neither HCV nor HIV. In addition, adjusted odds ratios (AOR) of OUD treatment associated with HCV and HIV (separately) were estimated, adjusting for age, gender, race/ethnicity, and site. KEY RESULTS: The sample included 1,368,604 persons, of whom 10,042 had HCV, 5821 HIV, and 422 both. The prevalence of diagnosed OUD varied across groups: 11.9% (95% CI: 11.3%, 12.5%) for those with HCV; 1.6% (1.3%, 2.0%) for those with HIV; 8.8% (6.2%, 11.9%) for those with both; and 0.92% (0.91%, 0.94%) among those with neither. Among those with diagnosed OUD, the prevalence of OUD medication treatment was 20.9%, 16.0%, 10.8%, and 22.3%, for those with HCV, HIV, both, and neither, respectively. HCV was not associated with OUD treatment (AOR = 1.03; 0.88, 1.21), whereas patients with HIV had a lower probability of OUD treatment (AOR = 0.43; 0.26, 0.72). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients receiving primary care, those diagnosed with HCV and HIV were more likely to have documented OUD than those without. Patients with HIV were less likely to have documented medication treatment for OUD.

Primary Care and Mental Health Prescribers, Key Clinical Leaders, and Clinical Pharmacist Specialists' Perspectives on Opioids and Benzodiazepines.

OBJECTIVE: Due to increased risks of overdose fatalities and injuries associated with coprescription of opioids and benzodiazepines, healthcare systems have prioritized deprescribing this combination. Although prior work has examined providers' perspectives on deprescribing each medication separately, perspectives on deprescribing patients with combined use is unclear. We examined providers' perspectives on coprescribed opioids and benzodiazepines and identified barriers and facilitators to deprescribing. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semistructured interviews. SETTING: One multisite Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system in the United States of America. SUBJECTS: Primary care and mental health prescribers, key clinical leaders, clinical pharmacist specialists (N = 39). METHODS: Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using thematic analysis. Themes were identified iteratively, through a multidisciplinary team-based process. RESULTS: Analyses identified four themes related to barriers and facilitators to deprescribing: inertia, prescriber self-efficacy, feasibility of deprescribing/tapering, and promoting deprescribing, as well as a fifth theme, consequences of deprescribing. Results highlighted the complexity of deprescribing when multiple prescribers are involved, a need for additional support and time, and concerns about patients' reluctance to discontinue these medications. Facilitators included agreement with the goal of deprescribing and fear of negative consequences if medications are continued. Providers spoke to how deprescribing efforts impaired patient-provider relationships and informed their decisions not to start patients on these medications. CONCLUSIONS: Although providers agree with the goal, prescribers' belief in a limited deprescribing role, challenges with coordination among prescribers, concerns about insufficient time and patients' resistance to discontinuing these medications need to be addressed for efforts to be successful.

Relationship of Phosphatidylethanol Biomarker to Self-Reported Alcohol Drinking Patterns in Older and Middle-Age Adults.

BACKGROUND: Risky alcohol consumption is on the rise among older adults. Biomarkers such as phosphatidylethanol (PEth) have been used to evaluate the correspondence between an objective, laboratory-based biomarker and self-report of alcohol consumption. This study examined the relationship between PEth, self-report of alcohol consumption, and health indices in a sample of community-dwelling older to middle-age adults (aged 35 to 89) with healthy and risky levels of alcohol consumption. METHODS: Self-reports of alcohol consumption were collected using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) and Form 30. In addition, indices of health along with a blood sample to determine PEth values were collected (N = 183). RESULTS: PEth was correlated with age, AUDIT-C, AUDIT total, alcohol consumption, mood, and liver function measures but not with medical comorbidity or body mass index (J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 73, 2018, 633). Alcohol consumption over the past 30 days measured with Form 30 was the strongest predictor of PEth levels for both middle-age and older adults, with age a small contributing predictor. General alcohol consumption patterns for amount of alcohol consumed over a 30-day period revealed middle-age adults consumed larger amounts of alcohol compared with older adults, but older adults consumed alcohol on more days than middle-age adults. Middle-age participants evidenced higher PEth levels than older adults at comparable drinking rates. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, findings suggest a strong relationship between alcohol consumption and PEth levels with age a small but contributing factor to predicting PEth levels.

Effect of a Care Management Intervention on 12-Month Drinking Outcomes Among Patients With and Without DSM-IV Alcohol Dependence at Baseline.

BACKGROUND: The CHOICE care management intervention did not improve drinking relative to usual care (UC) for patients with frequent heavy drinking at high risk of alcohol use disorders. Patients with alcohol dependence were hypothesized to benefit most. We conducted preplanned secondary analyses to test whether the CHOICE intervention improved drinking relative to UC among patients with and without baseline DSM-IV alcohol dependence. METHODS: A total of 304 patients reporting frequent heavy drinking from 3 VA primary care clinics were randomized (stratified by DSM-IV alcohol dependence, sex, and site) to UC or the patient-centered, nurse-delivered, 12-month CHOICE care management intervention. Primary outcomes included percent heavy drinking days (%HDD) using 28-day timeline follow-back and a "good drinking outcome" (GDO)-abstaining or drinking below recommended limits and no alcohol-related symptoms on the Short Inventory of Problems at 12 months. Generalized estimating equation binomial regression models (clustered on provider) with interaction terms between dependence and intervention group were fit. RESULTS: At baseline, 59% of intervention and UC patients had DSM-IV alcohol dependence. Mean drinking outcomes improved for all subgroups. For participants with dependence, 12-month outcomes did not differ for intervention versus UC patients (%HDD 37% versus 38%, p = 0.76 and GDO 16% versus 16%, p = 0.77). For participants without dependence, %HDD did not differ between intervention (41%) and UC (31%) patients (p = 0.12), but the proportion with GDO was significantly higher among UC participants (26% versus 13%, p = 0.046). Neither outcome was significantly modified by dependence (interaction p values 0.19 for %HDD and 0.10 for GDO). CONCLUSIONS: Among participants with frequent heavy drinking, care management had no benefit relative to UC for patients with dependence, but UC may have had benefits for those without dependence. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01400581.

Harm reduction treatment for smoking (HaRT-S): findings from a single-arm pilot study with smokers experiencing chronic homelessness.

Background: Smoking prevalence and mortality is 5 times higher for the chronically homeless versus general population. Unfortunately, traditional smoking cessation treatment does not optimally engage this population. In a preliminary study, smokers experiencing chronic homelessness suggested providers avoid giving advice to quit and instead use a more compassionate, nonjudgmental style to discuss a broader menu of patient-driven options, including safer nicotine use. Most had negative perceptions of smoking cessation medications; however, 76% expressed interest in a switchover to electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS). Methods: Using a community-based participatory research approach, we codeveloped harm-reduction treatment for smoking (HaRT-S) together with people with lived experience of chronic homelessness and smoking and a community-based agency that serves them. In HaRT-S, interventionists embody a compassionate, advocacy-oriented "heart-set" and deliver manualized components: a) participant-led tracking of smoking-related outcomes, b) elicitation of harm-reduction goals and progress made toward them, c) discussion of relative risks of nicotine delivery systems, and d) distribution and instructions on use of safer nicotine products. We then conducted a single-arm, 14-week pilot of HaRT-S (N = 44). Results: Participants rated procedures "totally acceptable/effective," which was reflected in 26% overrecruitment within a 4-month period and 70% retention at the 14-week follow-up. For each week in the study, participants experienced an 18% increase in odds of reporting 7-day, biochemically verified, point-prevalence abstinence. All participants reporting abstinence used ENDS. Participants evinced reductions in cigarette dependence (-45%), frequency (-29%), and intensity (-78%; ps < .05). Participants who used ENDS experienced an additional 44% reduction in smoking intensity and a 1.2-point reduction in dependence compared to participants who did not. Conclusions: Harm-reduction counseling plus ENDS shows promise for smokers experiencing chronic homelessness. Randomized controlled trials are needed to establish the efficacy of this approach in decreasing smoking-related harm and improving health-related quality of life for this marginalized and disproportionately affected population.

Electronic Medical Record Alert Associated With Reduced Opioid and Benzodiazepine Coprescribing in High-risk Veteran Patients.

BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, overdoses involving opioids and benzodiazepines have risen at alarming rates, making reductions in coprescribing of these medications a priority, particularly among patients who may be susceptible to adverse events due to high-risk conditions. OBJECTIVES: This quality improvement project evaluated the effectiveness of a medication alert designed to reduce opioid and benzodiazepine coprescribing among Veterans with known high-risk conditions (substance use, sleep apnea, suicide-risk, age 65 and above) at 1 Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system. METHODS: Prescribers were exposed to the point-of-prescribing alert for 12 months. For each high-risk cohort we used interrupted time series design to examine population trends in coprescribing 12 months after alert launch adjusting for coprescribing 12 months before launch, demographics and clinical covariates. Trends at the alert site were compared with those of a similar VA health care system without the alert. Secondary analyses examined population trends in opioid and benzodiazepine prescribing separately. RESULTS: Over 12 months, the alert activated for 1332 patients. Proportions of patients with concurrent prescriptions decreased significantly postalert launch among substance use [adjusted odds ratio (AOR)=0.97; 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.96-0.99; 12-month decrease=25.0%], sleep apnea (AOR=0.97, 95% CI=0.95-0.98, 12-month decrease=38.5%), and suicide-risk (AOR=0.94, 95% CI=0.91-0.98, 12-month decrease=61.5%) cohorts at the alert site. Decreases in coprescribing were significantly different from the comparison site among suicide-risk (AOR=0.92, 95% CI=0.86-0.97) and sleep apnea (AOR=0.98, 95% CI=0.96-1.00) cohorts. Significant decreases in benzodiazepine prescribing trends were observed at the alert site only. CONCLUSIONS: Medication alerts hold promise as a means of reducing opioid and benzodiazepine coprescribing among certain high-risk groups.

Survey of Primary Care and Mental Health Prescribers' Perspectives on Reducing Opioid and Benzodiazepine Co-Prescribing Among Veterans.

Background: Due to the involvement of opioids and benzodiazepines in rising pharmaceutical overdoses, a reduction in coprescribing of these medications is a national priority, particularly among patients with substance use disorders and other high-risk conditions. However, little is known about primary care (PC) and mental health (MH) prescribers' perspectives on these medications and efforts being implemented to reduce coprescribing. Design: An anonymous survey. Setting: One multisite VA health care system. Subjects: Participants were 55 PC and 31 MH prescribers. Methods: Survey development was guided by the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) conceptual framework. PC and MH prescribers of opioids or benzodiazepines were invited to complete an anonymous electronic survey. Responses were collapsed to highlight agreement, disagreement, and neutrality and summarized with means and percentages. Results: Over 80% of both prescriber groups reported concern about concurrent use and > 75% strongly agreed with clinical practice guidelines (CPG) that recommend caution in coprescribing among patients with high-risk conditions. More than 40% of both prescriber groups indicated that coprescribing continues because of beliefs that patients appear stable without adverse events and tapering/discontinuation is too difficult. Over 70% of prescribers rated strategies for addressing patients who refuse to discontinue, more time with patients, and identification of high-risk patients as helpful in reducing coprescribing. Conclusion: Despite strong agreement with CPGs, prescribers reported several barriers that contribute to coprescribing of opioids and benzodiazepines and challenge their ability to taper these medications. Multiple interventions are likely needed to reduce opioid and benzodiazepine coprescribing.

Methadone "callbacks" within a veterans affairs opioid treatment program: Detecting methadone misuse.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: A "callback" requires patients to bring in take-home methadone doses for inspection. An opioid treatment program (OTP) quality-improvement project examined random versus "for-cause" callbacks. METHOD: Eighty-two random callbacks and 60 for-cause callbacks were conducted among patients enrolled in an OTP (N = 183). RESULTS: Among patients with more take home doses, 6% of random callbacks versus 44% of for-cause callbacks were failed. Among patients with fewer take home doses, 36% of for-cause callbacks were failed. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: For-cause callbacks are more useful than random ones. SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE: For-cause callbacks based on clinical judgment detect methadone misuse. (Am J Addict 2017;26:50-52).