"I Thought Cancer was a Tobacco Issue": Perspectives of Veterans with and without HIV on Cancer and Other Health Risks Associated with Alcohol and Tobacco/Nicotine Use.

U.S. Veterans and people living with HIV (PWH) experience higher rates of unhealthy alcohol and tobacco/nicotine use than non-Veterans and people without HIV (PWoH). Both groups are susceptible to adverse health outcomes associated with alcohol and tobacco/nicotine use. We explored awareness of alcohol- and tobacco/nicotine-related cancer and immune health risks among Veterans Health Administration (VA) patients with and without HIV. Among a sample of 41 (46% PWH; 73% male; 39% Black) purposively-selected VA patients receiving care 2020-2021 we conducted semi-structured interviews via telephone; interviews were recorded, transcribed and analyzed using a Rapid Assessment Process. Purposive selection was based on HIV status, alcohol and/or tobacco/nicotine use, and demographics. Among participants, 66% reported current smoking, and most screened positive for unhealthy alcohol use. Participants had high awareness of cancer and other health risks related to smoking but low awareness of synergistic risks and cancer risks associated with alcohol use despite awareness of a range of other alcohol-related risks. Awareness of alcohol and/or tobacco/nicotine's impacts on the immune system was variable. Findings did not distinctly differ between PWH and PWoH. Low awareness of alcohol-related cancer risk, risks of co-occurring use, and varying awareness of the impacts of alcohol and tobacco/nicotine on the immune system suggest a need for improved messaging regarding substance use-related cancer and immune risk. This may be especially important among PWH, for whom the prevalence and adverse effects of alcohol and tobacco use, and immune dysfunction are higher.

Program Adaptations to Provide Harm Reduction Services During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Study of Syringe Services Programs in the U.S.

Syringe services programs (SSPs) are essential to preventing injection drug use-related infections and overdose death among people who use drugs (PWUD). The novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic initially impeded SSPs' operations. To effectively support these programs, information is needed regarding SSPs' experiences adapting their services and the challenges posed by COVID-19. We conducted qualitative interviews with leadership and staff from a sample of 31 U.S. SSPs. Respondents discussed urgent concerns including reduced reach of services, suspended HIV/hepatitis C testing, high COVID-19 risk among PWUD, and negative impacts of isolation on overdose and mental health. They also noted opportunities to improve future services for PWUD, including shifting to evidence-based distribution practices and maintaining regulatory changes that increased access to opioid use disorder medications post-pandemic. Findings can inform efforts to support SSPs in restoring and expanding services, and provide insight into SSPs' role in engaging PWUD during the COVID-19 response and future emergencies.

RESUMEN: Los programas de servicios de jeringas (reconocido como SSP en inglés) son esenciales para prevenir las infecciones relacionadas con el consumo de drogas inyectables y la muerte por sobredosis entre las personas que consumen drogas (reconocidos como PWUD en ingles). La nueva pandemia del coronavirus (COVID-19) inicialmente impidió las operaciones de los SSP. Para apoyar eficazmente estos programas, se necesita información sobre las experiencias de los SSP que adaptan sus servicios y los desafíos que plantea COVID-19. Realizamos entrevistas cualitativas con el liderazgo y el personal de una muestra de 31 SSPs de EE.UU. Los encuestados discutieron las preocupaciones urgentes, incluyendo la reducción del alcance de los servicios, la suspensión de las pruebas de VIH/hepatitis C, el alto riesgo de COVID-19 entre la PWUD, y los impactos negativos del aislamiento en las sobredosis y la salud mental. También identificaron las oportunidades de mejorar los servicios futuros para las PWUD, incluyendo el cambio a prácticas de distribución basadas en evidencias y el mantenimiento de cambios regulatorios que aumentaran el acceso a medicamentos para el trastorno por consumo de opiáceos después de la pandemia. La información que se encontró en este estudio se puede utilizar junto los esfuerzos para apoyar a los SSP en la restauración y expansión de los servicios, y proporcionar información sobre el papel de los SSP en la participación de PWUD durante la respuesta covid-19 futuras emergencias.

Responding to a surge in overdose deaths: perspectives from US syringe services programs.

BACKGROUND: US overdose deaths have reached a record high. Syringe services programs (SSPs) play a critical role in addressing this crisis by providing multiple services to people who use drugs (PWUD) that help prevent overdose death. This study examined the perspectives of leadership and staff from a geographically diverse sample of US SSPs on factors contributing to the overdose surge, their organization's response, and ongoing barriers to preventing overdose death. METHODS: From 2/11/2021 to 4/23/2021, we conducted semi-structured interviews with leadership and staff from 27 SSPs sampled from the North American Syringe Exchange Network directory. Interviews were transcribed and qualitatively analyzed using a Rapid Assessment Process. RESULTS: Respondents reported that increased intentional and unintentional fentanyl use (both alone and combined with other substances) was a major driver of the overdose surge. They also described how the COVID-19 pandemic increased solitary drug use and led to abrupt increases in use due to life disruptions and worsened mental health among PWUD. In response to this surge, SSPs have increased naloxone distribution, including providing more doses per person and expanding distribution to people using non-opioid drugs. They are also adapting overdose prevention education to increase awareness of fentanyl risks, including for people using non-opioid drugs. Some are distributing fentanyl test strips, though a few respondents expressed doubts about strips' effectiveness in reducing overdose harms. Some SSPs are expanding education and naloxone training/distribution in the broader community, beyond PWUD and their friends/family. Respondents described several ongoing barriers to preventing overdose death, including not reaching certain groups at risk of overdose (PWUD who do not inject, PWUD experiencing homelessness, and PWUD of color), an inconsistent naloxone supply and lack of access to intranasal naloxone in particular, inadequate funding, underestimates of overdoses, legal/policy barriers, and community stigma. CONCLUSIONS: SSPs remain essential in preventing overdose deaths amid record numbers likely driven by increased fentanyl use and COVID-19-related impacts. These findings can inform efforts to support SSPs in this work. In the face of ongoing barriers, support for SSPs-including increased resources, political support, and community partnership-is urgently needed to address the worsening overdose crisis.

Barriers and facilitators to changing drinking and receiving alcohol-related care: Interviews with Veterans Health Administration primary care patients who indicated interest but did not enroll in an alcohol care management intervention trial.

Background: Most people with alcohol use disorder do not receive treatment, and primary care (PC)-based management of alcohol use disorder is a key strategy to close this gap. Understanding PC patients' perspectives on changing drinking and receiving alcohol-related care is important for this goal, particularly among those who decline alcohol-related care. This study examined perspectives on barriers and facilitators to changing drinking and receiving alcohol-related care among Veterans Health Administration (VA) PC patients who indicated interest but did not enroll in the Choosing Healthier drinking Options In primary CarE trial (CHOICE), which tested a PC-based alcohol care management intervention. Methods: VA PC patients with frequent heavy drinking who indicated interest in CHOICE but did not enroll were invited to participate. Twenty-seven patients completed in-person, semi-structured interviews. Interview transcripts were analyzed using iterative deductive and inductive content analysis. Results: Participants were mostly men (96%) and White (59%), and the mean age was 48. Seventy-four percent met criteria for alcohol use disorder, and the median number of past-week standard drinks was 41.5. Participants reported fewer alcohol-related problems, lower importance of/readiness to change drinking, and higher confidence in their ability to change than patients who enrolled in the CHOICE trial. Barriers fell into 5 domains: drinking fulfills need(s); reducing drinking or treatment is not needed; treatment is not effective/not acceptable; alcohol-related stigma; and practical barriers. Facilitators fell into 4 domains: reasons to change drinking; social support; treatment is acceptable/meets patients' needs; and practical facilitators. Participants discussed how Veteran identity and military experiences impacted drinking and willingness to receive care, which amplified multiple barriers/facilitators. Conclusions: This study identified barriers and facilitators to changing drinking and receiving alcohol-related care among VA PC patients who indicated interest but did not enroll in an alcohol care management trial. Findings can inform patient-centered interventions and support clinicians in engaging patients in care.

Enhancing Access to Quality Online Training to Strengthen Public Health Preparedness and Response.

OBJECTIVES: To improve access to quality online training materials developed from 2010 to 2015 by 14 Preparedness and Emergency Response Learning Centers (PERLCs) by creating quality standards and enhancing searchability through a new Web-based public health training catalog. METHODS: The PERLC-developed training materials (n = 530) were evaluated for their capability to support development of preparedness competencies as established by 2 evidence-based competency frameworks. Inclusion/exclusion criteria and evaluation guidelines regarding training quality (design, technology, and instructional components) were systematically applied to PERLC products to create a training catalog. Twenty emergency preparedness professionals pilot tested content and provided feedback to improve catalog design and function. RESULTS: Seventy-eight percent of PERLC resources (n = 413) met our quality standards for inclusion in the catalog's searchable database: 358 self-paced courses, 55 informational briefs, and other materials. Twenty-one training bundles were curated. DISCUSSION: We established quality guidelines, identified strengths and weaknesses in PERLC resources, and improved accessibility to trainings. Guidelines established by this work can be generalized to trainings outside the preparedness domain. Enhancing access to quality training resources can serve as a valuable tool for increasing emergency preparedness competence.

Comparison of Treatment Receipt and Hospitalization Among Patients With Stimulant Use Disorder and/or Opioid Use Disorder in the Veterans Health Administration.

OBJECTIVES: Stimulant use is a growing problem, but little is known about service utilization among patients with stimulant use disorder (StUD). In the context of the overdose crisis, much research has focused on patients with opioid use disorder (OUD). It is unclear how the characteristics, treatment receipt, and hospitalization of patients with StUD differ from patients with OUD. METHODS: Electronic health record data were extracted for national Veterans Health Administration patients with a visit from March 1, 2020, to February 28, 2021 with StUD and/or OUD (N = 132,273). We compared patients with StUD without OUD to those with (1) co-occurring StUD + OUD and (2) OUD without StUD. Patient characteristics, substance use disorder treatment, and hospitalizations in the year following patients' first study period visit were descriptively compared. Treatment and hospitalization were also compared in adjusted regression models. RESULTS: Compared with patients with OUD + StUD, those with StUD without OUD were less likely to receive outpatient (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.49, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.47-0.50) or any treatment (aOR 0.47, 95% CI 0.46-0.49). Compared with patients with OUD without StUD, those with StUD without OUD were less likely to receive outpatient (aOR 0.51, 95% CI 0.49-0.52) or any treatment (aOR 0.56, 95% CI 0.54-0.58) and more likely to receive residential treatment (aOR 2.18, 95% 2.05-2.30) and to be hospitalized (aOR 1.62, 95% 1.56-1.69). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with StUD may be less likely to receive treatment and more likely to be hospitalized than patients with OUD. Efforts focused on mitigating hospitalization and increasing treatment receipt for patients with StUD are needed.

Implementation of Opioid Safety Efforts: Influence of Academic Detailing on Adverse Outcomes Among Patients in the Veterans Health Administration.

BACKGROUND: The Veterans Health Administration (VA) implemented academic detailing (AD) to support safer opioid prescribing and overdose prevention initiatives. METHODS: Patient-level data were extracted monthly from VA's electronic health record to evaluate whether AD implementation was associated with changes in all-cause mortality, opioid poisoning inpatient admissions, and opioid poisoning emergency department (ED) visits in an observational cohort of patients with long-term opioid prescriptions (≥45-day supply of opioids 6 months prior to a given month with ≤15 days between prescriptions). A single-group interrupted time series analysis using segmented logistic regression for mortality and Poisson regression for counts of inpatient admissions and ED visits was used to identify whether the level and slope of these outcomes changed in response to AD implementation. RESULTS: Among 955 376 unique patients (19 431 241 person-months), there were 53 369 deaths (29 025 pre-AD; 24 344 post-AD), 1927 opioid poisoning inpatient admissions (610 pre-AD; 1317 post-AD), and 408 opioid poisoning ED visits (207 pre-AD; 201 post-AD). Immediately after AD implementation, there was a 5.8% reduction in the odds of all-cause mortality (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.897, 0.990). However, patients had a significantly increased incidence rate of inpatient admissions for opioid poisoning immediately after AD implementation (incidence rate ratio = 1.523; 95% CI: 1.118, 2.077). No significant differences in ED visits for opioid poisoning were observed. CONCLUSIONS: AD was associated with decreased all-cause mortality but increased inpatient hospitalization for opioid poisoning among patients prescribed long-term opioids. Mechanisms via which AD's efforts influenced opioid-related outcomes should be explored.

Receipt of Medications for Alcohol Use Disorder in the Veterans Health Administration: Comparison of Rates at the Intersections of Racialized and Ethnic Identity With Both Sex and Transgender Status.

OBJECTIVES: Medications for alcohol use disorder (MAUDs) are recommended for patients with alcohol use disorder yet are underprescribed. Consistent with Minority Stress and Intersectionality theories, persons with multiple sociodemographically marginalized identities (eg, Black women) often experience greater barriers to care and have poorer health outcomes. We use data from the Veterans Health Administration to assess disparities in Federal Drug Administration (FDA)-approved MAUDs and all effective MAUDs between the following groups: racialized and ethnic identity, sex, transgender status, and their intersections. METHODS: Among all Veterans Health Administration outpatients between August 1, 2015, and July 31, 2017, with documented alcohol screenings and an International Classification of Diseases diagnosis for alcohol use disorder in the 0-365 days prior (N = 308,238), we estimated the prevalence and 95% confidence intervals of receiving FDA-approved MAUDs and any MAUDs in the following year and compared them using χ2 or Fisher's exact test. Analyses are unadjusted to present true prevalence and group differences. RESULTS: The overall prevalence for MAUDs was low (FDA-MAUDs = 8.7%, any MAUDs = 20.0%). Within sex, Black males had the lowest rate of FDA-MAUDs (7.3%, [7.1-7.5]), whereas American Indian/Alaskan Native females had the highest (18.4%, [13.8-23.0]). Among those identified as transgender, Asian and Black transgender persons had the lowest rates of FDA-MAUDs (0%; 4.3%, [1.8-8.5], respectively), whereas American Indian/Alaskan Native transgender patients had the highest (33.3%, [2.5-64.1]). Similar patterns were observed for any MAUDs, with higher rates overall. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial variation exists in MAUD prescribing, with marginalized veterans disproportionately receiving MAUDs at lower and higher rates than average. Implementation and quality improvement efforts are needed to improve MAUD prescribing practices and reduce disparities.

Contingency management for substance use disorders in the U.S. Veterans Health Administration: 2018-2022.

INTRODUCTION: Contingency management (CM) is one of the most effective interventions for substance use disorders (SUDs), including stimulant use disorder. In the United States, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) led the largest-scale rollout of CM in the US to date, but little is known about characteristics of patients treated and CM clinical practices. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we used VHA electronic health records data to descriptively examine CM treatment course (e.g., number of visits, time between visits, duration of treatment episode) and characteristics of patients receiving CM for SUDs from 2018 to 2022. RESULTS: From January 2018 to September 2022, 2844 patients received CM at 90 VA Health Systems (including 98 VA Medical Center, 7 community-based outpatient clinics, and 15 other sites). The median number of CM visits was 8 (mean = 10.17, SD = 8.12) visits over the course of 1.5 months (median = 45 days, mean = 57.46 days, SD = 62.65). The target substance was stimulants in 86.42 % of visits. Average age of patients was 52.29 years (SD = 12.10), with 55.06 % of patients experiencing homelessness or housing instability, and 97.50 % of patients diagnosed with more than one SUD. Compared to the year prior to the COVID-19 pandemic (03/2019-02/2020; mean = 957.33, SD = 157.71 visits/month), CM visits declined by 83.20 % in the year following the pandemic (03/2020-02/2021; mean = 160.83, SD = 164.14), and have yet to return to pre-pandemic levels. CONCLUSIONS: The CM rollout has been markedly successful in the VHA, with adoption across multiple VHA sites within a complex patient population, indicating the potential for effective, more widespread CM implementation. At the same time, there was a considerable reduction in CM care during the COVID-19 pandemic and CM has not yet returned to pre-pandemic levels. Moreover, only a small minority of VA patients with stimulant use disorder have received CM. Given increasing rates of overdose, including stimulant-involved overdose, it is important to increase CM provision in VHA and non-VHA settings.

Telehealth and delivery of alcohol use disorder treatment in the Veterans Health Administration.

BACKGROUND: The use of telehealth treatment of alcohol use disorder (AUD) has increased since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, it is unclear which patients are using telehealth and how telehealth visits are associated with treatment duration. This study examined characteristics associated with telehealth use among Veterans Health Administration patients receiving AUD treatment. METHODS: Using a national retrospective cohort study, we examined data from March 01, 2020 to February 28, 2021 to: First, identify patient characteristics associated with (a) any telehealth versus only in-person care for AUD treatment, and (b) video (≥1 video visit) versus only telephone visits for AUD treatment (≥1 telephone visit, no video) among any telehealth users. This analysis used mixed-effects logistic regression models to adjust for potential correlation across patients treated at the same facility. Second, we assessed whether visit modality was associated with the amount of AUD treatment received (number of AUD psychotherapy visits or medication coverage days). This analysis used mixed-effects negative binomial regression models. RESULTS: Among 138,619 patients who received AUD treatment, 52.8% had ≥1 video visit, 38.1% had ≥1 telephone but no video visits, and 9.1% had only in-person visits. In the regression analyses, patients who were male or had an opioid or stimulant use disorder (compared to having no non-AUD substance use disorder) were less likely to receive any telehealth-delivered AUD treatment compared to only in-person AUD treatment. Among patients who received any telehealth-delivered AUD treatment, those who were ≥45 years old (compared to 18-29 years old), Black (compared to White), diagnosed with a cannabis or stimulant use disorder, or diagnosed with a serious mental illness were less likely to receive a video visit than only telephone visits. Receiving any AUD telehealth was associated with receiving more psychotherapy visits and medication coverage days than only in-person care. CONCLUSIONS: Telehealth, a common modality for AUD treatment, supported a greater number of psychotherapy visits and a longer duration of medication treatment for AUD. However, some groups were less likely to receive any video telehealth than telephone visits, suggesting that multiple treatment modalities should remain available to ensure treatment access.

Perspectives of clinical stakeholders and patients from four VA liver clinics to tailor practice facilitation for implementing evidence-based alcohol-related care.

BACKGROUND: Unhealthy alcohol use (UAU) is particularly dangerous for people with chronic liver disease. Liver clinics may be an important setting in which to provide effective alcohol-related care by integrating evidence-based strategies, such as brief intervention and medications for alcohol use disorder. We conducted qualitative interviews with clinical stakeholders and patients at liver clinics in four Veterans Health Administration (VA) medical centers to understand barriers and facilitators of integrating alcohol-related care and to support tailoring of a practice facilitation implementation intervention. METHODS: Data collection and analysis were guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Interviews were transcribed and qualitatively analyzed using a Rapid Assessment Process (RAP) guided by the CFIR. RESULTS: We interviewed 46 clinical stakeholders and 41 patient participants and analyzed findings based on the CFIR. Clinical stakeholders described barriers and facilitators that ranged from operations/clinic resource-based (e.g., time and capacity, desire for additional provider types, referral processes) to individual perspective and preference-based (e.g., supportiveness of leadership, individual experiences/beliefs). Patient participants shared barriers and facilitators that ranged from relationship-based (e.g., trusting the provider and feeling judged) to resource and education-based (e.g., connection to a range of treatment options, education about impact of alcohol). Many barriers and facilitators to integrating alcohol-related care in liver clinics were similar to those identified in other clinical settings (e.g., time, resources, role clarity, stigmatizing beliefs). However, some barriers (e.g., fellow-led care and lack of integration of liver clinics with addictions specialists) and facilitators (e.g., presence of quality improvement staff in clinics and integrated pharmacists and behavioral health specialists) were more unique to liver clinics. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support the possibility of integrating alcohol-related care into liver clinics but highlight the importance of tailoring efforts to account for variation in provider beliefs and experiences and clinic resources. The barriers and facilitators identified in these interviews were used to tailor a practice facilitation implementation intervention in each clinic setting.

"The Only Reason I Am Willing to Do It at All": Evaluation of VA's SUpporting Primary care Providers in Opioid Risk reduction and Treatment (SUPPORT) Center.

OBJECTIVES: Medication treatment for opioid use disorder (MOUD) is effective and recommended for outpatient settings. We implemented and evaluated the SUpporting Primary care Providers in Opioid Risk reduction and Treatment (SUPPORT) Center-a quality improvement partnership to implement stepped care for MOUD in 2 Veterans Health Administration (VA) primary care (PC) clinics. METHODS: SUPPORT provided a dedicated clinical team (nurse practitioner prescriber and social worker) and stepped care ([1] identification, assessment, referral; [2] MOUD induction; [3] stabilization; and [4] maintenance supporting PC providers [PCPs] to initiate and/or sustain treatment) coupled with ongoing internal facilitation (consultation, trainings, informatics support). Qualitative interviews with stakeholders (PCPs and patients) and meeting notes identified barriers and facilitators to implementation. Electronic health record and patient tracking data measured reach, adoption, and implementation outcomes descriptively. RESULTS: SUPPORT's implementation barriers included the need for an X-waiver, VA's opioid tapering policies, patient and PCP knowledge gaps and PCP discomfort, and logistical compatibility and sustainability challenges for clinics. SUPPORT's dedicated clinical staff, ongoing internal facilitation, and high patient and PCP satisfaction were key facilitators. SUPPORT (January 2019 to September 2021) trained 218 providers; 63 received X-waivers, and 23 provided MOUD (10.5% of those trained). SUPPORT provided care to 167 patients, initiated MOUD for 33, and provided education and naloxone to 72 (all = 0 in year before launch). CONCLUSIONS: SUPPORT reached many PCPs and patients and resulted in small increases in MOUD prescribing and high levels of stakeholder satisfaction. Dedicated clinical staff was key to observed successes. Although resource-intensive, SUPPORT offers a potential model for outpatient MOUD provision.

Impact of COVID-19 on stimulant use disorder treatment: A national cohort study in the Veterans Health Administration.

OBJECTIVE: Rates of stimulant overdose have increased dramatically, which may have been exacerbated by treatment disruptions during the pandemic, but no recent studies have examined use of stimulant use disorder (StUD) treatment. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study (March 2018 to February 2022) of national Veterans Health Administration patients, we use an interrupted time-series analysis to examine the impact of COVID-19 (starting in March 2020) on treatment use for StUD. RESULTS: The number of patients receiving StUD care was increasing pre-COVID (22,640-23,020, February 2018-February 2020) but dropped post-pandemic to 18,578 in February 2022. The monthly number of patients receiving StUD care increased by 34.6 patients per month (95% CI, 1.1-68.0; P=0.04) before March 2020, decreased by 2803.3 patients (95% CI, -3912.3 to -1694.3; P <0.001) in March 2020, and, accounting for pre-COVID trends, further decreased by 85.85 patients per month (95% CI,-148.9.2 to -23.0; P =0.01) after March 2020. CONCLUSIONS: Care for StUD drastically declined during the COVID-19 pandemic and has yet to show signs of a return to pre-pandemic levels despite surging rates of stimulant-involved overdose deaths and a critical need to engage people with StUD in care.

Associations Between Distinct Co-occurring Substance Use Disorders and Receipt of Medications for Opioid Use Disorder in the Veterans Health Administration.

OBJECTIVES: Among people with opioid use disorder (OUD), having a co-occurring substance use disorder (SUD) is associated with lower likelihood of receiving OUD treatment medications (MOUD). However, it is unclear how distinct co-occurring SUDs are associated with MOUD receipt. This study examined associations of distinct co-occurring SUDs with initiation and continuation of MOUD among patients with OUD in the national Veterans Health Administration (VA). METHODS: Electronic health record data were extracted for outpatients with OUD who received care August 1, 2016, to July 31, 2017. Analyses were conducted separately among patients without and with prior-year MOUD receipt to examine initiation and continuation, respectively. SUDs were measured using diagnostic codes; MOUD receipt was measured using prescription fills/clinic visits. Adjusted regression models estimated likelihood of following-year MOUD receipt for patients with each co-occurring SUD relative to those without. RESULTS: Among 23,990 patients without prior-year MOUD receipt, 12% initiated in the following year. Alcohol use disorder (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR], 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72-0.90) and cannabis use disorder (aIRR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.70-0.87) were negatively associated with initiation. Among 11,854 patients with prior-year MOUD receipt, 83% continued in the following year. Alcohol use disorder (aIRR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.91-0.97), amphetamine/other stimulant use disorder (aIRR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.90-0.99), and cannabis use disorder (aIRR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.93-0.98) were negatively associated with continuation. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of national VA outpatients with OUD, those with certain co-occurring SUDs were less likely to initiate or continue MOUD. Further research is needed to identify barriers related to specific co-occurring SUDs.

Impact of an intervention to implement provision of opioid use disorder medication among patients with and without co-occurring substance use disorders.

INTRODUCTION: Co-occurring substance use disorders (SUDs) are common among people with opioid use disorder (OUD) and known to hinder receipt of medications for OUD (MOUD). It is important to understand how MOUD care implemented outside of SUD specialty settings impacts access for patients with co-occurring SUDs. The Veterans Health Administration's (VA) Stepped Care for Opioid Use Disorder Train the Trainer (SCOUTT) initiative was implemented in primary care, mental health, and pain clinics in 18 VA facilities, and was found to increase MOUD receipt. This study assessed the SCOUTT initiative's impact among patients with and without co-occurring SUDs. METHODS: This study used a controlled interrupted time series design. We extracted electronic health record data for patients with OUD with visits in SCOUTT intervention or matched comparison clinics during the post-implementation year (9/1/2018-8/31/2019). We examined the monthly proportion of patients who received MOUD in SCOUTT intervention or comparison clinics (primary care, mental health, and pain clinics), or in a VA SUD specialty clinic (where patients may have been referred), during the pre- and post-implementation years. Segmented logistic regression models estimated pre-post changes in outcomes (immediate level change from the final month of the pre-implementation period to the first month of the post-implementation period, change in trend/slope) in intervention vs. comparison facilities, adjusting for patient characteristics and pre-implementation trends. We stratified analyses by the presence of co-occurring SUDs. RESULTS: Among patients without co-occurring SUDs, the pre-post trend/slope change in MOUD received in SCOUTT intervention or comparison clinics was greater in intervention vs. comparison facilities (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.06, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02-1.10), and the immediate increase in MOUD received in SUD clinics was greater in intervention vs. comparison facilities (aOR: 1.12, 95% CI: 1.02-1.22). These changes did not significantly differ in intervention vs. comparison facilities among patients with co-occurring SUDs. CONCLUSIONS: The SCOUTT initiative may have increased MOUD receipt primarily among patients without co-occurring SUDs. Focusing on increasing MOUD receipt for patients with co-occurring SUDs may improve the overall effectiveness of MOUD implementation efforts.

The impact of COVID-19 on trends in alcohol use disorder treatment in Veterans Health Administration.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted health-care provision in the United States and prompted increases in telehealth-delivery of care. This study measured alcohol use disorder (AUD) treatment trends across visit modalities before and during COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS AND MEASUREMENTS: We conducted a national, retrospective cohort study with interrupted time-series models to estimate the impact of COVID-19 on AUD treatment in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) in the United States during pre-COVID-19 (March 2019 to February 2020) and COVID-19 (March 2020 to February 2021) periods. We analyzed monthly trends in telephone, video and in-person visits for AUD treatment and compared patient and treatment characteristics of patients receiving AUD treatment between the pre-COVID-19 and COVID-19 periods. AUD was defined using International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision (ICD-10) codes for alcohol abuse (F10.1) and alcohol dependence (F10.2), which have previously been used to study AUD in VHA. FINDINGS: The predicted percentage of VHA patients with an AUD diagnosis receiving any AUD treatment at the beginning of the pre-COVID period was 13.8% (n = 49 494). The predicted percentage decreased by 4.3% (P = 0.001) immediately at the start of the COVID-19 period due to a decline in AUD psychotherapy. Despite an increase of 0.3% per month (P = 0.026) following the start of COVID-19, the predicted percentage of VHA patients with an AUD diagnosis receiving any AUD treatment at the end of the study period remained below the pre-COVID-19 period. In February 2021, AUD psychotherapy visits were primarily delivered by video (50%, 58 748), followed by in-person (36.6%, 43 251) and telephone (13.8%, 16 299), while AUD pharmacotherapy visits were delivered by telephone (38.9%, 3623) followed by in-person (34.3%, 3193) and video (26.8%, 2498) modalities. Characteristics of VHA patients receiving AUD treatment were largely similar between pre-COVID-19 and COVID-19 periods. CONCLUSIONS: Despite increased telehealth use, the percentage of United States Veterans Health Administration patients with an alcohol use disorder (AUD) diagnosis receiving AUD treatment declined during COVID-19 (March 2020 to February 2021) mainly due to a decrease in psychotherapy.

Treating opioid use disorder in veterans with co-occurring substance use: a qualitative study with buprenorphine providers in primary care, mental health, and pain settings.

BACKGROUND: Most people with opioid use disorder (OUD) have co-occurring substance use, which is associated with lower receipt of OUD medications (MOUD). Expanding MOUD provision and care linkage outside of substance use disorder (SUD) specialty settings is a key strategy to increase access. Therefore, it is important to understand how MOUD providers in these settings approach care for patients with co-occurring substance use. This qualitative study of Veterans Health Administration (VA) clinicians providing buprenorphine care in primary care, mental health, and pain settings aimed to understand (1) their approach to addressing OUD in patients with co-occurring substance use, (2) perspectives on barriers/facilitators to MOUD receipt for this population, and (3) support needed to increase MOUD receipt for this population. METHODS: We interviewed a purposive sample of 27 clinicians (12 primary care, 7 mental health, 4 pain, 4 pharmacists) in the VA northwest network. The interview guide assessed domains of the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases Checklist. Interviews were transcribed and qualitatively analyzed using inductive content analysis. RESULTS: Participants reported varied approaches to identifying co-occurring substance use and addressing OUD in this patient population. Although they reported that this topic was not clearly addressed in clinical guidelines or training, participants generally felt that patients with co-occurring substance use should receive MOUD. Some viewed their primary role as providing this care, others as facilitating linkage to OUD care in SUD specialty settings. Participants reported multiple barriers and facilitators to providing buprenorphine care to patients with co-occurring substance use and linking them to SUD specialty care, including provider, patient, organizational, and external factors. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts are needed to support clinicians outside of SUD specialty settings in providing buprenorphine care to patients with co-occurring substance use. These could include clearer guidelines and policies, more specific training, and increased care integration or cross-disciplinary collaboration. Simultaneously, efforts are needed to improve linkage to specialty SUD care for patients who would benefit from and are willing to receive this care, which could include increased service availability and improved referral/hand-off processes. These efforts may increase MOUD receipt and improve OUD care quality for patients with co-occurring substance use.

Influence of patient trust in provider and health literacy on receipt of guideline-concordant chronic opioid therapy in HIV care settings.

OBJECTIVE: Persons with HIV (PWH) frequently receive opioids for pain. Health literacy and trust in provider may impact patient-provider communication, and thus receipt of guideline-concordant opioid monitoring. We analyzed baseline data of HIV-positive patients on chronic opioid therapy (COT) in a trial to improve guideline-concordant COT in HIV clinics. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Two hospital-based safetynet HIV clinics in Boston and Atlanta. PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS: A cohort of patients who were ≥18 years, HIV-positive, had received ≥ 3 opioid prescriptions from a study site ≥21 days apart within a 6-month period during the prior year and had ≥1 visit at the HIV clinic in the prior 18 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Adjusted logistic regression models examined whether health literacy and trust in provider (scale scored 11-55, higher indicates more trust) were associated with: (1) ≥ 2 urine drug tests (UDTs) and (2) presence of an opioid treatment agreement. RESULTS: Among 166 PWH, mean trust in provider was 47.4 (SD 6.6); 117 (70 percent) had adequate health literacy. Fifty patients (30 percent) had ≥ 2 UDTs and 20 (12 percent) had a treatment agreement. The adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for a one-point increase in trust in provider was 0.97 for having ≥ 2 UDTs (95 percent CI 0.92-1.02) and 1.03 for opioid treatment agreement (95 percent CI 0.95-1.12). The aOR for adequate health literacy was 0.89 for having ≥ 2 UDTs (95 percent CI 0.42-1.88) and 1.66 for an opioid treatment agreement (95 percent CI 0.52-5.31). CONCLUSIONS: Health literacy and trust in provider were not associated with chronic opioid therapy quality outcomes.

Syringe Service Program Perspectives on Barriers, Readiness, and Programmatic Needs to Support Rollout of the COVID-19 Vaccine.

BACKGROUND: We explored syringe service program (SSP) perspectives on barriers, readiness, and programmatic needs to support coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine uptake among people who use drugs. METHODS: We conducted an exploratory qualitative study, leveraging an existing sample of SSPs in the United States. Semistructured, in-depth interviews were conducted with SSP staff between February and April 2021. Interviews were analyzed using a Rapid Assessment Process, an intensive, iterative process that allows for rapid analysis of time-sensitive qualitative data. RESULTS: Twenty-seven SSPs completed a qualitative interview. Many SSP respondents discussed that COVID-19 vaccination was not a priority for their participants because of competing survival priorities, and respondents shared concerns that COVID-19 had deepened participant mistrust of health care. Most SSPs wanted to participate in COVID-19 vaccination efforts; however, they identified needed resources, including adequate space, personnel, and training, to implement successful vaccine programs. CONCLUSIONS: Although SSPs are trusted resources for people who use drugs, many require additional structural and personnel support to address barriers to COVID-19 vaccination among their participants. Funding and supporting SSPs in the provision of COVID-19 prevention education and direct vaccine services should be a top public health priority.

Impact of COVID-19 Telehealth Policy Changes on Buprenorphine Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder.

OBJECTIVE: The authors examined the impact of COVID-19-related policies reducing barriers to telehealth delivery of buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) on buprenorphine treatment across different modalities (telephone, video, and in-person visits). METHODS: This was a national retrospective cohort study with interrupted time-series analyses to examine the impact of policy changes in March 2020 on buprenorphine treatment for OUD in the Veterans Health Administration, during the year before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic (March 2019 to February 2020) and during the first year of the pandemic (March 2020 to February 2021). The authors also examined trends in the use of telephone, video, and in-person visits for buprenorphine treatment and compared patient demographic characteristics and retention in buprenorphine treatment across the two periods. RESULTS: The number of patients receiving buprenorphine increased from 13,415 in March 2019 to 15,339 in February 2021. By February 2021, telephone visits were used by the most patients (50.2%; 4,456 visits), followed by video visits (32.4%; 2,870 visits) and in-person visits (17.4%; 1,544 visits). During the pre-pandemic period, the number of patients receiving buprenorphine increased significantly by 103 patients per month. After the COVID-19 policy changes, there was an immediate increase of 265 patients in the first month, and the number continued to increase significantly, at a rate of 47 patients per month. The demographic characteristics of patients receiving buprenorphine during the pandemic period were similar to those during the pre-pandemic period, but the proportion of patients reaching 90-day retention on buprenorphine treatment decreased significantly from 49.6% to 47.7%, while days on buprenorphine increased significantly from 203.8 to 208.7. CONCLUSIONS: The number of patients receiving buprenorphine continued to increase after the COVID-19 policy changes, but the delivery of care shifted to telehealth visits, suggesting that any reversal of COVID-19 policies must be carefully considered.