How medical are states' medical cannabis policies?: Proposing a standardized scale.

BACKGROUND: There are important differences in medical cannabis laws across the U.S.. However, prior studies investigating the effect of medical cannabis laws on outcomes disregard this heterogeneity. Findings from the body of literature using a simple dichotomous assessment of whether a particular state has enacted a medical cannabis law are equivocal or conflicting. To advance the science, a national advisory group of experts in medical cannabis developed and utilized a systematic methodology, the "medicalization of cannabis laws standardized scale" (MCLaSS), to characterize and quantify state laws' degree of medicalization, the extent to which medical cannabis is treated similarly to pharmaceutical medications. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of state-level medical cannabis laws in the U.S. Using the novel MCLaSS, we calculated seven domain scores (patient-clinician relationship, manufacturing and testing, product labeling, types of products, supply and dose limit, prescription drug monitoring program, and dispensing practices) and a summary score for each state which had enacted medical cannabis laws as of July 2019. RESULTS: There is substantial heterogeneity in the degree of medicalization of states' medical cannabis laws, as demonstrated by the MCLaSS summary score, which ranged from 23 (least medicalized) to 86 (most medicalized). CONCLUSION: This methodology will advance the evidence base about the impact of medical cannabis laws on patient and public health outcomes, which is urgently needed to ensure the development of policies that minimize the risks and maximize the benefits of medical cannabis.

Impact of an Opt-In eConsult Program on Primary Care Demand for Specialty Visits: Stepped-Wedge Cluster Randomized Implementation Study.

BACKGROUND: eConsult programs have been instituted to increase access to specialty expertise. Opt-in choice eConsult programs maintain primary care physician (PCP) autonomy to decide whether to utilize eConsults versus traditional specialty referrals, but little is known about how this intervention may impact PCP eConsult adoption and traditional referral demand. OBJECTIVE: We assessed the feasibility of implementing an opt-in choice eConsult program and examined whether this intervention reduces demand for in-person visits for primary care patients requiring specialty expertise. DESIGN: Stepped-wedge, cluster randomized trial conducted from July 2018 to June 2019. PARTICIPANTS: Sixteen primary care practices in a large, urban academic health care system. INTERVENTION: Our intervention was an opt-in choice eConsult available in addition to traditional specialty referral; our implementation strategy included in-person training, audit and feedback, and incentive payments. MAIN MEASURES: Our implementation outcome measure was the eConsult rate: weekly proportion of eConsults per PCP visit at each site. Our intervention outcome measure was traditional referral rate: weekly proportion of referrals per PCP visit at each site. We also assessed PCP experiences with questionnaires. KEY RESULTS: Of 305,915 in-person PCP visits, there were 31,510 traditional referrals to specialties participating in the eConsult program, and 679 eConsults. All but one primary care site utilized the opt-in choice eConsult program, with a weekly rate of 0.05 eConsults per 100 PCP visits by the end of the study period. The weekly rate of traditional referrals was 11 per 100 PCP visits at the end of the study period; this represents a significant increase in traditional referral rate after implementation of eConsults. PCPs were generally satisfied with the eConsult program and valued prompt provider-to-provider communication. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of an opt-in choice eConsult program resulted in widespread PCP adoption; however, this did not decrease the demand for traditional referrals. Future studies should evaluate different strategies to incentivize and increase eConsult utilization while maintaining PCP choice.

A Phylogenetic Analysis of Hepatitis C Virus Transmission, Relapse, and Reinfection Among People Who Inject Drugs Receiving Opioid Agonist Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Understanding hepatitis C virus (HCV) transmission among people who inject drugs (PWID) is essential for HCV elimination. We aimed to differentiate reinfections from treatment failures and to identify transmission linkages and associated factors in a cohort of PWID receiving opioid agonist therapy (OAT). METHODS: We analyzed baseline and follow-up specimens from 150 PWID from 3 OAT clinics in the Bronx, New York. Next-generation sequencing data from the hypervariable region 1 of HCV were analyzed using Global Hepatitis Outbreak and Surveillance Technology. RESULTS: There were 3 transmission linkages between study participants. Sustained virologic response (SVR) was not achieved in 9 participants: 7 had follow-up specimens with similar sequences to baseline, and 2 died. In 4 additional participants, SVR was achieved but the participants were viremic at later follow-up: 2 were reinfected with different strains, 1 had a late treatment failure, and 1 was transiently viremic 17 months after treatment. All transmission linkages were from the same OAT clinic and involved spousal or common-law partnerships. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the use of next-generation sequencing as an important tool for identifying viral transmission and to help distinguish relapse and reinfection among PWID. Results reinforce the need for harm reduction interventions among couples and those who report ongoing risk factors after SVR.

Low Hepatitis C Reinfection Following Direct-acting Antiviral Therapy Among People Who Inject Drugs on Opioid Agonist Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy is highly effective in people who inject drugs (PWID); however, rates, specific injection behaviors, and social determinants associated with hepatitis C virus (HCV) reinfection following DAA therapy among PWID on opioid agonist therapy (OAT) are poorly understood. METHODS: PREVAIL was a randomized controlled trial that assessed models of HCV care for 150 PWID on OAT. Those who achieved sustained virologic response (SVR) (n = 141; 94%) were eligible for this extension study. Interviews and assessments of recurrent HCV viremia occurred at 6-month intervals for up to 24 months following PREVAIL. We used survival analysis to analyze variables associated with time to reinfection. RESULTS: Of 141 who achieved SVR, 114 had a least 1 visit in the extension study (62% male; mean age, 52 years). Injection drug use (IDU) was reported by 19% (n = 22) in the extension study. HCV reinfection was observed in 3 participants. Over 246 person-years of follow-up, the incidence of reinfection was 1.22/100 person-years (95% CI, 0.25-3.57). All reinfections occurred among participants reporting ongoing IDU. The incidence of reinfection in participants reporting ongoing IDU (41 person-years of follow-up) was 7.4/100 person-years (95% CI, 1.5-21.6). Reinfection was associated with reporting ongoing IDU in the follow-up period (P < .001), a lack confidence in the ability to avoid contracting HCV (P < .001), homelessness (P = .002), and living with a PWID (P = .007). CONCLUSIONS: HCV reinfection was low overall, but more common among people with ongoing IDU following DAA therapy on OAT, as well as those who were not confident in the ability to avoid contracting HCV, homeless, or living with a PWID. Interventions to mediate these risk factors following HCV therapy are warranted.