Comparing the Performance of World Mental Health Composite International Diagnostic Interview Substance Abuse Module in Adolescents to Diagnoses Made by Pediatric Addiction Medicine Specialists.

OBJECTIVES: The World Mental Health Composite International Diagnostic Interview Substance Abuse Module (WMH-CIDI-SAM) is commonly used as a criterion standard measure for substance use disorder (SUD) diagnoses, although the accuracy of this tool when used with adolescents is unknown. The objective of this study was to evaluate the agreement between SUD diagnoses for adolescents made by WMH-CIDI-SAM and those made by specialists based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth Edition) ( DSM-5 ) SUD criteria during an SUD evaluation. METHODS: Adolescents aged 12 to 17 years presenting to an outpatient SUD program for youth were administered the WMH-CIDI-SAM by a trained research assistant, and results were compared with diagnoses made by experienced clinicians based on DSM-5 SUD criteria during an initial SUD evaluation. Chance-corrected concordance was estimated using the κ coefficient for the comparisons. RESULTS: The level of concordance between the WMH-CIDI-SAM interview and the clinician diagnosis based on DSM-5 SUD criteria were fair to moderate for alcohol use disorder and tobacco use disorder and poor for cannabis use disorder. Three of 11 WMH-CIDI-SAM item constructs showed poor concordance with clinician diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Interpreting the diagnostic criteria for SUDs, particularly cannabis use disorders, is nuanced, and the meaning of the criteria may be misunderstood by adolescents. Further evaluation of the performance of the WMH-CIDI-SAM diagnostic interview for identifying cannabis use disorders in adolescents is needed.

Subthreshold opioid use disorder prevention (STOP) trial: a cluster randomized clinical trial: study design and methods.

BACKGROUND: Preventing progression to moderate or severe opioid use disorder (OUD) among people who exhibit risky opioid use behavior that does not meet criteria for treatment with opioid agonists or antagonists (subthreshold OUD) is poorly understood. The Subthreshold Opioid Use Disorder Prevention (STOP) Trial is designed to study the efficacy of a collaborative care intervention to reduce risky opioid use and to prevent progression to moderate or severe OUD in adult primary care patients with subthreshold OUD. METHODS: The STOP trial is a cluster randomized controlled trial, randomized at the PCP level, conducted in 5 distinct geographic sites. STOP tests the efficacy of the STOP intervention in comparison to enhanced usual care (EUC) in adult primary care patients with risky opioid use that does not meet criteria for moderate-severe OUD. The STOP intervention consists of (1) a practice-embedded nurse care manager (NCM) who provides patient participant education and supports primary care providers (PCPs) in engaging and monitoring patient-participants; (2) brief advice, delivered to patient participants by their PCP and/or prerecorded video message, about health risks of opioid misuse; and (3) up to 6 sessions of telephone health coaching to motivate and support behavior change. EUC consists of primary care treatment as usual, plus printed overdose prevention educational materials and an educational video on cancer screening. The primary outcome measure is self-reported number of days of risky (illicit or nonmedical) opioid use over 180 days, assessed monthly via text message using items from the Addiction Severity Index and the Current Opioid Misuse Measure. Secondary outcomes assess other substance use, mental health, quality of life, and healthcare utilization as well as PCP prescribing and monitoring behaviors. A mixed effects negative binomial model with a log link will be fit to estimate the difference in means between treatment and control groups using an intent-to-treat population. DISCUSSION: Given a growing interest in interventions for the management of patients with risky opioid use, and the need for primary care-based interventions, this study potentially offers a blueprint for a feasible and effective approach to improving outcomes in this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, identifier NCT04218201, January 6, 2020.

Assessment of Screening Tools to Identify Substance Use Disorders Among Adolescents.

Importance: Efficient screening tools that effectively identify substance use disorders (SUDs) among youths are needed. Objective: To evaluate the psychometric properties of 3 brief substance use screening tools (Screening to Brief Intervention [S2BI]; Brief Screener for Tobacco, Alcohol, and Drugs [BSTAD]; and Tobacco, Alcohol, Prescription Medication, and Other Substances [TAPS]) with adolescents aged 12 to 17 years. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional validation study was conducted from July 1, 2020, to February 28, 2022. Participants aged 12 to 17 years were recruited virtually and in person from 3 health care settings in Massachusetts: (1) an outpatient adolescent SUD treatment program at a pediatric hospital, (2) an adolescent medicine program at a community pediatric practice affiliated with an academic institution, and (3) 1 of 28 participating pediatric primary care practices. Participants were randomly assigned to complete 1 of the 3 electronic screening tools via self-administration, followed by a brief electronic assessment battery and a research assistant-administered diagnostic interview as the criterion standard measure for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) diagnoses of SUDs. Data were analyzed from May 31 to September 13, 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was a DSM-5 diagnosis of tobacco/nicotine, alcohol, or cannabis use disorder as determined by the criterion standard World Mental Health Composite International Diagnostic Interview Substance Abuse Module. Classification accuracy of the 3 substance use screening tools was assessed by examining the agreement between the criterion, using sensitivity and specificity, based on cut points for each tool for use disorder, chosen a priori from previous studies. Results: This study included 798 adolescents, with a mean (SD) age of 14.6 (1.6) years. The majority of participants identified as female (415 [52.0%]) and were White (524 [65.7%]). High agreement between screening results and the criterion standard measure was observed, with area under the curve values ranging from 0.89 to 1 for nicotine, alcohol, and cannabis use disorders for each of the 3 screening tools. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that screening tools that use questions on past-year frequency of use are effective for identifying adolescents with SUDs. Future work could examine whether these tools have differing properties when used with different groups of adolescents in different settings.

Prevalence and treatment of opioid use disorders among primary care patients in six health systems.

BACKGROUND: The U.S. experienced nearly 48,000 opioid overdose deaths in 2017. Treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) with buprenorphine is a recommended part of primary care, yet little is known about current U.S. practices in this setting. This observational study reports the prevalence of documented OUD and OUD treatment with buprenorphine among primary care patients in six large health systems. METHODS: Adults with ≥2 primary care visits during a three-year period (10/1/2013-9/30/2016) in six health systems were included. Data were obtained from electronic health record and claims data, with measures, assessed over the three-year period, including indicators for documented OUD from ICD 9 and 10 codes and OUD treatment with buprenorphine. The prevalence of OUD treatment was adjusted for age, gender, race/ethnicity, and health system. RESULTS: Among 1,368,604 primary care patients, 13,942 (1.0 %) had documented OUD, and among these, 21.0 % had OUD treatment with buprenorphine. For those with documented OUD, the adjusted prevalence of OUD treatment with buprenorphine varied across demographic and clinical subgroups. OUD treatment was lower among patients who were older, women, Black/African American and Hispanic (compared to white), non-commercially insured, and those with non-cancer pain, mental health disorders, greater comorbidity, and more opioid prescriptions, emergency department visits or hospitalizations. CONCLUSIONS: Among primary care patients in six health systems, one in five with an OUD were treated with buprenorphine, with disparities across demographic and clinical characteristics. Less buprenorphine treatment among those with greater acute care utilization highlights an opportunity for systems-level changes to increase OUD treatment.

Prognostic model for survival in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: results from the international kidney cancer working group.

PURPOSE: To develop a single validated model for survival in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) using a comprehensive international database. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: A comprehensive database of 3,748 patients including previously reported clinical prognostic factors was established by pooling patient-level data from clinical trials. Following quality control and standardization, descriptive statistics were generated. Univariate analyses were conducted using proportional hazards models. Multivariable analysis using a log-logistic model stratified by center and multivariable fractional polynomials was conducted to identify independent predictors of survival. Missing data were handled using multiple imputation methods. Three risk groups were formed using the 25th and 75th percentiles of the resulting prognostic index. The model was validated using an independent data set of 645 patients treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy. RESULTS: Median survival in the favorable, intermediate and poor risk groups was 26.9 months, 11.5 months, and 4.2 months, respectively. Factors contributing to the prognostic index included treatment, performance status, number of metastatic sites, time from diagnosis to treatment, and pretreatment hemoglobin, white blood count, lactate dehydrogenase, alkaline phosphatase, and serum calcium. The model showed good concordance when tested among patients treated with TKI therapy (C statistic = 0.741, 95% CI: 0.714-0.768). CONCLUSIONS: Nine clinical factors can be used to model survival in mRCC and form distinct prognostic groups. The model shows utility among patients treated in the TKI era.