Effect of the Communities that HEAL intervention on receipt of behavioral therapies for opioid use disorder: A cluster randomized wait-list controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The U.S. opioid overdose crisis persists. Outpatient behavioral health services (BHS) are essential components of a comprehensive response to opioid use disorder and overdose fatalities. The Helping to End Addiction Long-Term® (HEALing) Communities Study developed the Communities That HEAL (CTH) intervention to reduce opioid overdose deaths in 67 communities in Kentucky, Ohio, New York, and Massachusetts through the implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs), including BHS. This paper compares the rate of individuals receiving outpatient BHS in Wave 1 intervention communities (n = 34) to waitlisted Wave 2 communities (n = 33). METHODS: Medicaid data included individuals ≥18 years of age receiving any of five BHS categories: intensive outpatient, outpatient, case management, peer support, and case management or peer support. Negative binomial regression models estimated the rate of receiving each BHS for Wave 1 and Wave 2. Effect modification analyses evaluated changes in the effect of the CTH intervention between Wave 1 and Wave 2 by research site, rurality, age, sex, and race/ethnicity. RESULTS: No significant differences were detected between intervention and waitlisted communities in the rate of individuals receiving any of the five BHS categories. None of the interaction effects used to test the effect modification were significant. CONCLUSIONS: Several factors should be considered when interpreting results-no significant intervention effects were observed through Medicaid claims data, the best available data source but limited in terms of capturing individuals reached by the intervention. Also, the 12-month evaluation window may have been too brief to see improved outcomes considering the time required to stand-up BHS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials.gov http://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov: Identifier: NCT04111939.

Kentucky Outreach Service Kiosk (KyOSK) Study protocol: a community-level, controlled quasi-experimental, type 1 hybrid effectiveness study to assess implementation, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a community-tailored harm reduction kiosk on HIV, HCV and overdose risk in rural Appalachia.

INTRODUCTION: Many rural communities bear a disproportionate share of drug-related harms. Innovative harm reduction service models, such as vending machines or kiosks, can expand access to services that reduce drug-related harms. However, few kiosks operate in the USA, and their implementation, impact and cost-effectiveness have not been adequately evaluated in rural settings. This paper describes the Kentucky Outreach Service Kiosk (KyOSK) Study protocol to test the effectiveness, implementation outcomes and cost-effectiveness of a community-tailored, harm reduction kiosk in reducing HIV, hepatitis C and overdose risk in rural Appalachia. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: KyOSK is a community-level, controlled quasi-experimental, non-randomised trial. KyOSK involves two cohorts of people who use drugs, one in an intervention county (n=425) and one in a control county (n=325). People who are 18 years or older, are community-dwelling residents in the target counties and have used drugs to get high in the past 6 months are eligible. The trial compares the effectiveness of a fixed-site, staffed syringe service programme (standard of care) with the standard of care supplemented with a kiosk. The kiosk will contain various harm reduction supplies accessible to participants upon valid code entry, allowing dispensing data to be linked to participant survey data. The kiosk will include a call-back feature that allows participants to select needed services and receive linkage-to-care services from a peer recovery coach. The cohorts complete follow-up surveys every 6 months for 36 months (three preceding kiosk implementation and four post-implementation). The study will test the effectiveness of the kiosk on reducing risk behaviours associated with overdose, HIV and hepatitis C, as well as implementation outcomes and cost-effectiveness. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The University of Kentucky Institutional Review Board approved the protocol. Results will be disseminated in academic conferences and peer-reviewed journals, online and print media, and community meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05657106.

Telemedicine Buprenorphine Initiation and Retention in Opioid Use Disorder Treatment for Medicaid Enrollees.

Importance: Early COVID-19 mitigation strategies placed an additional burden on individuals seeking care for opioid use disorder (OUD). Telemedicine provided a way to initiate and maintain transmucosal buprenorphine treatment of OUD. Objective: To examine associations between transmucosal buprenorphine OUD treatment modality (telemedicine vs traditional) during the COVID-19 public health emergency and the health outcomes of treatment retention and opioid-related nonfatal overdose. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study was conducted using Medicaid claims and enrollment data from November 1, 2019, to December 31, 2020, for individuals aged 18 to 64 years from Kentucky and Ohio. Data were collected and analyzed in June 2022, with data updated during revision in August 2023. Exposures: The primary exposure of interest was the modality of the transmucosal buprenorphine OUD treatment initiation. Relevant patient demographic and comorbidity characteristics were included in regression models. Main Outcomes and Measures: There were 2 main outcomes of interest: retention in treatment after initiation and opioid-related nonfatal overdose after initiation. For outcomes measured after initiation, a 90-day follow-up period was used. The main analysis used a new-user study design; transmucosal buprenorphine OUD treatment initiation was defined as initiation after more than a 60-day gap in buprenorphine treatment. In addition, uptake of telemedicine for buprenorphine was examined, overall and within patients initiating treatment, across quarters in 2020. Results: This study included 41 266 individuals in Kentucky (21 269 women [51.5%]; mean [SD] age, 37.9 [9.0] years) and 50 648 individuals in Ohio (26 425 women [52.2%]; mean [SD] age, 37.1 [9.3] years) who received buprenorphine in 2020, with 18 250 and 24 741 people initiating buprenorphine in Kentucky and Ohio, respectively. Telemedicine buprenorphine initiations increased sharply at the beginning of 2020. Compared with nontelemedicine initiation, telemedicine initiation was associated with better odds of 90-day retention with buprenorphine in both states (Kentucky: adjusted odds ratio, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.01-1.27]; Ohio: adjusted odds ratio, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.06-1.32]) in a regression analysis adjusting for patient demographic and comorbidity characteristics. Telemedicine initiation was not associated with opioid-related nonfatal overdose (Kentucky: adjusted odds ratio, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.56-1.40]; Ohio: adjusted odds ratio, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.83-1.41]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of Medicaid enrollees receiving buprenorphine for OUD, telemedicine buprenorphine initiation was associated with retention in treatment early during the COVID-19 pandemic. These findings add to the literature demonstrating positive outcomes associated with the use of telemedicine for treatment of OUD.

Design and protocol of the Buprenorphine plus Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy (B-OPAT) study: a randomized clinical trial of integrated outpatient treatment of opioid use disorder and severe, injection-related infections.

Introduction: A marked increase in hospitalizations for severe, injection-related infections (SIRI) has been associated with the opioid epidemic. Outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy (OPAT) is typically not offered to persons with opioid use disorder (OUD) and SIRI, though increasing evidence suggests it may be feasible and safe. This study evaluates the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of an integrated care model combining Buprenorphine treatment of OUD with OPAT for SIRI (B-OPAT) compared with treatment as usual on key OUD, infectious disease, and health economic outcomes. B-OPAT expands and incorporates key elements of established clinical models, including inpatient initiation of buprenorphine for OUD, inpatient infectious disease consultation for SIRI, office-based treatment of OUD, and OPAT, and includes more frequent clinical outpatient visits than standard OPAT. A qualitative evaluation is included to contextualize effectiveness outcomes and identify barriers and facilitators to intervention adoption and implementation. Methods: B-OPAT is a single-site, randomized, parallel-group, superiority trial recruiting 90 adult inpatients hospitalized with OUD and SIRI who require at least 2 weeks of intravenous (IV) antibiotic therapy. After screening, eligible participants are randomized 1:1 to either discharge once medically stable to an integrated outpatient treatment care model combining Buprenorphine and OPAT (B-OPAT) or to Treatment As Usual (TAU). The primary outcome measure is the proportion of urine samples negative for illicit opioids in the 12 weeks after discharge from the hospital. Key secondary OUD outcomes include self-reported number of days of illicit opioid abstinence and 12-week retention in buprenorphine treatment. The infection outcomes are completion of recommended IV antibiotic therapy, peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) complications, and readmission related to primary SIRI. Conclusions: The B-OPAT study will help address the important question of whether it is clinically effective and cost-effective to discharge persons with OUD and SIRI to an integrated outpatient care model combining OUD treatment with OPAT relative to TAU (Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT04677114).

Incidence and Cost of Acute Kidney Injury in Hospitalized Patients with Infective Endocarditis.

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a frequent complication of hospitalized patients with infective endocarditis (IE). Further, AKI in the setting of IE is associated with high morbidity and mortality. We aimed to examine the incidence, clinical parameters, and hospital costs associated with AKI in hospitalized patients with IE in an endemic area with an increasing prevalence of opioid use. This retrospective cohort study included 269 patients admitted to a major referral center in Kentucky with a primary diagnosis of IE from January 2013 to December 2015. Of these, 178 (66.2%) patients had AKI by Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) serum creatinine criteria: 74 (41.6%) had AKI stage 1 and 104 (58.4%) had AKI stage ≥2. In multivariable analysis, higher comorbidity scores and the need for diuretics were independently associated with AKI, while the involvement of the tricuspid valve and the need for vasopressor/inotrope support were independently associated with severe AKI (stage ≥2). The median total direct cost of hospitalization was progressively higher according to each stage of AKI ($17,069 for no AKI; $37,111 for AKI stage 1; and $61,357 for AKI stage ≥2; p < 0.001). In conclusion, two-thirds of patients admitted to the hospital due to IE had incident AKI. The occurrence of AKI significantly increased healthcare costs. The higher level of comorbidity, the affection of the tricuspid valve, and the need for diuretics and/or vasoactive drugs were associated with severe AKI in this susceptible population.

Substance Use Disorder Assessment, Diagnosis, and Management for Patients Hospitalized With Severe Infections Due to Injection Drug Use.

OBJECTIVES: Persons with injection drug use (IDU) have high healthcare utilization. Consequently, healthcare providers have opportunities to identify and treat underlying substance use disorders (SUD) that drive these hospitalizations. The study purpose was to characterize current SUD evaluation and treatment practices by primary and consulting services during hospitalization for severe infections related to IDU. METHODS: This study is a retrospective chart review of inpatient admissions to an academic medical center. The 2 inclusion criteria were documentation of IDU in clinical notes and the presence of an infection likely related to IDU. Demographic and clinical data were extracted from electronic medical records. RESULTS: A total of 108 inpatient admissions met inclusion criteria and were included in the study. The most common infections related to IDU were endocarditis (n = 65, 60.2%) and osteomyelitis (n = 27, 25.0%). The primary team explicitly documented substance use in the H&P and progress notes in 103 (95.4%) hospitalizations and in 84 (77.8%) at discharge. Opioid use disorder was coded by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision in 62 (57.4%). The most frequent intervention was screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment in 99 (91.7%) episodes. The vast majority of patients did not have specific plans or recommendations for SUD treatment upon discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Though more than half of the patients in this study had opioid use disorder, pharmacotherapy for opioid use disorder was typically not provided, and screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) was the most common intervention. There are significant gaps in the clinical assessment, diagnosis, and management of SUD in persons hospitalized with life-threatening complications of IDU, leaving many opportunities to improve care for this complex patient population.

In-hospital illicit drug use, substance use disorders, and acceptance of residential treatment in a prospective pilot needs assessment of hospitalized adults with severe infections from injecting drugs.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a pilot needs assessment of underlying substance use disorders (SUD), motivation for SUD treatment, and willingness to enter residential SUD treatment in hospitalized adults who inject drugs with complex infections requiring intravenous (IV) antibiotics, and to assess the presence of in-hospital illicit substance use. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From March 8, 2016 through August 25, 2016 hospitalized, English-speaking, adult patients not currently in SUD treatment with a history of injection drug use and a current infection requiring treatment with IV antibiotics, were prospectively enrolled. Participants were followed weekly during the hospitalization and for 60 days after discharge via interview and medical record review. RESULTS: Of the 42 participants, 8 (19.0%) accepted discharge to residential SUD treatment, 16 (38.0%) completed at least one follow-up research visit after hospital discharge, and 3 (7.1%) died during the 5-month study period. The majority (33; 78%) were hospitalized with endocarditis, and 37 (88.0%) had an opioid use disorder (DSM-5). Mean days of self-reported IV opioid use in the 30 days before hospitalization compared to 30 days after discharge decreased significantly (16.5 to 1.5, P = .001) despite not receiving SUD treatment. Illicit in-hospital drug use was identified in 17 (40.5%) participants, with opioids most commonly detected. CONCLUSION: Hospitalization is a 'reachable moment' and critical opportunity to initiate evidence-based treatment for opioid use disorder. The ongoing in-hospital illicit drug use and high short-term mortality observed in this study contribute to the mandate to expand access to effective pharmacotherapy for opioid use disorder and integrate it into health care settings.

Taking the Pulse of a Target Population: Assessing Change Readiness.

OBJECTIVE: Implementing change in a health care organization poses structural and cultural challenges. DESIGN: We developed a survey derived from an existing organizational change model and distributed it to the target population of an impending change initiative. RESULTS: The respondents (59.2% response rate) indicated that changes in communication protocols were necessary, believed that change would be possible, reported feeling supported during previous change efforts, and tended to think that their feedback had been valued in the past. CONCLUSIONS: The survey revealed that our target population was ready to change the ways in which it communicates about patient needs and care protocols. To increase the probability of successful implementation of an initiative to improve communication protocols on the unit, we will design our implementation strategy to provide both the process support and the training support that participants perceived to be lacking. IMPLICATIONS: By taking the "pulse" of the target population, change agents can identify more effective implementation strategies.

Cost-effectiveness of MRI compared to mammography for breast cancer screening in a high risk population.

BACKGROUND: Breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a sensitive method of breast imaging virtually uninfluenced by breast density. Because of the improved sensitivity, breast MRI is increasingly being used for detection of breast cancer among high risk young women. However, the specificity of breast MRI is variable and costs are high. The purpose of this study was to determine if breast MRI is a cost-effective approach for the detection of breast cancer among young women at high risk. METHODS: A Markov model was created to compare annual breast cancer screening over 25 years with either breast MRI or mammography among young women at high risk. Data from published studies provided probabilities for the model including sensitivity and specificity of each screening strategy. Costs were based on Medicare reimbursement rates for hospital and physician services while medication costs were obtained from the Federal Supply Scale. Utilities from the literature were applied to each health outcome in the model including a disutility for the temporary health state following breast biopsy for a false positive test result. All costs and benefits were discounted at 5% per year. The analysis was performed from the payer perspective with results reported in 2006 U.S. dollars. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses addressed uncertainty in all model parameters. RESULTS: Breast MRI provided 14.1 discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at a discounted cost of $18,167 while mammography provided 14.0 QALYs at a cost of $4,760 over 25 years of screening. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of breast MRI compared to mammography was $179,599/QALY. In univariate analysis, breast MRI screening became < $50,000/QALY when the cost of the MRI was < $315. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, MRI screening produced a net health benefit of -0.202 QALYs (95% central range: -0.767 QALYs to +0.439 QALYs) compared to mammography at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY. Breast MRI screening was superior in 0%, < $50,000/QALY in 22%, > $50,000/QALY in 34%, and inferior in 44% of trials. CONCLUSION: Although breast MRI may provide health benefits when compared to mammographic screening for some high risk women, it does not appear to be cost-effective even at willingness to pay thresholds above $120,000/QALY.