Merging statewide data in a public/university collaboration to address opioid use disorder and overdose.

OBJECTIVE: Describe methods to compile a unified database from disparate state agency datasets linking person-level data on controlled substance prescribing, overdose, and treatment for opioid use disorder in Connecticut. METHODS: A multidisciplinary team of university, state and federal agency experts planned steps to build the data analytic system: stakeholder engagement, articulation of metrics, funding to establish the system, determination of needed data, accessing data and merging, and matching patient-level data. RESULTS: Stakeholder meetings occurred over a 6-month period driving selection of metrics and funding was obtained through a grant from the Food and Drug Administration. Through multi-stakeholder collaborations and memoranda of understanding, we identified relevant data sources, merged them and matched individuals across the merged dataset. The dataset contains information on sociodemographics, treatments and outcomes. Step-by-step processes are presented for dissemination. CONCLUSIONS: Creation of a unified database linking multiple sources in a timely and ongoing fashion may assist other states to monitor the public health impact of controlled substances, identify and implement interventions, and assess their effectiveness.

Prevalent Misconceptions About Opioid Use Disorders in the United States Produce Failed Policy and Public Health Responses.

The current opioid crisis in the United States has emerged from higher demand for and prescribing of opioids as chronic pain medication, leading to massive diversion into illicit markets. A peculiar tragedy is that many health professionals prescribed opioids in a misguided response to legitimate concerns that pain was undertreated. The crisis grew not only from overprescribing, but also from other sources, including insufficient research into nonopioid pain management, ethical lapses in corporate marketing, historical stigmas directed against people who use drugs, and failures to deploy evidence-based therapies for opioid addiction and to comprehend the limitations of supply-side regulatory approaches. Restricting opioid prescribing perversely accelerated narco-trafficking of heroin and fentanyl with consequent increases in opioid overdose mortality As injection replaced oral consumption, outbreaks of hepatitis B and C virus and human immunodeficiency virus infections have resulted. This viewpoint explores the origins of the crisis and directions needed for effective mitigation.

Cost-effectiveness of emergency department-initiated treatment for opioid dependence.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In a recent randomized trial, patients with opioid dependence receiving brief intervention, emergency department (ED)-initiated buprenorphine and ongoing follow-up in primary care with buprenorphine (buprenorphine) were twice as likely to be engaged in addiction treatment compared with referral to community-based treatment (referral) or brief intervention and referral (brief intervention). Our aim was to evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of these three methods of intervening on opioid dependence in the ED. DESIGN: Measured health-care use was converted to dollar values. We considered a health-care system perspective and constructed cost-effectiveness acceptability curves that indicate the probability each treatment is cost-effective under different thresholds of willingness-to-pay for outcomes studied. SETTING: An urban ED in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Opioid-dependent patients aged 18 years or older. MEASUREMENTS: Self-reported 30-day assessment data were used to construct cost-effectiveness acceptability curves for patient engagement in formal addiction treatment at 30 days and the number of days illicit opioid-free in the past week. FINDINGS: Considering only health-care system costs, cost-effectiveness acceptability curves indicate that at all positive willingness-to-pay values, ED-initiated buprenorphine treatment was more cost-effective than brief intervention or referral. For example, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $1000 for 30-day treatment engagement, we are 79% certain ED-initiated buprenorphine is most cost-effective compared with other studied treatments. Similar results were found for days illicit opioid-free in the past week. Results were robust to secondary analyses that included patients with missing cost data, included crime and patient time costs in the numerator, and to changes in unit price estimates. CONCLUSION: In the United States, emergency department-initiated buprenorphine intervention for patients with opioid dependence provides high value compared with referral to community-based treatment or combined brief intervention and referral.

A research agenda for gender and substance use disorders in the emergency department.

For many years, gender differences have been recognized as important factors in the etiology, pathophysiology, comorbidities, and treatment needs and outcomes associated with the use of alcohol, drugs, and tobacco. However, little is known about how these gender-specific differences affect ED utilization; responses to ED-based interventions; needs for substance use treatment and barriers to accessing care among patients in the ED; or outcomes after an alcohol-, drug-, or tobacco-related visit. As part of the 2014 Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference on "Gender-Specific Research in Emergency Care: Investigate, Understand and Translate How Gender Affects Patient Outcomes," a breakout group convened to generate a research agenda on priority questions related to substance use disorders.