Lack of efficacy in a randomised trial of a brief intervention to reduce drug use and increase drug treatment services utilisation among adult emergency department patients over a 12-month period.

OBJECTIVES: Assess the 12-month efficacy of a brief intervention (BI) on reducing drug use and increasing drug treatment services utilisation among adult emergency department (ED) patients. METHODS: This randomised, controlled trial enrolled 18-64-year-old ED patients needing a drug use intervention. Treatment arm participants received a tailored BI while control arm participants only completed the study questionnaires. Self-reported past 3-month drug use and engagement in drug treatment services were compared by study arm at 3-month intervals over 1 year. Multiple imputations were performed to overcome loss-to-follow-up. RESULTS: Of the 1030 participants, follow-up completion ranged 55%-64% over the four follow-ups. At 12 months, the two study arms were similar in regards to mean: (1) proportion reporting any drug use (treatment: 67.1% (61.6 to 72.6), control: 74.4% (69.4 to 79.4)); (2) drug use frequency on a five-point scale (treatment: 3.7 (3.3 to 4.2), control: 4.6 (4.0 to 5.2)); (3) total days of drug use (treatment: 28.3 (23.2 to 33.4), control: 33.4 (28.5 to 38.2)); (4) most number of times drugs used/day (treatment: 4.6 (3.6 to 5.5), control: 6.1 (4.8 to 7.3)) and (5) typical number of times drugs used/day (treatment: 3.3 (2.5 to 4.1), control: 5.1 (3.9 to 6.2)). Utilisation of drug treatment services also was similar by study arm. In multivariable regression analyses, patients who were homeless or had higher drug use at baseline continued to have greater drug use in follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Among adult ED patients requiring a drug use intervention, this BI did not decrease drug use or increase drug treatment services utilisation over a 12-month period more than the control condition. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01124591; Pre-trial.

Factors Influencing Uptake of Rapid HIV and Hepatitis C Screening Among Drug Misusing Adult Emergency Department Patients: Implications for Future HIV/HCV Screening Interventions.

In this randomized, controlled trial among 957 English- or Spanish-speaking drug misusing adult emergency department (ED) patients, we determined if a tailored brief intervention (BI) increased uptake of rapid HIV/HCV screening, and identified factors associated with greater screening uptake. Rapid HIV/HCV screening uptake was greater in the control than the BI arm (45 vs. 38 %; p < 0.04). Screening uptake depended on elapsed study time and which research staff member offered testing. In the control arm, uptake was lowest for those spending <30 or ≥90 min in the study. In the BI arm, screening uptake generally increased over time. Tailored BI content specifically addressing participant HIV/HCV knowledge, HIV/HCV risk behaviors, or need for HIV/HCV screening was not associated with greater screening uptake. These study findings suggested factors that should be considered when designing future ED-based screening initiatives, such as elapsed study time, who offers testing, and the content of interventions.

Energy drink and other substance use among adolescent and young adult emergency department patients.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to understand current patterns of energy drink use and compare the extent of usage of energy drinks and other commonly used and misused substances between adolescent (13-17-years-old) and young adult (18-25-years-old) emergency department (ED) patients. METHODS: During a 6-week period between June and August 2010, all patients presenting to an adult or pediatric ED were asked to complete a computer-based, anonymous questionnaire regarding use of energy drinks and other substances. Wilcoxon rank-sum, 2-sample tests of binomial proportions, Pearson χ(2) testing, and regression models were used to compare energy drink and substance use by age groups. RESULTS: Past 30-day energy drink use was greater for young adults (57.9%) than adolescents (34.9%) (P < 0.03). Adolescents typically consumed a mean of 1.5 and young adults a mean of 2.6 energy drinks per day when using energy drinks and drank at most a mean of 2.4 and 2.6 drinks per day, respectively. Among adolescents, energy drink usage was more common than alcohol, "street" or illicit drugs, and tobacco usage, but less common than caffeine product usage. For young adults, energy drink usage was more common than "street" or illicit drugs, but less common than caffeine use, and similar to tobacco and alcohol usage. Young adult energy drink users were more likely than young adult non-energy drink users also to use tobacco and caffeine. CONCLUSIONS: Energy drink use is common among ED patients. Given the high prevalence of energy drink use observed, emergency physicians should consider the involvement of energy drinks in the presentations of young people.

Interrelationship of alcohol misuse, HIV sexual risk and HIV screening uptake among emergency department patients.

BACKGROUND: Emergency department (ED) patients comprise a high-risk population for alcohol misuse and sexual risk for HIV. In order to design future interventions to increase HIV screening uptake, we examined the interrelationship among alcohol misuse, sexual risk for HIV and HIV screening uptake among these patients. METHODS: A random sample of 18-64-year-old English- or Spanish-speaking patients at two EDs during July-August 2009 completed a self-administered questionnaire about their alcohol use using the Alcohol Use Questionnaire, the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), and the HIV Sexual Risk Questionnaire. Study participants were offered a rapid HIV test after completing the questionnaires. Binging (≥ five drinks/occasion for men, ≥ four drinks for women) was assessed and sex-specific alcohol misuse severity levels (low-risk, harmful, hazardous, dependence) were calculated using AUDIT scores. Analyses were limited to participants who had sexual intercourse in the past 12 months. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the associations between HIV screening uptake and (1) alcohol misuse, (2) sexual risk for HIV, and (3) the intersection of HIV sexual risk and alcohol misuse. Adjusted odds ratios (AORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated. All models were adjusted for patient demographic characteristics and separate models for men and women were constructed. RESULTS: Of 524 participants (55.0% female), 58.4% identified as white, non-Hispanic, and 72% reported previous HIV testing. Approximately 75% of participants reported drinking alcohol within the past 30 days and 74.5% of men and 59.6% of women reported binge drinking. A relationship was found between reported sexual risk for HIV and alcohol use among men (AOR 3.31 [CI 1.51-7.24]) and women (AOR 2.78 [CI 1.48-5.23]). Women who reported binge drinking were more likely to have higher reported sexual risk for HIV (AOR 2.55 [CI 1.40-4.64]) compared to women who do not report binge drinking. HIV screening uptake was not higher among those with greater alcohol misuse and sexual risk among men or women. CONCLUSIONS: The apparent disconnection between HIV screening uptake and alcohol misuse and sexual risk for HIV among ED patients in this study is concerning. Brief interventions emphasizing these associations should be evaluated to reduce alcohol misuse and sexual risk and increase the uptake of ED HIV screening.

Impact of a brief intervention on reducing alcohol use and increasing alcohol treatment services utilization among alcohol- and drug-using adult emergency department patients.

Most previous brief intervention (BI) studies have focused on alcohol or drug use, instead of both substances. Our primary aim was to determine if an alcohol- and drug-use BI reduced alcohol use and increased alcohol treatment services utilization among adult emergency department (ED) patients who drink alcohol and require an intervention for their drug use. Our secondary aims were to assess when the greatest relative reductions in alcohol use occurred, and which patients (stratified by need for an alcohol use intervention) reduced their alcohol use the most. In this secondary analysis, we studied a sub-sample of participants from the Brief Intervention for Drug Misuse in the Emergency Department (BIDMED) randomized, controlled trial of a BI vs. no BI, whose responses to the Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) indicated a need for a BI for any drug use, and who also reported alcohol use. Participants were stratified by their ASSIST alcohol subscore: 1) no BI needed, 2) a BI needed, or 3) an intensive intervention needed for alcohol use. Alcohol use and alcohol treatment services utilization were measured every 3 months for 12 months post-enrollment. Of these 833 participants, median age was 29 years-old, 46% were female; 55% were white/non-Hispanic, 27% black/non-Hispanic, and 15% Hispanic. Although any alcohol use, alcohol use frequency, days of alcohol use, typical drinks consumed/day, and most drinks consumed/day decreased in both the BI and no BI arms, there were no differences between study arms. Few patients sought alcohol use treatment services in follow-up, and utilization also did not differ by study arm. Compared to baseline, alcohol use reduced the most during the first 3 months after enrollment, yet reduced little afterward. Participants whose ASSIST alcohol subscores indicated a need for an intensive intervention generally had the greatest relative decreases in alcohol use. These results indicate that the BI was not efficacious in reducing alcohol use among alcohol- and drug-using adult ED patients than the self-assessments alone, but suggest that self-assessments with or without a BI may confer reductions in alcohol use.

Variations in Substance Use Prevalence Estimates and Need for Interventions among Adult Emergency Department Patients Based on Different Screening Strategies Using the ASSIST.

INTRODUCTION: Among adult emergency department (ED) patients, we sought to examine how estimates of substance use prevalence and the need for interventions can differ, based on the type of screening and assessment strategies employed. METHODS: We estimated the prevalence of substance use and the need for interventions using the Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) in a secondary analysis of data from two cross-sectional studies using random samples of English- or Spanish-speaking 18-64-year-old ED patients. In addition, the test performance characteristics of three simplified screening strategies consisting of selected questions from the ASSIST (lifetime use, past three-month use, and past three-month frequency of use) to identify patients in need of a possible intervention were compared against using the full ASSIST. RESULTS: Of 6,432 adult ED patients, the median age was 37 years-old, 56.6% were female, and 61.6% were white. Estimated substance use prevalence among this population differed by how it was measured (lifetime use, past three-month use, past three-month frequency of use, or need for interventions). As compared to using the full ASSIST, the predictive value and accuracy to identify patients in need of any intervention was best for a simplified strategy asking about past three-month substance use. A strategy asking about daily/near-daily use was better in identifying patients needing intensive interventions. However, some patients needing interventions were missed when using these simplified strategies. CONCLUSION: Substance use prevalence estimates and identification of ED patients needing interventions differ by screening strategies used. EDs should carefully select strategies to identify patients in need of substance use interventions.

Short-term Efficacy of a Brief Intervention to Reduce Drug Misuse and Increase Drug Treatment Utilization Among Adult Emergency Department Patients.

OBJECTIVES: Although brief interventions (BIs) have shown some success for smoking cessation and alcohol misuse, it is not known if they can be applied in the emergency department (ED) to drug use and misuse. The objectives of this investigation were to assess the 3-month efficacy of a BI to reduce drug use and misuse, increase drug treatment services utilization among adult ED patients, and identify subgroups more likely to benefit from the BI. METHODS: This randomized, controlled trial enrolled 18- to 64-year-old English- or Spanish-speaking patients from two urban, academic EDs whose responses to the Alcohol, Smoking, and Substance Involvement Screening Test indicated a need for a brief or intensive intervention. Treatment participants received a tailored BI, while control participants only completed the study questionnaires. At the 3-month follow-up, each participant's past 3-month drug use and misuse and treatment utilization were compared to his or her baseline enrollment data. Regression modeling was used to identify subgroups of patients (per demographic and clinical factors) more likely to stop or reduce their drug use or misuse or engage in drug treatment by the 3-month follow-up assessment. RESULTS: Of the 1,030 participants, the median age was 30 years (interquartile range = 24 to 42 years), and 46% were female; 57% were white/non-Hispanic, 24.9% were black/non-Hispanic, and 15% were Hispanic. The most commonly misused drugs were marijuana, prescription opioids, cocaine/crack, and benzodiazepines. Although at follow-up the proportions of participants reporting any past 3-month drug misuse had decreased in both study arms (control 84% vs. treatment 78%), the decreases were similar between the two study arms (Δ-6.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -13.0% to 0.0). In addition, at follow-up there were no differences between study arms in those who were currently receiving drug treatment (Δ1.8; 95% CI = -3.5 to 6.8), who had received treatment during the past 3 months (Δ-2.0; 95% CI = -6.5 to 2.4), or who at least contacted a treatment program (Δ 1.7; 95% CI = -2.4 to 6.1). Those whose baseline screening indicated the need for a brief instead of a more intensive intervention, and those currently engaged in drug treatment at the 3-month follow-up, were generally more likely to stop or decrease their drug use/misuse. CONCLUSIONS: The BI employed in this study did not reduce drug use and misuse or increase treatment utilization more than the control condition over a 3-month period. Future research should help determine what role, if any, BIs should play in affecting drug use and misuse among ED patients.

Evaluation of a brief intervention to reduce the negative consequences of drug misuse among adult emergency department patients.

OBJECTIVES: Determine if a brief intervention (BI) reduces the negative consequences of drug use/misuse among adult emergency department (ED) patients, and identify patients more likely to benefit from the BI. METHODS: This randomized, controlled trial enrolled 1026 18-64 year-old ED patients whose drug misuse indicated a needed for a BI. Differences in total Inventory of Drug Use Consequences (InDUC) scores between the treatment (BI) and control arms (no BI) were assessed every 90 days over a one-year period. Regression models were constructed to identify demographic and clinical factors associated with greater reductions in total InDUC scores. RESULTS: Although total InDUC scores decreased for both the treatment and control arms, there were no differences in scores between the treatment and the control arms at baseline at each follow-up. In the regression analyses, participants who were not using drugs or received drug treatment in the past 90 days generally had lower InDUC scores at each follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Although negative consequences decreased in both study arms over time, receiving a BI did not lead to a greater reduction in the negative consequences of drug misuse than not receiving a BI. Of importance in the design of future ED drug misuse interventions, participants who were successful in stopping their drug misuse or receiving drug treatment did show fewer negative consequences of drug use/misuse.

HCV among The Miriam Hospital and Rhode Island Hospital Adult ED Patients.

The Emergency Department (ED) appears to be an ideal place to conduct hepatitis C virus (HCV) screening. We aimed to estimate the prevalence of prior HCV test positivity among adult (18-64 year-old) patients at The Miriam Hospital and Rhode Island Hospital EDs, as well as the undiagnosed HCV antibody seroprevalence among patients with any self-reported injection or non-injection drug use who agreed to undergo rapid HCV antibody testing. The prevalence of prior HCV test positivity among 8,500 adult ED patients was approximately 4.6%, and the previously undiagnosed HCV antibody seroprevalence among 621 drug-using adult ED patients was 1.6%. Among the ten ED patients with a positive rapid HCV antibody test not previously diagnosed, eight were born after 1965 and six never had injected drugs. If current HCV screening recommendations were followed exclusively in this setting, this practice would have missed half of those with a positive rapid HCV antibody test.

Comparison of substance-use prevalence among Rhode Island and The Miriam Hospital Emergency Department patients to state and national general population prevalence estimates.

OBJECTIVES: Compare the prevalence of recent alcohol, tobacco, and drug use among patients from two Rhode Island emergency departments (EDs) to Rhode Island state and United States national general population estimates between 2010 and 2012. METHODS: Secondary analysis of ED patient data and the National Survey of Drug Use and Health. RESULTS: Alcohol was the most commonly reported substance, and prevalence of its use was higher among ED patients than those in the national, but not the Rhode Island, general population. Drug use was higher among ED patients than in the state and national general population. For ED patients, tobacco and opioid use was highest among 26-34 year-olds, alcohol and marijuana highest among 18-25 years-olds, and cocaine highest among 35-49 years-olds. CONCLUSION: Rhode Island Hospital and The Miriam Hospital ED patients report a greater prevalence of substance use than the national population and in many cases the state general population.

Brief intervention to increase emergency department uptake of combined rapid human immunodeficiency virus and hepatitis C screening among a drug misusing population.

OBJECTIVES: In this study, Increasing Viral Testing in the Emergency Department (InVITED), the authors investigated if a brief intervention about human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) risk-taking behaviors and drug use and misuse in addition to a self-administered risk assessment, compared to a self-administered risk assessment alone, increased uptake of combined screening for HIV and HCV, self-perception of HIV/HCV risk, and impacted beliefs and opinions on HIV/HCV screening. METHODS: InVITED was a randomized, controlled trial conducted at two urban emergency departments (EDs) from February 2011 to March 2012. ED patients who self-reported drug use within the past 3 months were invited to enroll. Drug misuse severity and need for a brief or more intensive intervention was assessed using the Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST). Participants were randomly assigned to one of two study arms: a self-administered HIV/HCV risk assessment alone (control arm) or the assessment plus a brief intervention about their drug misuse and screening for HIV/HCV (intervention arm). Beliefs on the value of combined HIV/HCV screening, self-perception of HIV/HCV risk, and opinions on HIV/HCV screening in the ED were measured in both study arms before the HIV/HCV risk assessment (pre), after the assessment in the control arm, and after the brief intervention in the intervention arm (post). Participants in both study arms were offered free combined rapid HIV/HCV screening. Uptake of screening was compared by study arm. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to evaluate factors related to uptake of screening. RESULTS: Of the 395 participants in the study, the median age was 28 years (interquartile range [IQR] = 23 to 38 years), 44.8% were female, 82.3% had ever been tested for HIV, and 67.3% had ever been tested for HCV. Uptake of combined rapid HIV/HCV screening was nearly identical by study arm (64.5% vs. 65.2%; Δ = -0.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -10.1% to 8.7%). Of the 256 screened, none had reactive HIV antibody tests, but seven (2.7%) had reactive HCV antibody tests. Multivariable logistic regression analysis results indicated that uptake of screening was not related to study arm assignment, total ASSIST drug scores, need for an intervention for drug misuse, or HIV/HCV sexual risk assessment scores. However, uptake of screening was greater among participants who indicated placing a higher value on combined rapid HIV/HCV screening for themselves and all ED patients and those with higher levels of perceived HIV/HCV risk. Uptake of combined rapid HIV/HCV screening was not related to changes in beliefs regarding the value of combined HIV/HCV screening or self-perceived HIV/HCV risk (post- vs. pre-risk assessment with or without a brief intervention). Opinions regarding the ED as a venue for combined rapid HIV/HCV screening were not related to uptake of screening. CONCLUSIONS: Uptake of combined rapid HIV/HCV screening is high and considered valuable among drug using and misusing ED patients with little concern about the ED as a screening venue. The brief intervention investigated in this study does not appear to change beliefs regarding screening, self-perceived risk, or uptake of screening for HIV/HCV in this population. Initial beliefs regarding the value of screening and self-perceived risk for these infections predict uptake of screening.

Behavioral and physiologic adverse effects in adolescent and young adult emergency department patients reporting use of energy drinks and caffeine.

INTRODUCTION: This pilot study assessed the prevalence of physiologic and behavioral adverse effects among adolescent (13-17 years) and adult (18-25 years) emergency department patients who reported energy drink and/or caffeinated-only beverage use within the 30 days prior to emergency department presentation. It was hypothesized that energy drink users would report more adverse effects than those who used only traditional caffeinated beverages such as coffee, tea, or soft drinks. METHODS: This cross-sectional pilot study was conducted in two urban emergency departments, one adult and one pediatric. Eligible patients were enrolled during a 6-week period between June and August 2010. Participants completed a tablet computer-based, self-administered, anonymous questionnaire about their past 30-day energy drink and/or caffeinated-only beverage use, substance use, and experience of 10 physiologic and 10 behavioral symptoms. Multivariable logistic regression and negative binomial regression models, adjusted for age, gender, and substance use, were created to compare the occurrence of each adverse effect between energy drink and caffeinated-only beverage users. Odds ratios (ORs) and incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were estimated. RESULTS: Of those enrolled, 53.3% reported consuming energy drinks, 39.1% caffeinated-only beverages, and 7.6% no energy drinks or caffeinated-only beverages within the past 30 days. In multivariable logistic regression models, energy drink users were more likely than caffeinated-only beverage users to report having "gotten into trouble at home, school, or work" in the past 30 days (OR: 3.12 [1.24-7.88]). In the negative binomial regression multivariable models, more behavioral effects were reported among drug users (IRR: 1.50 [1.18-1.93]), and more physiologic effects were reported among tobacco users (IRR: 1.42 [1.13-1.80]) and females (IRR: 1.48 [1.21-1.80]), but not among energy drink users. CONCLUSIONS: Energy drink users and substance users are more likely to report specific physiologic and behavioral adverse effects. Emergency department clinicians should consider asking patients about energy drink and traditional caffeine usage and substance use when assessing patient symptoms.

Sex differences in alcohol misuse and estimated blood alcohol concentrations among emergency department patients: implications for brief interventions.

OBJECTIVES: The objective was to assess the relationship between alcohol use and misuse and patient sex among emergency department (ED) patients by comparing self-reported estimates of quantity and frequency of alcohol use, estimated blood alcohol concentrations (eBACs) when typically drinking and during heavy episodic drinking (binging), and alcohol misuse severity, to understand sex differences in alcohol use and misuse for this population. METHODS: The authors surveyed a random sample of nonintoxicated, subcritically ill or injured, 18- to 64-year-old English- or Spanish-speaking patients on randomly selected dates and times at two EDs during July 2009 and August 2009. Participants self-administered a questionnaire about their self-reported alcohol use during a typical month within the past 12 months and the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT). Using the formulae by Matthews and Miller, sex-specific eBACs were calculated for participants according to their reported weight and the number of reported alcoholic drinks consumed on days when typically drinking and on days of heavy episodic (binge) drinking (five or more drinks/occasion for men, four or more drinks for women). Sex-specific alcohol misuse severity levels (low-risk, harmful, hazardous, and dependence) were calculated using AUDIT scores. Wilcoxon rank-sum and Pearson's chi-square tests were used to compare outcomes by sex. Negative binomial regression was used to assess the relationship between sex and the number of drinks consumed on a typical day, the number of days spent drinking and binging, and estimated AUDIT scores. Logistic regression was used to assess the outcome of the presence of binging according to sex. Multinomial logistic regression was used to compare by sex the percentage of days spent drinking and binging in 1 month, eBACs when typically drinking and when binging, and AUDIT at-risk drinking levels. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and adjusted odds ratios (AORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated. All models were adjusted for patient demographic characteristics. RESULTS: Of the 513 participants, 52.1% were women, 55.8% were white non-Hispanic, and their median age was 34 years (interquartile range [IQR] = 25 to 46 years). Men reported greater mean alcohol consumption than women when typically drinking (4.3 vs. 3.3 drinks/day; p < 0.001) and during heavy episodic drinking (8.6 vs. 5.3 drinks/occasion; p < 0.001). Men spent more days drinking (IRR = 1.41, 95% CI = 1.19 to 1.65) and engaging in heavy episodic drinking (IRR = 1.68, 95% CI = 1.31 to 2.17) than women. Additionally, men were more likely to engage in heavy episodic drinking (AOR = 1.72, 95% CI = 1.16 to 2.56) than women. However, the mean eBACs for men and women were similar when typically drinking (0.05 vs. 0.06; p < 0.13) and during heavy episodic drinking (0.13 vs. 0.12; p < 0.13). Mean AUDIT scores were greater for men than women (7.5 vs. 5.3; p < 0.001), although alcohol misuse severity levels were similar between men and women (24.4% vs. 26.6% for hazardous, 2.8% vs. 2.2% for harmful, and 6.5% vs. 3.4% for dependence; p < 0.38). CONCLUSIONS: Although men drink more than women, women have similar eBACs with comparable levels of alcohol misuse. Women may benefit from recognizing that they are reaching similar levels of intoxication compared to men. Addressing these differences and possible health implications in future ED brief interventions may induce changes in problematic alcohol use among women.