Implementation of substance use screening in rural federally-qualified health center clinics identified high rates of unhealthy alcohol and cannabis use among adult primary care patients.

BACKGROUND: Screening for substance use in rural primary care clinics faces unique challenges due to limited resources, high patient volumes, and multiple demands on providers. To explore the potential for electronic health record (EHR)-integrated screening in this context, we conducted an implementation feasibility study with a rural federally-qualified health center (FQHC) in Maine. This was an ancillary study to a NIDA Clinical Trials Network study of screening in urban primary care clinics (CTN-0062). METHODS: Researchers worked with stakeholders from three FQHC clinics to define and implement their optimal screening approach. Clinics used the Tobacco, Alcohol, Prescription Medication, and Other Substance (TAPS) Tool, completed on tablet computers in the waiting room, and results were immediately recorded in the EHR. Adult patients presenting for annual preventive care visits, but not those with other visit types, were eligible for screening. Data were analyzed for the first 12 months following implementation at each clinic to assess screening rates and prevalence of reported unhealthy substance use, and documentation of counseling using an EHR-integrated clinical decision support tool, for patients screening positive for moderate-high risk alcohol or drug use. RESULTS: Screening was completed by 3749 patients, representing 93.4% of those with screening-eligible annual preventive care visits, and 18.5% of adult patients presenting for any type of primary care visit. Screening was self-administered in 92.9% of cases. The prevalence of moderate-high risk substance use detected on screening was 14.6% for tobacco, 30.4% for alcohol, 10.8% for cannabis, 0.3% for illicit drugs, and 0.6% for non-medical use of prescription drugs. Brief substance use counseling was documented for 17.4% of patients with any moderate-high risk alcohol or drug use. CONCLUSIONS: Self-administered EHR-integrated screening was feasible to implement, and detected substantial alcohol, cannabis, and tobacco use in rural FQHC clinics. Counseling was documented for a minority of patients with moderate-high risk use, possibly indicating a need for better support of primary care providers in addressing substance use. There is potential to broaden the reach of screening by offering it at routine medical visits rather than restricting to annual preventive care visits, within these and other rural primary care clinics.

A Brief Screening and Assessment Tool for Opioid Use in Adults: Results from a Validation Study of the Tobacco, Alcohol, Prescription Medication, and Other Substances Tool.

OBJECTIVES: This secondary analysis evaluated opioid-specific validation results of the Tobacco, Alcohol, Prescription Medication, and Other Substances (TAPS) tool for screening in primary care. METHODS: This study is a secondary data analysis of the TAPS validation study. Performance of the TAPS tool for screening for unhealthy opioid use (with a score of 1+ for heroin and/or prescription opioids representing a positive screen) was evaluated. Discriminative ability was examined in comparison with reference standard measures across the spectrum of unhealthy opioid use: timeline follow-back with and without oral fluid testing identifying past-month use and the modified Composite International Diagnostic Interview for past-year problem use, opioid use disorder (OUD), and moderate-severe OUD. RESULTS: In a sample of 2000 primary care patients, 114 screened positive for opioids on the TAPS tool. With a TAPS cutoff equal to 1+, the TAPS accurately identified past-month use, problem use, any OUD, and moderate-severe OUD (sensitivities = 68%-85%, specificities = 97%-98%, area under the curve = 0.80-0.91). When past-month use was expanded to include timeline follow-back with oral fluid testing, accuracy declined (52% sensitivity [95% confidence interval, 43%-60%], 98% specific [95% confidence interval, 97%-98%]). CONCLUSIONS: While further testing in a larger population sample may be warranted, given their brevity, simplicity, and accuracy when self-administered, the TAPS opioid items can be used in primary care settings for a spectrum of unhealthy opioid use; however, self-disclosure remains an issue in primary care settings.

Comparison of Methods for Alcohol and Drug Screening in Primary Care Clinics.

Importance: Guidelines recommend that adult patients receive screening for alcohol and drug use during primary care visits, but the adoption of screening in routine practice remains low. Clinics frequently struggle to choose a screening approach that is best suited to their resources, workflows, and patient populations. Objective: To evaluate how to best implement electronic health record (EHR)-integrated screening for substance use by comparing commonly used screening methods and examining their association with implementation outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This article presents the outcomes of phases 3 and 4 of a 4-phase quality improvement, implementation feasibility study in which researchers worked with stakeholders at 6 primary care clinics in 2 large urban academic health care systems to define and implement their optimal screening approach. Site A was located in New York City and comprised 2 clinics, and site B was located in Boston, Massachusetts, and comprised 4 clinics. Clinics initiated screening between January 2017 and October 2018, and 93 114 patients were eligible for screening for alcohol and drug use. Data used in the analysis were collected between January 2017 and October 2019, and analysis was performed from July 13, 2018, to March 23, 2021. Interventions: Clinics integrated validated screening questions and a brief counseling script into the EHR, with implementation supported by the use of clinical champions (ie, clinicians who advocate for change, motivate others, and use their expertise to facilitate the adoption of an intervention) and the training of clinic staff. Clinics varied in their screening approaches, including the type of visit targeted for screening (any visit vs annual examinations only), the mode of administration (staff-administered vs self-administered by the patient), and the extent to which they used practice facilitation and EHR usability testing. Main Outcomes and Measures: Data from the EHRs were extracted quarterly for 12 months to measure implementation outcomes. The primary outcome was screening rate for alcohol and drug use. Secondary outcomes were the prevalence of unhealthy alcohol and drug use detected via screening, and clinician adoption of a brief counseling script. Results: Patients of the 6 clinics had a mean (SD) age ranging from 48.9 (17.3) years at clinic B2 to 59.1 (16.7) years at clinic B3, were predominantly female (52.4% at clinic A1 to 64.6% at clinic A2), and were English speaking. Racial diversity varied by location. Of the 93,114 patients with primary care visits, 71.8% received screening for alcohol use, and 70.5% received screening for drug use. Screening at any visit (implemented at site A) in comparison with screening at annual examinations only (implemented at site B) was associated with higher screening rates for alcohol use (90.3%-94.7% vs 24.2%-72.0%, respectively) and drug use (89.6%-93.9% vs 24.6%-69.8%). The 5 clinics that used a self-administered screening approach had a higher detection rate for moderate- to high-risk alcohol use (14.7%-36.6%) compared with the 1 clinic that used a staff-administered screening approach (1.6%). The detection of moderate- to high-risk drug use was low across all clinics (0.5%-1.0%). Clinics with more robust practice facilitation and EHR usability testing had somewhat greater adoption of the counseling script for patients with moderate-high risk alcohol or drug use (1.4%-12.5% vs 0.1%-1.1%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this quality improvement study, EHR-integrated screening was feasible to implement in all clinics and unhealthy alcohol use was detected more frequently when self-administered screening was used at any primary care visit. The detection of drug use was low at all clinics, as was clinician adoption of counseling. These findings can be used to inform the decision-making of health care systems that are seeking to implement screening for substance use. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02963948.

Buprenorphine physician-pharmacist collaboration in the management of patients with opioid use disorder: results from a multisite study of the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Physician and pharmacist collaboration may help address the shortage of buprenorphine-waivered physicians and improve care for patients with opioid use disorder (OUD). This study investigated the feasibility and acceptability of a new collaborative care model involving buprenorphine-waivered physicians and community pharmacists. DESIGN: Nonrandomized, single-arm, open-label feasibility trial. SETTING: Three office-based buprenorphine treatment (OBBT) clinics and three community pharmacies in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Six physicians, six pharmacists, and 71 patients aged ≥18 years with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) OUD on buprenorphine maintenance. INTERVENTION: After screening, eligible patients' buprenorphine care was transferred from their OBBT physician to a community pharmacist for 6 months. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcomes included recruitment, treatment retention and adherence, and opioid use. Secondary outcomes were intervention fidelity, pharmacists' use of prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP), participant safety, and satisfaction with treatment delivery. FINDINGS: A high proportion (93.4%, 71/76) of eligible participants enrolled into the study. There were high rates of treatment retention (88.7%) and adherence (95.3%) at the end of the study. The proportion of opioid-positive urine drug screens (UDSs) among complete cases (i.e. those with all six UDSs collected during 6 months) at month 6 was (4.9%, 3/61). Intervention fidelity was excellent. Pharmacists used PDMP at 96.8% of visits. There were no opioid-related safety events. Over 90% of patients endorsed that they were "very satisfied with their experience and the quality of treatment offered," that "treatment transfer from physician's office to the pharmacy was not difficult at all," and that "holding buprenorphine visits at the same place the medication is dispensed was very or extremely useful/convenient." Similarly, positive ratings of satisfaction were found among physicians/pharmacists. CONCLUSIONS: A collaborative care model for people with opioid use disorder that involves buprenorphine-waivered physicians and community pharmacists appears to be feasible to operate in the United States and have high acceptability to patients.

Bupropion and Naltrexone in Methamphetamine Use Disorder.

BACKGROUND: The use of naltrexone plus bupropion to treat methamphetamine use disorder has not been well studied. METHODS: We conducted this multisite, double-blind, two-stage, placebo-controlled trial with the use of a sequential parallel comparison design to evaluate the efficacy and safety of extended-release injectable naltrexone (380 mg every 3 weeks) plus oral extended-release bupropion (450 mg per day) in adults with moderate or severe methamphetamine use disorder. In the first stage of the trial, participants were randomly assigned in a 0.26:0.74 ratio to receive naltrexone-bupropion or matching injectable and oral placebo for 6 weeks. Those in the placebo group who did not have a response in stage 1 underwent rerandomization in stage 2 and were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive naltrexone-bupropion or placebo for an additional 6 weeks. Urine samples were obtained from participants twice weekly. The primary outcome was a response, defined as at least three methamphetamine-negative urine samples out of four samples obtained at the end of stage 1 or stage 2, and the weighted average of the responses in the two stages is reported. The treatment effect was defined as the between-group difference in the overall weighted responses. RESULTS: A total of 403 participants were enrolled in stage 1, and 225 in stage 2. In the first stage, 18 of 109 participants (16.5%) in the naltrexone-bupropion group and 10 of 294 (3.4%) in the placebo group had a response. In the second stage, 13 of 114 (11.4%) in the naltrexone-bupropion group and 2 of 111 (1.8%) in the placebo group had a response. The weighted average response across the two stages was 13.6% with naltrexone-bupropion and 2.5% with placebo, for an overall treatment effect of 11.1 percentage points (Wald z-test statistic, 4.53; P<0.001). Adverse events with naltrexone-bupropion included gastrointestinal disorders, tremor, malaise, hyperhidrosis, and anorexia. Serious adverse events occurred in 8 of 223 participants (3.6%) who received naltrexone-bupropion during the trial. CONCLUSIONS: Among adults with methamphetamine use disorder, the response over a period of 12 weeks among participants who received extended-release injectable naltrexone plus oral extended-release bupropion was low but was higher than that among participants who received placebo. (Funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse and others; ADAPT-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03078075.).

Effect of Oral Valproic Acid vs Placebo for Vision Loss in Patients With Autosomal Dominant Retinitis Pigmentosa: A Randomized Phase 2 Multicenter Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial.

Importance: There are no approved drug treatments for autosomal dominant retinitis pigmentosa, a relentlessly progressive cause of adult and childhood blindness. Objectives: To evaluate the potential efficacy and assess the safety of orally administered valproic acid (VPA) in the treatment of autosomal dominant retinitis pigmentosa. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, phase 2, prospective, interventional, placebo-controlled, double-masked randomized clinical trial. The study took place in 6 US academic retinal degeneration centers. Individuals with genetically characterized autosomal dominant retinitis pigmentosa were randomly assigned to receive treatment or placebo for 12 months. Analyses were intention-to-treat. Interventions: Oral VPA 500 mg to 1000 mg daily for 12 months or placebo. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome measure was determined prior to study initiation as the change in visual field area (assessed by the III4e isopter, semiautomated kinetic perimetry) between baseline and month 12. Results: The mean (SD) age of the 90 participants was 50.4 (11.6) years. Forty-four (48.9%) were women, 87 (96.7%) were white, and 79 (87.8%) were non-Hispanic. Seventy-nine participants (87.8%) completed the study (42 [95.5%] received placebo and 37 [80.4%] received VPA). Forty-two (46.7%) had a rhodopsin mutation. Most adverse events were mild, although 7 serious adverse events unrelated to VPA were reported. The difference between the VPA and placebo arms for mean change in the primary outcome was -150.43 degree2 (95% CI, -290.5 to -10.03; P = .035). Conclusions and Relevance: This negative value indicates that the VPA arm had worse outcomes than the placebo group. This study brings to light the key methodological considerations that should be applied to the rigorous evaluation of treatments for these conditions. This study does not provide support for the use of VPA in the treatment of autosomal dominant retinitis pigmentosa. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01233609.

A randomized placebo-controlled trial of N-acetylcysteine for cannabis use disorder in adults.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis use disorder (CUD) is a prevalent and impairing condition, and established psychosocial treatments convey limited efficacy. In light of recent findings supporting the efficacy of N-acetylcysteine (NAC) for CUD in adolescents, the objective of this trial was to evaluate its efficacy in adults. METHODS: In a 12-week double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial, treatment-seeking adults ages 18-50 with CUD (N=302), enrolled across six National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network-affiliated clinical sites, were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to a 12-week course of NAC 1200mg (n=153) or placebo (n=149) twice daily. All participants received contingency management (CM) and medical management. The primary efficacy measure was the odds of negative urine cannabinoid tests during treatment, compared between NAC and placebo participants. RESULTS: There was not statistically significant evidence that the NAC and placebo groups differed in cannabis abstinence (odds ratio=1.00, 95% confidence interval 0.63-1.59, p=0.984). Overall, 22.3% of urine cannabinoid tests in the NAC group were negative, compared with 22.4% in the placebo group. Many participants were medication non-adherent; exploratory analysis within medication-adherent subgroups revealed no significant differential abstinence outcomes by treatment group. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast with prior findings in adolescents, there is no evidence that NAC 1200mg twice daily plus CM is differentially efficacious for CUD in adults when compared to placebo plus CM. This discrepant finding between adolescents and adults with CUD may have been influenced by differences in development, cannabis use profiles, responses to embedded behavioral treatment, medication adherence, and other factors.

Comparing adult cannabis treatment-seekers enrolled in a clinical trial with national samples of cannabis users in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis use rates are increasing among adults in the United States (US) while the perception of harm is declining. This may result in an increased prevalence of cannabis use disorder and the need for more clinical trials to evaluate efficacious treatment strategies. Clinical trials are the gold standard for evaluating treatment, yet study samples are rarely representative of the target population. This finding has not yet been established for cannabis treatment trials. This study compared demographic and cannabis use characteristics of a cannabis cessation clinical trial sample (run through National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network) with three nationally representative datasets from the US; 1) National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2) National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions-III, and 3) Treatment: Episodes Data Set - Admissions. METHODS: Comparisons were made between the clinical trial sample and appropriate cannabis using sub-samples from the national datasets, and propensity scores were calculated to determine the degree of similarity between samples. RESULTS: showed that the clinical trial sample was significantly different from all three national datasets, with the clinical trial sample having greater representation among older adults, African Americans, Hispanic/Latinos, adults with more education, non-tobacco users, and daily and almost daily cannabis users. CONCLUSIONS: These results are consistent with previous studies of other substance use disorder populations and extend sample representation issues to a cannabis use disorder population. This illustrates the need to ensure representative samples within cannabis treatment clinical trials to improve the generalizability of promising findings.

Performance of the Tobacco, Alcohol, Prescription Medication, and Other Substance Use (TAPS) Tool for Substance Use Screening in Primary Care Patients.

BACKGROUND: Substance use, a leading cause of illness and death, is underidentified in medical practice. OBJECTIVE: The Tobacco, Alcohol, Prescription medication, and other Substance use (TAPS) tool was developed to address the need for a brief screening and assessment instrument that includes all commonly used substances and fits into clinical workflows. The goal of this study was to assess the performance of the TAPS tool in primary care patients. DESIGN: Multisite study, conducted within the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network, comparing the TAPS tool with a reference standard measure. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02110693). SETTING: 5 adult primary care clinics. PARTICIPANTS: 2000 adult patients consecutively recruited from clinic waiting areas. MEASUREMENTS: Interviewer- and self-administered versions of the TAPS tool were compared with a reference standard, the modified World Mental Health Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI), which measures problem use and substance use disorder (SUD). RESULTS: Interviewer- and self-administered versions of the TAPS tool had similar diagnostic characteristics. For identifying problem use (at a cutoff of 1+), the TAPS tool had a sensitivity of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.90 to 0.95) and specificity of 0.87 (CI, 0.85 to 0.89) for tobacco and a sensitivity of 0.74 (CI, 0.70 to 0.78) and specificity of 0.79 (CI, 0.76 to 0.81) for alcohol. For problem use of illicit and prescription drugs, sensitivity ranged from 0.82 (CI, 0.76 to 0.87) for marijuana to 0.63 (CI, 0.47 to 0.78) for sedatives; specificity was 0.93 or higher. For identifying any SUD (at a cutoff of 2+), sensitivity was lower. LIMITATIONS: The low prevalence of some drug classes led to poor precision in some estimates. Research assistants were not blinded to participants' TAPS tool responses when they administered the CIDI. CONCLUSION: In a diverse population of adult primary care patients, the TAPS tool detected clinically relevant problem substance use. Although it also may detect tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana use disorders, further refinement is needed before it can be recommended broadly for SUD screening. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Internet-delivered treatment for substance abuse: a multisite randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Computer-delivered interventions have the potential to improve access to quality addiction treatment care. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the Therapeutic Education System (TES), an Internet-delivered behavioral intervention that includes motivational incentives, as a clinician-extender in the treatment of substance use disorders. METHOD: Adult men and women (N=507) entering 10 outpatient addiction treatment programs were randomly assigned to receive 12 weeks of either treatment as usual (N=252) or treatment as usual plus TES, with the intervention substituting for about 2 hours of standard care per week (N=255). TES consists of 62 computerized interactive modules covering skills for achieving and maintaining abstinence, plus prize-based motivational incentives contingent on abstinence and treatment adherence. Treatment as usual consisted of individual and group counseling at the participating programs. The primary outcome measures were abstinence from drugs and heavy drinking (measured by twice-weekly urine drug screens and self-report) and time to dropout from treatment. RESULTS: Compared with patients in the treatment-as-usual group, those in the TES group had a lower dropout rate (hazard ratio=0.72, 95% CI=0.57, 0.92) and a greater abstinence rate (odds ratio=1.62, 95% CI=1.12, 2.35). This effect was more pronounced among patients who had a positive urine drug or breath alcohol screen at study entry (N=228) (odds ratio=2.18, 95% CI=1.30, 3.68). CONCLUSIONS: Internet-delivered interventions such as TES have the potential to expand access and improve addiction treatment outcomes. Additional research is needed to assess effectiveness in non-specialty clinical settings and to differentiate the effects of the community reinforcement approach and contingency management components of TES.

Score Study Report 12: Development of venous collaterals in the Score Study.

PURPOSE: To investigate the prevalence of venous collaterals after branch and central retinal vein occlusion, assess the association of venous collaterals with other clinical features (including visual acuity), and determine if treatment with intravitreal corticosteroids influences the development of new venous collaterals. METHODS: Review of data from two multicenter randomized clinical trials in the Standard of Care versus COrticosteroid for REtinal Vein Occlusion (SCORE) Study. RESULTS: Statistically significant associations of venous collaterals and visual acuity at baseline or at follow-up were not found. Treatment with intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide did not appear to influence the development of venous collaterals. CONCLUSION: In contrast to some previous reports, development of venous collaterals did not demonstrate an independent association with visual acuity in eyes with branch retinal vein occlusion or central retinal vein occlusion in the SCORE Study. Intravitreal steroid effects do not appear to influence the development of venous collaterals.