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.

Effects of the Communities that Heal (CTH) intervention on perceived opioid-related community stigma in the HEALing Communities Study: results of a multi-site, community-level, cluster-randomized trial.

Background: Community stigma against people with opioid use disorder (OUD) and intervention stigma (e.g., toward naloxone) exacerbate the opioid overdose crisis. We examined the effects of the Communities that HEAL (CTH) intervention on perceived opioid-related community stigma by stakeholders in the HEALing Communities Study (HCS). Methods: We collected three surveys from community coalition members in 66 communities across four states participating in HCS. Communities were randomized into Intervention (Wave 1) or Wait-list Control (Wave 2) arms. We conducted multilevel linear mixed models to compare changes in primary outcomes of community stigma toward people treated for OUD, naloxone, and medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) by arm from time 1 (before the start of the intervention) to time 3 (end of the intervention period in the Intervention arm). Findings: Intervention stakeholders reported a larger decrease in perceived community stigma toward people treated for OUD (adjusted mean change (AMC) -3.20 [95% C.I. -4.43, -1.98]) and toward MOUD (AMC -0.33 [95% C.I. -0.56, -0.09]) than stakeholders in Wait-list Control communities (AMC -0.18 [95% C.I. -1.38, 1.02], p = 0.0007 and AMC 0.11 [95% C.I. -0.09, 0.31], p = 0.0066). The relationship between intervention status and change in stigma toward MOUD was moderated by rural-urban status (urban AMC -0.59 [95% CI, -0.87, -0.32], rural AMC not sig.) and state. The difference in stigma toward naloxone between Intervention and Wait-list Control stakeholders was not statistically significant (p = 0.18). Interpretation: The CTH intervention decreased stakeholder perceptions of community stigma toward people treated for OUD and stigma toward MOUD. Implementing the CTH intervention in other communities could decrease OUD stigma across diverse settings nationally. Funding: US National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Differences in perceptions of community stigma towards opioid use disorder between community substance use coalition members and the general public.

INTRODUCTION: To examine differences in perceptions about community stigma towards individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) between community members involved in the opioid response (i.e., coalition members) and the general public, and how community geography may moderate this relationship. METHODS: This study administered identical cross-sectional surveys about perceived community opioid-related stigma to two distinct populations in 66 communities participating in the HEALing Communities Study prior to the intervention period (i.e., coalition members, November 2019-January 2020; residents, March-April 2020). Linear-mixed models compared survey responses of populations, including the moderating effect of community rural/urban location. RESULTS: A total of 826 coalition members and 1131 residents completed the surveys. The study found no differences between the coalition members and residents for general perceived community opioid-related stigma. In both urban and rural communities, coalition members reported greater perceived community stigma than residents reported towards medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD), naloxone, and drug treatment as an alternative to incarceration. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest similar perceived community opioid-related stigma between coalition members and residents, yet differences emerge related to evidence-based practices (i.e., MOUD, naloxone, and drug treatment as an alternative to incarceration) to reduce opioid overdose deaths. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04111939.

Community-level determinants of stakeholder perceptions of community stigma toward people with opioid use disorders, harm reduction services and treatment in the HEALing Communities Study.

BACKGROUND: Community stigma toward people with opioid use disorder (OUD) can impede access to harm reduction services and treatment with medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD). Such community OUD stigma is partially rooted in community-level social and economic conditions, yet there remains a paucity of large-scale quantitative data examining community-level factors associated with OUD stigma. We examined whether rurality, social inequity, and racialized segregation across communities from four states in the HEALing Communities Study (HCS) were associated with 1) greater perceived community stigma toward people treated for OUD, 2) greater perceived intervention stigma toward MOUD, and 3) greater perceived intervention stigma toward naloxone by community stakeholders in the HCS. METHODS: From November 2019-January 2020, a cross-sectional survey about community OUD stigma was administered to 801 members of opioid overdose prevention coalitions across 66 communities in four states prior to the start of HCS intervention activities. Bivariate analyses assessed pairwise associations between community rural/urban status and each of the three stigma variables, using linear mixed effect modeling to account for response clustering within communities, state, and respondent sociodemographic characteristics. We conducted similar bivariate analyses to assess pairwise associations between racialized segregation and social inequity. RESULTS: On average, the perceived community OUD stigma scale score of stakeholders from rural communities was 4% higher (ß=1.57, SE=0.7, p≤0.05), stigma toward MOUD was 6% higher (ß=0.28, SE=0.1, p≤0.05), and stigma toward naloxone was 10% higher (ß=0.46, SE=0.1, p≤0.01) than among stakeholders from urban communities. No significant differences in the three stigma variables were found among communities based on racialized segregation or social inequity. CONCLUSION: Perceived community stigma toward people treated for OUD, MOUD, and naloxone was higher among stakeholders in rural communities than in urban communities. Findings suggest that interventions and policies to reduce community-level stigma, particularly in rural areas, are warranted.

Aging-Related Comorbidity Burden Among Women and Men With or At-Risk for HIV in the US, 2008-2019.

Importance: Despite aging-related comorbidities representing a growing threat to quality-of-life and mortality among persons with HIV (PWH), clinical guidance for comorbidity screening and prevention is lacking. Understanding comorbidity distribution and severity by sex and gender is essential to informing guidelines for promoting healthy aging in adults with HIV. Objective: To assess the association of human immunodeficiency virus on the burden of aging-related comorbidities among US adults in the modern treatment era. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional analysis included data from US multisite observational cohort studies of women (Women's Interagency HIV Study) and men (Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study) with HIV and sociodemographically comparable HIV-seronegative individuals. Participants were prospectively followed from 2008 for men and 2009 for women (when more than 80% of participants with HIV reported antiretroviral therapy use) through last observation up until March 2019, at which point outcomes were assessed. Data were analyzed from July 2020 to April 2021. Exposures: HIV, age, sex. Main Outcomes and Measures: Comorbidity burden (the number of total comorbidities out of 10 assessed) per participant; secondary outcomes included individual comorbidity prevalence. Linear regression assessed the association of HIV status, age, and sex with comorbidity burden. Results: A total of 5929 individuals were included (median [IQR] age, 54 [46-61] years; 3238 women [55%]; 2787 Black [47%], 1153 Hispanic or other [19%], 1989 White [34%]). Overall, unadjusted mean comorbidity burden was higher among women vs men (3.4 [2.1] vs 3.2 [1.8]; P = .02). Comorbidity prevalence differed by sex for hypertension (2188 of 3238 women [68%] vs 2026 of 2691 men [75%]), psychiatric illness (1771 women [55%] vs 1565 men [58%]), dyslipidemia (1312 women [41%] vs 1728 men [64%]), liver (1093 women [34%] vs 1032 men [38%]), bone disease (1364 women [42%] vs 512 men [19%]), lung disease (1245 women [38%] vs 259 men [10%]), diabetes (763 women [24%] vs 470 men [17%]), cardiovascular (493 women [15%] vs 407 men [15%]), kidney (444 women [14%] vs 404 men [15%]) disease, and cancer (219 women [7%] vs 321 men [12%]). In an unadjusted model, the estimated mean difference in comorbidity burden among women vs men was significantly greater in every age strata among PWH: age under 40 years, 0.33 (95% CI, 0.03-0.63); ages 40 to 49 years, 0.37 (95% CI, 0.12-0.61); ages 50 to 59 years, 0.38 (95% CI, 0.20-0.56); ages 60 to 69 years, 0.66 (95% CI, 0.42-0.90); ages 70 years and older, 0.62 (95% CI, 0.07-1.17). However, the difference between sexes varied by age strata among persons without HIV: age under 40 years, 0.52 (95% CI, 0.13 to 0.92); ages 40 to 49 years, -0.07 (95% CI, -0.45 to 0.31); ages 50 to 59 years, 0.88 (95% CI, 0.62 to 1.14); ages 60 to 69 years, 1.39 (95% CI, 1.06 to 1.72); ages 70 years and older, 0.33 (95% CI, -0.53 to 1.19) (P for interaction = .001). In the covariate-adjusted model, findings were slightly attenuated but retained statistical significance. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, the overall burden of aging-related comorbidities was higher in women vs men, particularly among PWH, and the distribution of comorbidity prevalence differed by sex. Comorbidity screening and prevention strategies tailored by HIV serostatus and sex or gender may be needed.

Dyspnea and Pulmonary Function Among Participants in the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study Using Protease Inhibitors: A Cross-Sectional Study.

People living with HIV (PLWH) have a higher prevalence of respiratory symptoms than people without human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Antiretroviral therapy has been associated with worsened airflow limitation. This cross-sectional study assessed respiratory health impairment among PLWH and its association with protease inhibitor use using data from Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study visits between April 1, 2017 and March 31, 2018. Participants completed the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnea scale, spirometry, and diffusion capacity measurement. Visit data were compared among PI users, non-PI users, and men without HIV. Binary and ordinal logistic models were used to determine the associations between HIV status, PI use, and covariates with primary outcomes of dichotomized SGRQ and mMRC dyspnea scores. Of PI users, 57/177 (32.2%) self-reported pulmonary disease compared with 132/501 (26.4%) of non-PI users and 105/547 (19.2%) men without HIV. Of PI users, 77/177 (45.3%) had SGRQ scores ≥10, while 171/501 (34.7%) of non-PI users and 162/549 (29.9%) of people living without HIV had SGRQ scores ≥10 (p = .001). Adjusted models found an association between PI use and SGRQ score ≥10 [odds ratio (OR) 1.91 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.29-2.82), ref: HIV negative and OR 1.50 (95% CI 1.01-2.22) ref: non-PI users]. A similar association was found with mMRC scores and PI use [OR 1.79 (95% CI 1.21-2.64), ref: HIV negative and OR 1.53 (95% CI 1.04-2.25), ref: non-PI users]. PI use is associated with worse respiratory health status, increased dyspnea, and an increased prevalence of self-reported pulmonary disease.