Journal of Addiction Medicine最新文献

Objectives: Age-related psychometric differences in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition ( DSM-5 ) opioid use disorder (OUD) diagnostic criteria have been hypothesized, but not been tested. This study investigated DSM-5 OUD diagnostic criteria for age-related measurement noninvariance among younger adults (YAs) and middle/older adults (MOAs) with past 12-month nonmedical use of prescription opioids.

Methods: People who participated in the 2012-2013 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions III and reported past 12-month nonmedical use of prescription opioids were included. YAs were 18-49 years old, and MOAs were 50+ years old. Item response theory, differential item functioning (DIF), and differential test functioning were used to assess for age-related measurement noninvariance.

Results: One in 5 people met the DSM-5 OUD diagnostic criteria for OUD within the past 12 months, with the most endorsed criteria being tolerance (17.96%). DIF was identified for 3 criteria, including (1) taking opioids for longer or in larger doses than intended, (2) long periods spent obtaining/using/recovering from use, and (3) withdrawal. DIF was associated with the latent OUD severity needed to correctly endorse the criteria, with criteria being correctly endorsed at less severe levels of latent OUD for MOAs when compared with YAs. Differential test functioning analyses showed collectively the criteria had improved detection in MOAs when compared with YAs ( P < 0.01).

Conclusions: These findings suggest that there may be age-related variations in the DSM-5 OUD diagnostic criteria's ability to detect latent OUD. Future research should identify contributing factors and the influence it has on the accuracy of age-specific surveillance estimations.

Abstract: Despite the prevalence of alcohol use disorder (AUD) in the United States, the armamentarium of FDA-approved medications available for AUD treatment is remarkably small. Disulfiram, 1 of only 3 approved medications, is consistently designated as a second-line option in national treatment guidelines, citing inconsistent evidence, lack of patient preference, and safety concerns. These concerns, however, stem from a misguided interpretation of the evidence that exclusively relies upon double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCT). When viewed instead as both a medication and a behavioral intervention, open-label RCTs become a more appropriate research method, yielding overwhelmingly favorable efficacy data for disulfiram, and supervised disulfiram, in particular. With these data in mind, supervised disulfiram should be redesignated as a first-line intervention in both treatment guideline creation and clinical pathway tools. The addiction medicine community can no longer afford to neglect this critical therapeutic resource.

Objective: To examine the quarterly incidence and prevalence of medications for opioid use disorder (OUD) and alcohol use disorder (AUD) from 2015 to 2021.

Methods: A retrospective population-wide observational study in Manitoba, Canada, was conducted using administrative claims data from the Manitoba Centre for Health Policy to examine the incidence and prevalence of OUD (methadone, buprenorphine-naloxone, buprenorphine) or AUD medications (naltrexone, acamprosate, disulfiram) per 10,000 individuals in each quarter between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2021.

Results: There were 1179 and 451 individuals who received at least one prescription for OUD and AUD, respectively, in the first quarter of 2020. The prevalence of OUD medications more than doubled from 6.3 to 14.3 per 10,000 from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2021. Likewise, AUD medication prevalence increased almost 10-fold from 0.68 to 6.5 per 10,000 from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2021, primarily due to naltrexone. The incidence of AUD prescription use increased 8.6-fold from 0.29 to 2.51 per 10,000 during the study period. In contrast, the incidence of opioid agonist therapy declined from 2.1 per 10,000 in the first quarter of 2015 to 0.53 per 10,000 the first quarter of 2016, primarily due to methadone. Whereas methadone incidence declined, buprenorphine-naloxone incidence increased almost 15-fold during the study period.

Conclusion: An increase in both AUD medication prevalence and incidence in addition to an increase in buprenorphine-naloxone incidence was observed. These findings reflect an increase in the uptake of medications for treating AUD and OUD following changes to improve coverage and access to these medications.

Objective: The opioid intervention court (OIC) is an innovative, pre-plea treatment court to facilitate rapid linkage to medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) for people at risk of overdose. This study compares participants in OIC and participants with opioid use problems in a traditional drug treatment court model on (i) initiation for any substance use (SU) treatment, (ii) initiation of MOUD, (iii) number of days to MOUD initiation, and (iv) retention in the OIC program/retention on MOUD.

Methods: We used administrative court records from n = 389 OIC and n = 229 drug court participants in 2 counties in New York State. Differences in outcomes by court were assessed using logistic, multinomial, or linear regressions.

Results: After adjusting for current charge severity, gender, race/ethnicity, age, and county, OIC participants were no more likely to initiate any SU treatment but were significantly more likely to initiate MOUD (81.2% OIC vs 45.9% drug court, P < 0.001) and were more quickly linked to any SU treatment (hazard ratio = 1.68, 95% confidence interval = 1.35-2.08) and MOUD (hazard ratio = 4.25, 95% confidence interval = 3.23-5.58) after starting the court. Retention in court/MOUD was higher among drug court participants and may speak to the immediate sanctions (eg, jail) for noncompliance with drug court directives as compared with opioid court, which does not carry such immediate sanctions for noncompliance.

Conclusions: These analyses suggest that the new OIC model can more rapidly link participants to treatment, including MOUD, as compared with traditional drug court model, and may demonstrate improved ability to immediately stabilize and reduce overdose risk in court participants.

Objectives: We aimed to determine the prevalence of self-reported naloxone use during pregnancy among people in the United States with a recent live birth. A secondary objective was to characterize people at increased risk of overdose who did and did not use naloxone.

Methods: We analyzed data from the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System from 26 US jurisdictions that conducted an opioid supplement survey from 2019 to 2020. Respondents with increased risk of experiencing an opioid overdose were identified based on self-reported use of illicit amphetamines, heroin, cocaine, or receiving medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) during pregnancy. Weighted prevalence estimates and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for reported naloxone use at any point during pregnancy among people with an increased risk of overdose.

Results: Naloxone use during pregnancy was reported by <1% of the overall study population (unweighted N = 88/34,528). Prevalence of naloxone use was 5.0% (95% CI: 0.0-10.6) among respondents who reported illicit amphetamine use, 15.2% (1.8-28.6) among those who reported heroin use, and 17.6% (0.0-38.1) among those who reported cocaine use. Naloxone use was 14.5% (8.4-20.6) among those who reported taking MOUD. Among people with increased risk of overdose, no significant differences in naloxone use were observed by age, race/ethnicity, education level, residential metropolitan status, or insurance status.

Conclusions: Prevalence of naloxone use among people with an increased risk of overdose during pregnancy ranged from 5.0% to 17.6%. Access to naloxone, overdose prevention education, and treatment for substance use disorders may help reduce morbidity and mortality.

Objectives: To estimate lifetime, past-year, and past-month prevalence of kratom, cannabis, and cannabidiol-only product use among adults 18 years and older in the United States, using 2 independent datasets.

Methods: Utilizing ( a ) the 2022 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) and ( b ) a 2022 online national convenience sample of adults who use kratom regularly (from our research group at the National Institute on Drug Abuse [NIDA]), we examined key demographic information as well as lifetime, past-year, and past-month substance use and preferences.

Results: Among the full sample of adults from the 2022 NSDUH, the prevalence of lifetime use was 49.69% for cannabis, 34.09% for cannabidiol-only products, and 1.93% for kratom. When solely examining participants who have used kratom, both independent datasets showed higher proportions of cannabis use over the lifetime-92.81% (95% confidence interval: 90.31-95.31) in the NSDUH subset and 92.16% (95% confidence interval: 89.37-94.95) in our NIDA sample.

Conclusions: Our study demonstrates that people are co-using kratom with cannabis and/or cannabidiol-only products at the same time or during the same time period, though more research is needed to understand people's motivations and practices for such co-use. Co-use might result in herb-herb interactions that may impact research findings and clinical outcomes for people who use kratom.

Objectives: Although factors associated with alcohol use have been researched at a population level, descriptions of the alcohol and other drug (AOD) treatment-seeking population in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, are limited. This study addresses this gap by analyzing sociodemographic and health characteristics in the NSW AOD treatment-seeking population.

Methods: Self-reported Australian Treatment Outcomes Profile data on substance use, health ratings, and sociodemographic factors were acquired from public AOD services (offering services from counseling to ambulatory/inpatient withdrawal management) in 6 administrative health districts from 2016 to 2019 (n = 14,287). Gaussian and multiple logistic regressions were conducted to examine associations between these factors and alcohol consumption quantity.

Results: Data were analyzed for patients seeking treatment for alcohol consumption specifically (n = 5929; median age, 44 years; 65% male). Valid alcohol consumption data were available for 5460 patients, among whom the mean volume of alcohol consumed was 311 standard drinks (3110 grams of ethanol) over the past 28 days and 15 standard drinks (150 grams of ethanol) per occasion. Higher volumes were consumed by males and those with recent experiences of violence and/or injecting drug use. Caring for children younger than 5 years and having above-median health ratings were associated with lower alcohol consumption.

Conclusions: This study contributes to the characterization of the NSW public AOD treatment population and identifies associations between alcohol consumption, sociodemographic factors, and health ratings among people seeking treatment for alcohol consumption. Findings point towards multilevel assessment and comprehensive interventions for people engaging in treatment for alcohol use. Future research should address barriers to treatment.

Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is responsible for a significant burden of medical, economic, and social harm globally and across the United States. Currently, only three FDA-approved medications for AUD are available, and most patients with AUD never receive pharmacotherapy. Disulfiram, the first medication that FDA approved for treatment of AUD, is recommended as a second-line treatment option by several national treatment guidelines citing safety concerns and lack of high-quality comparative studies. In this issue, Holt argues that disulfiram should be reclassified as a first-line treatment for AUD based on promising open-label randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for disulfiram as a behavioral intervention. Review of the literature suggests that disulfiram can be a useful treatment for a highly selected group of patients with no medical or psychiatric contraindications, high motivation for abstinence, and adequate family support. Unfortunately, many patients with AUD, a disorder characterized by high rates of medical and psychiatric multimorbidity and social vulnerability, fall outside of this narrow selection criteria. Prescribers should consider other FDA-approved medications as first-line treatment options for most patients with AUD, reserving disulfiram for the rare patients in whom the potential for benefit clearly outweighs risk of harm.

Objectives: As xylazine increasingly adulterates the unregulated opioid supply, people who use drugs (PWUD) are more likely to experience sequalae from xylazine. Given xylazine exposure is consistently associated with development of wounds which can heal with medically directed wound care, we sought to understand the level of preparedness and ability of front-line addiction professionals who interact with PWUD to provide wound care treatment.

Methods: We administered a 26-item online survey assessing participant and organizational characteristics, level of wound care training, ability to test for xylazine and treat xylazine-associated wounds, and funding and billing characteristics to a national sample of addiction professionals using a listserv of over 11,000 individuals.

Results: We had a response rate of 12.8% in which 1,280 met eligibility criteria and completed the survey, with the majority (23.7%) being nurses. While nearly all participants had cared for patients who had experienced any xylazine-associated harms, less than half (43.6%) had cared for patients with xylazine wounds and 43.4% had any training or certification in wound care, including 26.9% of physicians. Although 75.9% of participants had access to wound care supplies, just 19.5% provided wound care services onsite.

Conclusions: Most addiction professionals, especially physicians, lack wound care training and do not provide onsite treatment for drug-associated wounds at the organizational level. There is a critical need to bridge this gap in knowledge and build capacity to provide evidence-based wound care services to PWUD in areas impacted by xylazine adulteration.

Objectives: With the increasing rates of opioid overdose deaths in the United States, barriers to treatment access for patients seeking medications for opioid use disorder (OUD), and challenges of initiating buprenorphine in patients who use fentanyl, it is essential to explore novel approaches to expanding access to methadone treatment. An opioid treatment program (OTP) and a federally qualified health center (FQHC) partnered to develop and implement an innovative integrated methadone and primary care treatment model. The process for integrating an OTP and FQHC to provide methadone treatment in the primary care setting will be discussed.

Methods: An OTP methadone dispensing site was co-located in the FQHC, utilizing a staffing matrix built on the expertise of each stakeholder. The OTP managed DEA and state regulatory processes, whereas the FQHC physicians provided medical treatment, including methadone treatment protocols, treatment plans, and primary care. Patient demographics, medical history, and retention data for those who entered the program between January 2021 and February 2023 were collected through chart review and analyzed with descriptive statistics.

Results: A total of 288 OTP-FHQC patients were enrolled during the study. Retention rates in methadone treatment at 90 and 180 days were similar to partner clinics.

Conclusions: Collaboration between FQHCs and OTPs is operationally feasible and can be achieved utilizing the current staffing model of the FQHC and OTP. This model can increase access to treatment for OUD and primary care for an urban, underserved patient population.