Hailey R Banack, Eleanor Hayes-Larson, Elizabeth Rose Mayeda
Quantitative bias analysis can be used to empirically assess how far study estimates are from the truth (i.e., an estimate that is free of bias). These methods can be used to explore the potential impact of confounding bias, selection bias (collider stratification bias), and information bias. Quantitative bias analysis includes methods that can be used to check the robustness of study findings to multiple types of bias and methods that use simulation studies to generate data and understand the hypothetical impact of specific types of bias in a simulated data set. In this article, we review 2 strategies for quantitative bias analysis: 1) traditional probabilistic quantitative bias analysis and 2) quantitative bias analysis with generated data. An important difference between the 2 strategies relates to the type of data (real vs. generated data) used in the analysis. Monte Carlo simulations are used in both approaches, but the simulation process is used for different purposes in each. For both approaches, we outline and describe the steps required to carry out the quantitative bias analysis and also present a bias-analysis tutorial demonstrating how both approaches can be applied in the context of an analysis for selection bias. Our goal is to highlight the utility of quantitative bias analysis for practicing epidemiologists and increase the use of these methods in the epidemiologic literature.
{"title":"Monte Carlo Simulation Approaches for Quantitative Bias Analysis: A Tutorial.","authors":"Hailey R Banack, Eleanor Hayes-Larson, Elizabeth Rose Mayeda","doi":"10.1093/epirev/mxab012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/epirev/mxab012","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Quantitative bias analysis can be used to empirically assess how far study estimates are from the truth (i.e., an estimate that is free of bias). These methods can be used to explore the potential impact of confounding bias, selection bias (collider stratification bias), and information bias. Quantitative bias analysis includes methods that can be used to check the robustness of study findings to multiple types of bias and methods that use simulation studies to generate data and understand the hypothetical impact of specific types of bias in a simulated data set. In this article, we review 2 strategies for quantitative bias analysis: 1) traditional probabilistic quantitative bias analysis and 2) quantitative bias analysis with generated data. An important difference between the 2 strategies relates to the type of data (real vs. generated data) used in the analysis. Monte Carlo simulations are used in both approaches, but the simulation process is used for different purposes in each. For both approaches, we outline and describe the steps required to carry out the quantitative bias analysis and also present a bias-analysis tutorial demonstrating how both approaches can be applied in the context of an analysis for selection bias. Our goal is to highlight the utility of quantitative bias analysis for practicing epidemiologists and increase the use of these methods in the epidemiologic literature.</p>","PeriodicalId":50510,"journal":{"name":"Epidemiologic Reviews","volume":" ","pages":"106-117"},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2022-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9005059/pdf/mxab012.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"39529829","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Babak Moazen, Kate Dolan, Sahar Saeedi Moghaddam, Masoud Lotfizadeh, Karen Duke, Florian Neuhann, Heino Stöver, Albrecht Jahn
Needle and syringe programs (NSPs) are among the most effective interventions for controlling the transmission of infection among people who inject drugs in prisons. We evaluated the availability, accessibility, and coverage of NSPs in prisons in European Union (EU) countries. In line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) criteria, we systematically searched 4 databases of peer-reviewed publications (MEDLINE (PubMed), ISI Web of Science, EBSCO, and ScienceDirect) and 53 databases containing gray literature to collect data published from January 2008 to August 2018. A total of 23,969 documents (17,297 papers and 6,672 gray documents) were identified, of which 26 were included in the study. In 2018, imprisonment rates in 28 EU countries ranged between 51 per 100,000 population in Finland and 235 per 100,000 population in Lithuania. Only 4 countries were found to have NSPs in prisons: Germany (in 1 prison), Luxembourg (no coverage data were found), Romania (available in more than 50% of prisons), and Spain (in all prisons). Portugal stopped an NSP after a 6-month pilot phase. Despite the protective impact of prison-based NSPs on infection transmission, only 4 EU countries distribute sterile syringes among people who inject drugs in prisons, and coverage of the programs within these countries is very low. Since most prisoners will eventually return to the community, lack of NSPs in EU prisons not only is a threat to the health of prisoners but also endangers public health.
针头和注射器规划是控制监狱内注射吸毒者感染传播的最有效干预措施之一。我们评估了欧盟国家监狱中nsp的可得性、可及性和覆盖范围。根据系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)标准,我们系统地检索了4个同行评议出版物数据库(MEDLINE (PubMed), ISI Web of Science, EBSCO和ScienceDirect)和53个包含灰色文献的数据库,以收集2008年1月至2018年8月发表的数据。共发现文献23,969份(论文17,297份,灰色文献6,672份),其中26份纳入本研究。2018年,28个欧盟国家的监禁率在芬兰的每10万人中有51人,立陶宛的每10万人中有235人。只有4个国家的监狱中有国家安全服务提供者:德国(在1所监狱中)、卢森堡(没有发现覆盖数据)、罗马尼亚(在50%以上的监狱中)和西班牙(在所有监狱中)。葡萄牙在6个月的试点阶段后停止了NSP。尽管以监狱为基础的国家卫生服务方案对感染传播具有保护作用,但只有4个欧盟国家向在监狱注射毒品的人分发无菌注射器,而且这些国家内项目的覆盖率非常低。由于大多数囚犯最终将返回社区,欧盟监狱中缺乏国家卫生服务提供者不仅对囚犯的健康构成威胁,而且危害公共卫生。
{"title":"Availability, Accessibility, and Coverage of Needle and Syringe Programs in Prisons in the European Union.","authors":"Babak Moazen, Kate Dolan, Sahar Saeedi Moghaddam, Masoud Lotfizadeh, Karen Duke, Florian Neuhann, Heino Stöver, Albrecht Jahn","doi":"10.1093/epirev/mxaa003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/epirev/mxaa003","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Needle and syringe programs (NSPs) are among the most effective interventions for controlling the transmission of infection among people who inject drugs in prisons. We evaluated the availability, accessibility, and coverage of NSPs in prisons in European Union (EU) countries. In line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) criteria, we systematically searched 4 databases of peer-reviewed publications (MEDLINE (PubMed), ISI Web of Science, EBSCO, and ScienceDirect) and 53 databases containing gray literature to collect data published from January 2008 to August 2018. A total of 23,969 documents (17,297 papers and 6,672 gray documents) were identified, of which 26 were included in the study. In 2018, imprisonment rates in 28 EU countries ranged between 51 per 100,000 population in Finland and 235 per 100,000 population in Lithuania. Only 4 countries were found to have NSPs in prisons: Germany (in 1 prison), Luxembourg (no coverage data were found), Romania (available in more than 50% of prisons), and Spain (in all prisons). Portugal stopped an NSP after a 6-month pilot phase. Despite the protective impact of prison-based NSPs on infection transmission, only 4 EU countries distribute sterile syringes among people who inject drugs in prisons, and coverage of the programs within these countries is very low. Since most prisoners will eventually return to the community, lack of NSPs in EU prisons not only is a threat to the health of prisoners but also endangers public health.</p>","PeriodicalId":50510,"journal":{"name":"Epidemiologic Reviews","volume":"42 1","pages":"19-26"},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2020-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/epirev/mxaa003","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"38463951","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Mirinda Ann Gormley, Courtney T Blondino, DaShaunda D H Taylor, Elizabeth Lowery, James S Clifford, Benjamin Burkart, Whitney C Graves, Elizabeth C Prom-Wormley, Juan Lu
The effectiveness of opiate treatment programs (OTPs) can be significantly influenced by co-occurring substance use, yet there are no standardized guidelines for assessing the influence of co-occurring substance use on treatment outcomes. In this review, we aim to provide an overview on the status of the assessment of co-occurring substance use during participation in OTPs in the United States. We searched 4 databases-MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, PsychINFO, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL)-from database inception to November 2018 to select relevant publications on OTPs that assessed participants' co-occurring substance use. We used a standardized protocol to extract study, intervention, and co-occurring substance use characteristics. Methodological quality was assessed using the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool. Of the 3,219 titles screened, 614 abstracts and 191 full-text original publications were assessed, leaving 85 eligible articles. Co-occurring substance use was most often assessed during opioid treatments using combined (pharmacological and behavioral) (n = 57 studies) and pharmacological (n = 25 studies) interventions. Cocaine, alcohol, marijuana, and benzodiazepines were frequently measured, while amphetamines and tobacco were rarely assessed. Great variation existed between studies in the timing and measurement of co-occurring substance use, as well as definitions for substances and polysubstance/polydrug use. Inconsistencies in the investigation of co-occurring substance use make comparison of results across studies challenging. Standardized measures and consensus on research on co-occurring substance use is needed to produce the evidence required to develop personalized treatment programs for persons using multiple substances and to inform best-practice guidelines for addressing polydrug use during participation in OTPs.
{"title":"Assessment of Co-Occurring Substance Use During Opiate Treatment Programs in the United States.","authors":"Mirinda Ann Gormley, Courtney T Blondino, DaShaunda D H Taylor, Elizabeth Lowery, James S Clifford, Benjamin Burkart, Whitney C Graves, Elizabeth C Prom-Wormley, Juan Lu","doi":"10.1093/epirev/mxaa009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/epirev/mxaa009","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The effectiveness of opiate treatment programs (OTPs) can be significantly influenced by co-occurring substance use, yet there are no standardized guidelines for assessing the influence of co-occurring substance use on treatment outcomes. In this review, we aim to provide an overview on the status of the assessment of co-occurring substance use during participation in OTPs in the United States. We searched 4 databases-MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, PsychINFO, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL)-from database inception to November 2018 to select relevant publications on OTPs that assessed participants' co-occurring substance use. We used a standardized protocol to extract study, intervention, and co-occurring substance use characteristics. Methodological quality was assessed using the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool. Of the 3,219 titles screened, 614 abstracts and 191 full-text original publications were assessed, leaving 85 eligible articles. Co-occurring substance use was most often assessed during opioid treatments using combined (pharmacological and behavioral) (n = 57 studies) and pharmacological (n = 25 studies) interventions. Cocaine, alcohol, marijuana, and benzodiazepines were frequently measured, while amphetamines and tobacco were rarely assessed. Great variation existed between studies in the timing and measurement of co-occurring substance use, as well as definitions for substances and polysubstance/polydrug use. Inconsistencies in the investigation of co-occurring substance use make comparison of results across studies challenging. Standardized measures and consensus on research on co-occurring substance use is needed to produce the evidence required to develop personalized treatment programs for persons using multiple substances and to inform best-practice guidelines for addressing polydrug use during participation in OTPs.</p>","PeriodicalId":50510,"journal":{"name":"Epidemiologic Reviews","volume":"42 1","pages":"79-102"},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2020-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/epirev/mxaa009","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"38499545","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pieter Baker, Leo Beletsky, Liliana Avalos, Christopher Venegas, Carlos Rivera, Steffanie A Strathdee, Javier Cepeda
Drug-law enforcement constitutes a structural determinant of health among people who inject drugs (PWID). Street encounters between police and PWID (e.g., syringe confiscation, physical assault) have been associated with health harms, but these relationships have not been systematically assessed. We conducted a systematic literature review to evaluate the contribution of policing to risk of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection among PWID. We screened MEDLINE, sociological databases, and gray literature for studies published from 1981 to November 2018 that included estimates of HIV infection/risk behaviors and street policing encounters. We extracted and summarized quantitative findings from all eligible studies. We screened 8,201 abstracts, reviewed 175 full-text articles, and included 27 eligible analyses from 9 countries (Canada, China, India, Malaysia, Mexico, Russia, Thailand, Ukraine, and the United States). Heterogeneity in variable and endpoint selection precluded meta-analyses. In 5 (19%) studies, HIV infection among PWID was significantly associated with syringe confiscation, reluctance to buy/carry syringes for fear of police, rushed injection due to a police presence, fear of arrest, being arrested for planted drugs, and physical abuse. Twenty-one (78%) studies identified policing practices to be associated with HIV risk behaviors related to injection drug use (e.g., syringe-sharing, using a "shooting gallery"). In 9 (33%) studies, policing was associated with PWID avoidance of harm reduction services, including syringe exchange, methadone maintenance, and safe consumption facilities. Evidence suggests that policing shapes HIV risk among PWID, but lower-income settings are underrepresented. Curbing injection-related HIV risk necessitates additional structural interventions. Methodological harmonization could facilitate knowledge generation on the role of police as a determinant of population health.
{"title":"Policing Practices and Risk of HIV Infection Among People Who Inject Drugs.","authors":"Pieter Baker, Leo Beletsky, Liliana Avalos, Christopher Venegas, Carlos Rivera, Steffanie A Strathdee, Javier Cepeda","doi":"10.1093/epirev/mxaa010","DOIUrl":"10.1093/epirev/mxaa010","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Drug-law enforcement constitutes a structural determinant of health among people who inject drugs (PWID). Street encounters between police and PWID (e.g., syringe confiscation, physical assault) have been associated with health harms, but these relationships have not been systematically assessed. We conducted a systematic literature review to evaluate the contribution of policing to risk of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection among PWID. We screened MEDLINE, sociological databases, and gray literature for studies published from 1981 to November 2018 that included estimates of HIV infection/risk behaviors and street policing encounters. We extracted and summarized quantitative findings from all eligible studies. We screened 8,201 abstracts, reviewed 175 full-text articles, and included 27 eligible analyses from 9 countries (Canada, China, India, Malaysia, Mexico, Russia, Thailand, Ukraine, and the United States). Heterogeneity in variable and endpoint selection precluded meta-analyses. In 5 (19%) studies, HIV infection among PWID was significantly associated with syringe confiscation, reluctance to buy/carry syringes for fear of police, rushed injection due to a police presence, fear of arrest, being arrested for planted drugs, and physical abuse. Twenty-one (78%) studies identified policing practices to be associated with HIV risk behaviors related to injection drug use (e.g., syringe-sharing, using a \"shooting gallery\"). In 9 (33%) studies, policing was associated with PWID avoidance of harm reduction services, including syringe exchange, methadone maintenance, and safe consumption facilities. Evidence suggests that policing shapes HIV risk among PWID, but lower-income settings are underrepresented. Curbing injection-related HIV risk necessitates additional structural interventions. Methodological harmonization could facilitate knowledge generation on the role of police as a determinant of population health.</p>","PeriodicalId":50510,"journal":{"name":"Epidemiologic Reviews","volume":"42 1","pages":"27-40"},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2020-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7879596/pdf/mxaa010.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"38692899","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The National Institutes of Health is investing hundreds of millions of dollars into new research on opioids. As these studies yield insights and results, their results will have to change policy and practice before they can bend the curve of the epidemic. However, the United States does not have a strong track record of translating evidence on drug policy into action. Three reasons for the translation gap are the historical legacy of drugs in the United States, vested interests, and politics. Researchers can become engaged in policy and political processes to strengthen the US response.
{"title":"The Role of Evidence in the US Response to the Opioid Crisis.","authors":"Joshua M Sharfstein, Yngvild Olsen","doi":"10.1093/epirev/mxaa004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/epirev/mxaa004","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The National Institutes of Health is investing hundreds of millions of dollars into new research on opioids. As these studies yield insights and results, their results will have to change policy and practice before they can bend the curve of the epidemic. However, the United States does not have a strong track record of translating evidence on drug policy into action. Three reasons for the translation gap are the historical legacy of drugs in the United States, vested interests, and politics. Researchers can become engaged in policy and political processes to strengthen the US response.</p>","PeriodicalId":50510,"journal":{"name":"Epidemiologic Reviews","volume":"42 1","pages":"167-170"},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2020-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/epirev/mxaa004","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"38518971","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Courtney T Blondino, Mirinda Ann Gormley, DaShaunda D H Taylor, Elizabeth Lowery, James S Clifford, Benjamin Burkart, Whitney C Graves, Juan Lu, Elizabeth C Prom-Wormley
This systematic review describes the influence of co-occurring substance use on the effectiveness of opiate treatment programs. MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, PsychINFO, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature were searched from database inception to November 28, 2018, to identify eligible opioid treatment studies in the United States that assessed the relationship between co-occurring substance use and treatment outcome (i.e., opioid abstinence and treatment retention). A total of 34 eligible studies were included. Overall, co-occurring substance use was associated with negative treatment outcomes regardless of intervention type. However, patterns varied by substance and intervention type. In particular, co-occurring use of cocaine or marijuana with opioids was associated with reduced treatment retention and opioid abstinence regardless of intervention type. Co-occurring use of amphetamines, compared with no use or reduced use of amphetamines, decreased treatment retention. Co-occurring use of alcohol was both positively and negatively associated with treatment outcomes. One study reported a significant positive association between sedative use and opioid abstinence. Generally, findings suggest that combined interventions reported better health outcomes compared with pharmacological or behavioral intervention studies alone. The findings of this review emphasize the need to comprehensively study and address co-occurring substance use to improve opiate treatment programs.
{"title":"The Influence of Co-Occurring Substance Use on the Effectiveness of Opiate Treatment Programs According to Intervention Type.","authors":"Courtney T Blondino, Mirinda Ann Gormley, DaShaunda D H Taylor, Elizabeth Lowery, James S Clifford, Benjamin Burkart, Whitney C Graves, Juan Lu, Elizabeth C Prom-Wormley","doi":"10.1093/epirev/mxaa005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/epirev/mxaa005","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This systematic review describes the influence of co-occurring substance use on the effectiveness of opiate treatment programs. MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, PsychINFO, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature were searched from database inception to November 28, 2018, to identify eligible opioid treatment studies in the United States that assessed the relationship between co-occurring substance use and treatment outcome (i.e., opioid abstinence and treatment retention). A total of 34 eligible studies were included. Overall, co-occurring substance use was associated with negative treatment outcomes regardless of intervention type. However, patterns varied by substance and intervention type. In particular, co-occurring use of cocaine or marijuana with opioids was associated with reduced treatment retention and opioid abstinence regardless of intervention type. Co-occurring use of amphetamines, compared with no use or reduced use of amphetamines, decreased treatment retention. Co-occurring use of alcohol was both positively and negatively associated with treatment outcomes. One study reported a significant positive association between sedative use and opioid abstinence. Generally, findings suggest that combined interventions reported better health outcomes compared with pharmacological or behavioral intervention studies alone. The findings of this review emphasize the need to comprehensively study and address co-occurring substance use to improve opiate treatment programs.</p>","PeriodicalId":50510,"journal":{"name":"Epidemiologic Reviews","volume":"42 1","pages":"57-78"},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2020-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/epirev/mxaa005","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"38394890","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Christopher M Jones, Faraah Bekheet, Ju Nyeong Park, G Caleb Alexander
The opioid overdose epidemic is typically described as having occurred in 3 waves, with morbidity and mortality accruing over time principally from prescription opioids (1999-2010), heroin (2011-2013), and illicit fentanyl and other synthetic opioids (2014-present). However, the increasing presence of synthetic opioids mixed into the illicit drug supply, including with stimulants such as cocaine and methamphetamine, as well as rising stimulant-related deaths, reflects the rapidly evolving nature of the overdose epidemic, posing urgent and novel public health challenges. We synthesize the evidence underlying these trends, consider key questions such as where and how concomitant exposure to fentanyl and stimulants is occurring, and identify actions for key stakeholders regarding how these emerging threats, and continued evolution of the overdose epidemic, can best be addressed.
{"title":"The Evolving Overdose Epidemic: Synthetic Opioids and Rising Stimulant-Related Harms.","authors":"Christopher M Jones, Faraah Bekheet, Ju Nyeong Park, G Caleb Alexander","doi":"10.1093/epirev/mxaa011","DOIUrl":"10.1093/epirev/mxaa011","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The opioid overdose epidemic is typically described as having occurred in 3 waves, with morbidity and mortality accruing over time principally from prescription opioids (1999-2010), heroin (2011-2013), and illicit fentanyl and other synthetic opioids (2014-present). However, the increasing presence of synthetic opioids mixed into the illicit drug supply, including with stimulants such as cocaine and methamphetamine, as well as rising stimulant-related deaths, reflects the rapidly evolving nature of the overdose epidemic, posing urgent and novel public health challenges. We synthesize the evidence underlying these trends, consider key questions such as where and how concomitant exposure to fentanyl and stimulants is occurring, and identify actions for key stakeholders regarding how these emerging threats, and continued evolution of the overdose epidemic, can best be addressed.</p>","PeriodicalId":50510,"journal":{"name":"Epidemiologic Reviews","volume":"42 1","pages":"154-166"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2020-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9200066/pdf/nihms-1805062.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"38873254","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Victor Puac-Polanco, Stanford Chihuri, David S Fink, Magdalena Cerdá, Katherine M Keyes, Guohua Li
Prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) are a crucial component of federal and state governments' response to the opioid epidemic. Evidence about the effectiveness of PDMPs in reducing prescription opioid-related adverse outcomes is mixed. We conducted a systematic review to examine whether PDMP implementation within the United States is associated with changes in 4 prescription opioid-related outcome domains: opioid prescribing behaviors, opioid diversion and supply, opioid-related morbidity and substance-use disorders, and opioid-related deaths. We searched for eligible publications in Embase, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, and Web of Science. A total of 29 studies, published between 2009 and 2019, met the inclusion criteria. Of the 16 studies examining PDMPs and prescribing behaviors, 11 found that implementing PDMPs reduced prescribing behaviors. All 3 studies on opioid diversion and supply reported reductions in the examined outcomes. In the opioid-related morbidity and substance-use disorders domain, 7 of 8 studies found associations with prescription opioid-related outcomes. Four of 8 studies in the opioid-related deaths domain reported reduced mortality rates. Despite the mixed findings, emerging evidence supports that the implementation of state PDMPs reduces opioid prescriptions, opioid diversion and supply, and opioid-related morbidity and substance-use disorder outcomes. When PDMP characteristics were examined, mandatory access provisions were associated with reductions in prescribing behaviors, diversion outcomes, hospital admissions, substance-use disorders, and mortality rates. Inconsistencies in the evidence base across outcome domains are due to analytical approaches across studies and, to some extent, heterogeneities in PDMP policies implemented across states and over time.
处方药监测项目(PDMPs)是联邦和州政府应对阿片类药物流行的重要组成部分。关于PDMPs在减少处方阿片类药物相关不良后果方面的有效性的证据参差不齐。我们进行了一项系统综述,以检查PDMP在美国的实施是否与4个处方阿片类药物相关结果领域的变化有关:阿片类药物处方行为、阿片类药物转移和供应、阿片类药物相关发病率和物质使用障碍以及阿片类药物相关死亡。我们在Embase、b谷歌Scholar、MEDLINE和Web of Science中搜索了符合条件的出版物。2009年至2019年间发表的29项研究符合纳入标准。在16项检查PDMPs和处方行为的研究中,11项发现实施PDMPs减少了处方行为。关于阿片类药物转移和供应的所有3项研究都报告了所检查结果的减少。在阿片类药物相关发病率和物质使用障碍领域,8项研究中有7项发现了与处方阿片类药物相关结果的关联。在阿片类药物相关死亡领域的8项研究中,有4项报告死亡率降低。尽管结果喜忧参半,但新出现的证据支持,国家PDMPs的实施减少了阿片类药物处方、阿片类药物的转移和供应,以及阿片类药物相关的发病率和物质使用障碍的结果。当检查PDMP特征时,强制性获取规定与处方行为、转移结果、住院率、物质使用障碍和死亡率的减少有关。结果领域之间证据基础的不一致是由于不同研究的分析方法,以及在某种程度上,不同州和不同时期实施的PDMP政策的异质性。
{"title":"Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs and Prescription Opioid-Related Outcomes in the United States.","authors":"Victor Puac-Polanco, Stanford Chihuri, David S Fink, Magdalena Cerdá, Katherine M Keyes, Guohua Li","doi":"10.1093/epirev/mxaa002","DOIUrl":"10.1093/epirev/mxaa002","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) are a crucial component of federal and state governments' response to the opioid epidemic. Evidence about the effectiveness of PDMPs in reducing prescription opioid-related adverse outcomes is mixed. We conducted a systematic review to examine whether PDMP implementation within the United States is associated with changes in 4 prescription opioid-related outcome domains: opioid prescribing behaviors, opioid diversion and supply, opioid-related morbidity and substance-use disorders, and opioid-related deaths. We searched for eligible publications in Embase, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, and Web of Science. A total of 29 studies, published between 2009 and 2019, met the inclusion criteria. Of the 16 studies examining PDMPs and prescribing behaviors, 11 found that implementing PDMPs reduced prescribing behaviors. All 3 studies on opioid diversion and supply reported reductions in the examined outcomes. In the opioid-related morbidity and substance-use disorders domain, 7 of 8 studies found associations with prescription opioid-related outcomes. Four of 8 studies in the opioid-related deaths domain reported reduced mortality rates. Despite the mixed findings, emerging evidence supports that the implementation of state PDMPs reduces opioid prescriptions, opioid diversion and supply, and opioid-related morbidity and substance-use disorder outcomes. When PDMP characteristics were examined, mandatory access provisions were associated with reductions in prescribing behaviors, diversion outcomes, hospital admissions, substance-use disorders, and mortality rates. Inconsistencies in the evidence base across outcome domains are due to analytical approaches across studies and, to some extent, heterogeneities in PDMP policies implemented across states and over time.</p>","PeriodicalId":50510,"journal":{"name":"Epidemiologic Reviews","volume":"42 1","pages":"134-153"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2020-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7947593/pdf/mxaa002.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"37797959","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
We conducted a systematic review that examined the link between individual drug categories and violent outcomes. We searched for primary case-control and cohort investigations that reported risk of violence against others among individuals diagnosed with drug use disorders using validated clinical criteria, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. We identified 18 studies published during 1990-2019, reporting data from 591,411 individuals with drug use disorders. We reported odds ratios of the violence risk in different categories of drug use disorders compared with those without. We found odds ratios ranging from 0.8 to 25.0 for most individual drug categories, with generally higher odds ratios among individuals with polydrug use disorders. In addition, we explored sources of between-study heterogeneity by subgroup and meta-regression analyses. Cohort investigations reported a lower risk of violence than case-control reports (odds ratio = 2.7 (95% confidence interval (CI): 2.1, 3.5) vs. 6.6 (95% CI: 5.1, 8.6)), and associations were stronger when the outcome was any violence rather than intimate partner violence (odds ratio = 5.7 (95% CI: 3.8, 8.6) vs. 1.7 (95% CI: 1.4, 2.1)), which was consistent with results from the meta-regression. Overall, these findings highlight the potential impact of preventing and treating drug use disorders on reducing violence risk and associated morbidities.
{"title":"Drug Use Disorders and Violence: Associations With Individual Drug Categories.","authors":"Shaoling Zhong, Rongqin Yu, Seena Fazel","doi":"10.1093/epirev/mxaa006","DOIUrl":"10.1093/epirev/mxaa006","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We conducted a systematic review that examined the link between individual drug categories and violent outcomes. We searched for primary case-control and cohort investigations that reported risk of violence against others among individuals diagnosed with drug use disorders using validated clinical criteria, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. We identified 18 studies published during 1990-2019, reporting data from 591,411 individuals with drug use disorders. We reported odds ratios of the violence risk in different categories of drug use disorders compared with those without. We found odds ratios ranging from 0.8 to 25.0 for most individual drug categories, with generally higher odds ratios among individuals with polydrug use disorders. In addition, we explored sources of between-study heterogeneity by subgroup and meta-regression analyses. Cohort investigations reported a lower risk of violence than case-control reports (odds ratio = 2.7 (95% confidence interval (CI): 2.1, 3.5) vs. 6.6 (95% CI: 5.1, 8.6)), and associations were stronger when the outcome was any violence rather than intimate partner violence (odds ratio = 5.7 (95% CI: 3.8, 8.6) vs. 1.7 (95% CI: 1.4, 2.1)), which was consistent with results from the meta-regression. Overall, these findings highlight the potential impact of preventing and treating drug use disorders on reducing violence risk and associated morbidities.</p>","PeriodicalId":50510,"journal":{"name":"Epidemiologic Reviews","volume":"42 1","pages":"103-116"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2020-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7879597/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"38546509","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Rachel E Gicquelais, Dan Werb, Charles Marks, Carolyn Ziegler, Shruti H Mehta, Becky L Genberg, Ayden I Scheim
Preventing the transition to injection drug use is an important public health goal, as people who inject drugs (PWID) are at high risk for overdose and acquisition of infectious disease. Initiation into drug injection is primarily a social process, often involving PWID assistance. A better understanding of the epidemiology of this phenomenon would inform interventions to prevent injection initiation and to enhance safety when assistance is provided. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to 1) characterize the prevalence of receiving (among injection-naive persons) and providing (among PWID) help or guidance with the first drug injection and 2) identify correlates associated with these behaviors. Correlates were organized as substance use behaviors, health outcomes (e.g., human immunodeficiency virus infection), or factors describing an individual's social, economic, policy, or physical environment, defined by means of Rhodes' risk environments framework. After screening of 1,164 abstracts, 57 studies were included. The prevalence of receiving assistance with injection initiation (help or guidance at the first injection) ranged 74% to 100% (n = 13 estimates). The prevalence of ever providing assistance with injection initiation varied widely (range, 13%-69%; n = 13 estimates). Injecting norms, sex/gender, and other correlates classified within Rhodes' social risk environment were commonly associated with providing and receiving assistance. Nearly all PWID receive guidance about injecting for the first time, whereas fewer PWID report providing assistance. Substantial clinical and statistical heterogeneity between studies precluded meta-analysis, and thus local-level estimates may be necessary to guide the implementation of future psychosocial and sociostructural interventions. Further, estimates of providing assistance may be downwardly biased because of social desirability factors.
{"title":"Prevalence and Correlates of Providing and Receiving Assistance With the Transition to Injection Drug Use.","authors":"Rachel E Gicquelais, Dan Werb, Charles Marks, Carolyn Ziegler, Shruti H Mehta, Becky L Genberg, Ayden I Scheim","doi":"10.1093/epirev/mxaa008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/epirev/mxaa008","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Preventing the transition to injection drug use is an important public health goal, as people who inject drugs (PWID) are at high risk for overdose and acquisition of infectious disease. Initiation into drug injection is primarily a social process, often involving PWID assistance. A better understanding of the epidemiology of this phenomenon would inform interventions to prevent injection initiation and to enhance safety when assistance is provided. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to 1) characterize the prevalence of receiving (among injection-naive persons) and providing (among PWID) help or guidance with the first drug injection and 2) identify correlates associated with these behaviors. Correlates were organized as substance use behaviors, health outcomes (e.g., human immunodeficiency virus infection), or factors describing an individual's social, economic, policy, or physical environment, defined by means of Rhodes' risk environments framework. After screening of 1,164 abstracts, 57 studies were included. The prevalence of receiving assistance with injection initiation (help or guidance at the first injection) ranged 74% to 100% (n = 13 estimates). The prevalence of ever providing assistance with injection initiation varied widely (range, 13%-69%; n = 13 estimates). Injecting norms, sex/gender, and other correlates classified within Rhodes' social risk environment were commonly associated with providing and receiving assistance. Nearly all PWID receive guidance about injecting for the first time, whereas fewer PWID report providing assistance. Substantial clinical and statistical heterogeneity between studies precluded meta-analysis, and thus local-level estimates may be necessary to guide the implementation of future psychosocial and sociostructural interventions. Further, estimates of providing assistance may be downwardly biased because of social desirability factors.</p>","PeriodicalId":50510,"journal":{"name":"Epidemiologic Reviews","volume":"42 1","pages":"4-18"},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2020-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/epirev/mxaa008","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"38462559","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}