Substance use & addiction journal最新文献

Background: Increasing naloxone distribution is a high priority means to mitigating opioid overdose rates in the United States. Since a variety of naloxone distribution models exist, with differences in infrastructure and funding between states and health-systems, it is important to review their differences and understand the strengths and barriers to widespread implementation of each model.

Methods: The following 4 databases were searched for articles reporting on naloxone distribution models: (1) PubMed/Medline (National Library of Medicine), (2) Embase (Elsevier), (3) Scopus (Elsevier), and (4) the Cochrane library. Reports from all years written in English that discussed naloxone distribution models in the United States were included, as were all study designs.

Results: Of 5825 articles initially identified, 173 were selected for full text review. Of these, 49 met full criteria and were included for data extraction and analysis. Most distribution models occurred in community-based opioid education and naloxone distribution programs and in community pharmacies via a standing order/statewide protocol. Most programs reported strengths related to feasibility, but frequently reported cost as a limitation. Fewer studies described distribution models in ambulatory care or hospital settings, though these studies also highlighted strengths related to feasibility, particularly with support from working partners, and when utilizing an interprofessional care approach. Few studies reported health/economic outcomes data associated with naloxone distribution, such as changes in the number of patient/layperson access, the number of opioid overdose reversals, or cost-savings.

Conclusions: This review outlines the many ways in which naloxone is distributed in the United States and emphasizes a need for improved outcomes data collecting/reporting in the various settings where naloxone is distributed. This would allow for future studies to evaluate which distribution model factors are associated with improvements in health outcomes, such as increased layperson access, and lower opioid overdose/mortality rates.

Background: Naloxone distribution and overdose education are key preventive strategies to reduce opioid overdose deaths. This paper describes the development and evaluation of The Lookout Project (TLP), a 501(c)(3) organization led by college students and based in Ann Arbor, Michigan. This research aimed to examine the outreach of TLP with hopes of creating a reproducible mail-based kit distribution program for college student-run organizations to replicate.

Methods: TLP used a targeted social media advertising campaign to ask participants 7 multiple-choice questions concerning their demographics, previous incarcerations, experiences with intranasal naloxone (IN), and if they had watched the optional informational video in the opioid overdose response kit (OORK) order form.

Results: TLP's team distributed over 900 OORKs from August 3, 2020, to January 4, 2022, first by word of mouth and then through social media advertising that began on February 13, 2021. Of the 657 respondents who agreed to participate in research, the majority identified as white (76.0%, n = 400), did not identify with any specified ethnicity group (60.2%, n = 318), were female (60.8%, n = 356), were between the ages of 18 and 22 (35.4%, n = 209), had not been previously incarcerated (95.6%, n = 564), and did watch the hyperlinked video detailing how to respond to an overdose (74.7%, n = 438). Additionally, several kit recipients (2.8%, n = 19) responded to a follow-up survey. Of those, 7 people reported using the IN provided by TLP to reverse an overdose (36.8%, n = 7).

Conclusion: TLP, a nonprofit organization founded by college students, shows potential for informing other student-run organizations about naloxone distribution programs using social media advertising.

Canada is currently experiencing a problematic opioid crisis with increasing mortality rates. Traditional randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examine the effectiveness of pharmacological treatment options for people with opioid use disorder (OUD) are challenging to conduct. An increasingly popular methodology is through the implementation of emulated clinical trials, a methodology in which key elements of a "target" RCT are replicated using previously collected healthcare-based data. They can possibly address some of the common challenges found in the conduct of RCTs, such as prolonged timelines, high cost, and poor participant recruitment. In effect, emulated trials accelerate knowledge generation by producing real-world evidence that can be akin to phase 3 effectiveness trials, without any need to recruit live participants or administer investigational products. During the COVID-19 pandemic, several trials were stopped due to increased pandemic-related research restrictions, leaving important questions about OUD treatment unanswered. In this commentary, we describe the transition of a traditional RCT to an emulated trial spurred by challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. We describe our transition using a notable published framework with regards to the population sample, interventions, outcomes, and proposed analyses. This commentary aims to help other researchers and trialists apply emulated trials in substance use research and beyond, emphasizing the role of this methodology in clinical research and advancing scientific knowledge that could be otherwise lost or unattainable.

Background: Community correctional experiences among individuals receiving methadone treatment (MT) for opioid use disorder (OUD) are poorly understood. We qualitatively investigated perceptions of community corrections and treatment experiences among individuals with criminal-legal system experience currently receiving outpatient MT.

Methods: From January to December 2017, we recruited 42 individuals with history of criminal-legal system involvement enrolled in outpatient MT at a low-barrier nonprofit organization operating multiple clinics in Connecticut. An experienced qualitative research team conducted one-to-one, in-person, semistructured interviews about incarceration and treatment experiences with individuals receiving MT. Participants completed a demographics survey. The interviews were audiorecorded, transcribed, de-identified, and independently coded using NVivo.

Results: Participants described the community corrections system as restrictive and abstinence-focused. Most participants described positive perceptions of and experiences with community corrections officers (CCOs), yet described negative perceptions of and experiences with the community corrections system overall. Participants perceived CCOs to have limited knowledge of OUD and MT. Participants described a range of CCO judgment toward their OUD, with some appearing understanding and nonjudgmental while others were perceived to have stigma and prejudice. Few participants noted assistance from CCOs with seeking MT or community-based substance use disorder care. Some participants desired improved treatment facilitation, but viewed forced or coercive treatment negatively.

Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the first qualitative study to examine community corrections experience among people receiving outpatient medication for OUD. While individuals receiving MT have negative experiences with the community corrections system, they perceive individual CCOs positively. Interventions addressing gaps in CCOs knowledge of OUD and MT are needed to optimize support for individuals on probation or parole with OUD. Provision of OUD treatment facilitation appears desirable to some individuals in community supervision.

Background: We investigate smokeless tobacco (snus) use and its correlates over 20 years in a country where selling snus is prohibited but a large import quota and illicit market exists.

Methods: Repeated cross-sectional population-based surveys during 2000 to 2020 in Finland, including N = 57 111 adults aged 20 to 64 years. The outcome measures were current tobacco use (exclusive snus use, dual use, exclusive smoking, no tobacco use) and snus use (daily, occasional, no snus use). Study years, gender, age, education, marital status, self-rated health, body mass index, and binge drinking were used as explanatory variables.

Results: Exclusive snus use and dual use increased 3.6% units and 2.6% units from 2000 to 2005 and from 2018 to 2020, respectively. Overall decrease of tobacco use was led by decreasing exclusive smoking from 30.1% to 18.2%. The shared risk factors for snus use and dual use were male gender, age group 20 to 34 years, and binge drinking. The increases in snus and dual use over time were also most prevalent among these groups. Among men, occasional smoking increased the likelihood of daily (relative risk ratio [RRR] 2.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.42, 3.99) and occasional (RRR 3.11, 95% CI 1.93, 5.03) snus use.

Conclusions: Snus use has increased among the general adult population in Finland during 2000 to 2020 yet remains less common than smoking. Snus use and dual use share some common risk factors. Snus use should be considered in cessation services, with support for quitting developed and targeted predominantly for men, younger adults, and persons drinking to intoxication.

Background: Underutilization of primary care and receipt of preventive health services have been reported among women with opioid use disorder. The aim of this study was to describe perceptions of primary care among women in treatment for opioid use disorder.

Methods: Between May and June 2022, 27 women who were receiving treatment for opioid use disorder from one opioid treatment program participated in this study. Participants completed one data collection session which involved a brief questionnaire followed by a semi-structured interview. Participants were asked questions about their overall experience with primary care as well as perceived facilitators and barriers to primary care utilization and quality. Interview transcripts were analyzed using an inductive thematic approach.

Results: Three themes emerged from the interviews within the domain of "Facilitators to Primary Care," including: (1) coordination of care, (2) continuity of care, and (3) relationship with health care providers. Four themes emerged from the interviews within the domain of "Barriers to Primary Care," including: (1) perceived judgment from health care providers, (2) childcare needs, (3) issues related to location, and (4) issues related to time.

Conclusion: Approaches to primary care that help alleviate barriers to care and highlight the aspects of care that are valued may improve quality and utilization of care, thus enhancing the health and well-being of a vulnerable population.

Background: Healthcare providers may be utilizing central nervous system (CNS) depressants to reduce opioid use due to recent changes in public policy. Combination use of these agents with opioids increases the risk of respiratory depression and death. Healthcare expenditures by individuals using these drug combinations have not been previously quantified. We sought to characterize healthcare costs and expenditures associated with a population reporting concurrent CNS depressants and opioid use compared with nonopioid analgesics in the United States from 2009 to 2019.

Methods: A serial cross-sectional design was used to compare the healthcare expenditures of adult Medical Expenditure Panel Survey respondents who were prescribed nonopioid analgesics, opioids only, opioids/benzodiazepines (BZD), opioids/BZD/skeletal muscle relaxants (SMR), or opioids/gabapentin (gaba) using pooled data from 2009 to 2019. Expenditure (cost and resource utilization) categories included inpatient, outpatient, office-based, and prescription medicine. Average marginal effects were used to compare survey-weighted annual costs and resource utilizations across the groups as compared to nonopioid analgesic respondents, adjusted for covariates.

Results: A weighted total of 34 241 838 individuals were identified. Most were opioid-only respondents (46.5%), followed by nonopioid analgesic (43.4%), opioid/BZD (5.3%), opioid-gaba (3.5%), and opioid/BZD/SMR respondents (1.3%). In comparison to the study groups with nonopioid analgesics, opioid-gaba users had the highest significant incremental cost difference among the different pairings (+$11 684, P < .001). Opioid-gaba, opioid/BZD, and opioid/BZD/SMR respondents had significantly higher inpatient, emergency department, and prescription drug costs and use compared to nonopioid analgesic respondents. Opioid-only respondents had higher outpatient and office-based costs and visits compared to nonopioid analgesic respondents.

Conclusions: As healthcare providers seek to utilize fewer opioids for pain management, attention must be paid to ensuring safe and effective use of concurrent CNS depressants to mitigate high healthcare costs and burden.

Background: For structurally marginalized populations, including people who use drugs (PWUD), equitable access to healthcare can be achieved through healthcare access supports. However, few studies characterized utilization of formal (eg, outreach workers, healthcare professionals) and informal (eg, friends/family) supports. Therefore, we sought to estimate the prevalence of and factors associated with receiving each type of support among PWUD.

Methods: We used data from 2 prospective cohort studies of PWUD in Vancouver, Canada, in 2017 to 2020. We constructed separate multivariable generalized linear mixed-effects models to identify factors associated with receiving each of the 3 types of supports (ie, healthcare professionals, outreach workers/peer navigators, and informal supports) compared to no supports.

Results: Of 996 participants, 350 (35.1%) reported receiving supports in the past 6 months at baseline, through informal supports (6.2%), outreach workers (14.1%), and healthcare professionals (20.9%). In multivariable analyses, HIV positivity, chronic pain, and avoiding healthcare due to the past mistreatment were positively associated with receiving supports from each of healthcare professionals and outreach workers. Men were less likely to receive any types of the supports (all P < .05).

Conclusions: Utilization of healthcare access supports was relatively low in this sample. However, formal supports appeared to have reached PWUD exhibiting more comorbidities and experiencing discrimination in healthcare. Further efforts to make formal supports more available would benefit PWUD with unmet healthcare needs, particularly men.

Background: Medications for opioid use disorders (MOUDs) are effective, but most people with opioid use disorder (OUD) do not receive treatment. Prior research has explored patients' structural barriers to access and perceptions of MOUD. Little research has considered treatment knowledge and perceptions outside of the patient population. Members of the public without OUD themselves (eg, family, friends) can significantly influence treatment decisions of persons with OUD. Considering these gaps, we conducted an original survey with a diverse sample of US adults to explore knowledge and preferences toward OUD treatments.

Methods: We conducted an online survey with 1505 White, Black, and Latino/a Americans including a small percentage (8.5%) with self-reported lifetime OUD. The survey used vignettes to describe hypothetical patients with OUD, provide basic treatment information (ie, methadone, buprenorphine, naltrexone, nonmedication treatment), and then assessed treatment preferences. Using multivariable logistic regression, we examined associations between covariates of interest (eg, perceived access, knowledge, demographics) and preference for MOUD versus nonmedication treatment.

Results: There were 523 White, 502 Black, and 480 Latino/a respondents. Across racial/ethnic subsamples, respondents had the greatest knowledge of nonmedication treatments, with Black (72.7%) and Latino/a (70.2%) respondents having significantly greater knowledge compared to White respondents (61.8%). However, after viewing the vignette, a greater proportion of respondents chose methadone (35.8%) or buprenorphine (34.8%) as their first-choice treatment for hypothetical patients. Multivariable logistic regression suggested that among Black respondents, those with knowledge of nonmedication treatment were more likely to choose MOUD than those without knowledge (odds ratio = 2.41, 95% confidence interval = 1.34-4.34). Perceived treatment access did not affect treatment choice.

Conclusions: Across racial groups, knowledge and perceived access to nonmedication treatment was greater than for MOUD, but many still selected MOUD as a first-choice treatment. Significant findings emphasized the importance of treatment knowledge around decision-making, highlighting opportunities for tailored education efforts to improve uptake of evidence-based treatment.

Background: High-dose (≥24 mg) buprenorphine daily doses (BDD) may be important in treating patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) to improve retention and prevent overdose, particularly in the context of increased illicit fentanyl use. This study sought to: (1) identify trajectories for average BDD among patients initiating buprenorphine treatment for OUD and (2) assess patient characteristics associated with these identified trajectories.

Methods: Buprenorphine treatment episodes among patients in the US Veterans Healthcare Administration (VHA) from federal fiscal years 2006 to 2020 were identified. Group-based trajectory modeling (GBTM) was used to identify BDD trajectories based on weekly averages of BDD over the 180 days after buprenorphine episode initiation.

Results: A total of 79 303 buprenorphine treatment episodes among 44 583 patients were included in the analytic sample. GBTM identified 9 latent trajectories for BDD: (1) moderate dose, early discontinuation (10.1%), (2) moderate dose, delayed discontinuation (4.5%), (3) moderate dose, moderate-paced discontinuation (5.2%), (4) low-moderate dose, delayed discontinuation (7.0%), and (5) low-moderate dose, early discontinuation (21.1%), (6) low dose retention (9.6%), (7) low-moderate dose retention (16.7%), (8) moderate dose retention (18.6%), and (9) high dose retention (7.4%). Patient BDD can broadly be characterized as low [2-4 mg/day], low-moderate (6-8 mg/day), moderate (12-18 mg/day), and high dose (≥ 24 mg/day). Patients with episodes in the high BDD trajectory have the lowest social risk (eg, lowest rate of past-year history of homelessness) and the lowest diagnosed rate of physical and mental health-related comorbidities compared to those following other trajectories.

Conclusions: BDD ranges widely and patient characteristics are significantly different between those episodes following differing BDD trajectories. Future research on the association between BDD and subsequent patient outcomes (eg, overdose) needs to carefully consider these differences in baseline characteristics.