Substance use & addiction journal最新文献

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: People who experience a nonfatal opioid overdose and receive naloxone are at high risk of subsequent overdose death but experience gaps in access to medications for opioid use disorder. The immediate post-naloxone period offers an opportunity for buprenorphine initiation. Limited data indicate that buprenorphine administration by emergency medical services (EMS) after naloxone overdose reversal is safe and feasible. We describe a case in which a partnership between a low-barrier substance use disorder (SUD) observation unit and EMS allowed for buprenorphine initiation with extended-release injectable buprenorphine after naloxone overdose reversal.

Case: A man in his 40's with severe opioid use disorder and numerous prior opioid overdoses experienced overdose in the community. EMS was activated and he was successfully resuscitated with intranasal naloxone, administered by bystanders and EMS. He declined emergency department (ED) transport and consented to transport to a 24/7 SUD observation unit. The patient elected to start buprenorphine due to barriers attending opioid treatment programs daily. His largest barrier was unsheltered homelessness. His severe opioid withdrawal symptoms were successfully treated with 16/4 mg sublingual buprenorphine/naloxone and 300 mg extended-release injectable buprenorphine (XR-buprenorphine), without precipitated withdrawal. Two weeks later, he reported no interval fentanyl use.

Discussion: We describe the case of a patient successfully initiated onto XR-buprenorphine in the immediate post-naloxone period via a partnership between an outpatient low-barrier addiction programs and EMS. Such partnerships offer promise in expanding buprenorphine access and medication choice, particularly for the high-risk population of patients who decline ED transport.

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: Aim 1 of this cross-sectional, observational study with people in residential treatment for substance use disorders (SUDs) was to document stress exposure. Aim 2 was to assess potential sociodemographic and health differences based on probable posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) status. Aim 3 was to assess relative contributions of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM)-congruent versus DSM-incongruent stressors (Criterion A vs non-Criterion A) to mental and physical health. We hypothesized that both types of stressors would significantly contribute to impairment across indicators and that DSM-congruent stressor exposure would be more strongly associated with impairment than DSM-incongruent exposure.

Methods: We assessed exposure to DSM-congruent traumatic stressors and DSM-incongruent life stressors, PTSD and depressive symptoms, emotion regulation difficulties, substance use recovery capital, and physical/mental health-related quality of life among 136 people in residential SUD treatment who were 64% men, 36% women; 49% white, 41% Black, 11% multiracial/another race; 18% lesbian, gay, or bisexual (LGB+); mean age = 39.82 (standard deviation = 12.24) years.

Results: Participants reported experiencing a mean of 9.76 (SD = 6.11) DSM-congruent events. Those with probable PTSD were younger and more likely to be LGB+ than those without probable PTSD (P < .05). Experiencing higher numbers of DSM-congruent events was associated with more severe PTSD and depressive symptoms, emotion regulation difficulties, and lower physical health-related quality of life (P < .05). DSM-incongruent stressor exposure was not independently associated with any indicators. Recovery capital was not associated with either type of stress exposure.

Conclusions: Stressful event exposure among people in residential SUD treatment is very high. Those who are younger or LGB+ in residential SUD treatment may be at greater risk of developing PTSD. DSM-congruent stressors are more consistently associated with mental health indicators than are DSM-incongruent stressors. Prioritizing treatment targets and identifying implementable treatment strategies can be challenging with this complex population.