Addiction Science & Clinical Practice最新文献

Background: Hospitalization is a "reachable moment" for people who inject drugs (PWID), but preventive care including HIV testing, prevention and treatment is rarely offered within inpatient settings.

Methods: We conducted a multisite, retrospective cohort study of patients with opioid use disorder with infectious complications of injection drug use hospitalized between 1/1/2018-12/31/2018. We evaluated HIV care continuum outcomes using descriptive statistics and hypothesis tests for intergroup differences.

Results: 322 patients were included. Of 300 patients without known HIV, only 2 had a documented discussion of PrEP, while only 1 was prescribed PrEP on discharge. Among the 22 people with HIV (PWH), only 13 (59%) had a viral load collected during admission of whom all were viremic and 10 (45%) were successfully linked to care post-discharge. Rates of readmission, Medicaid or uninsured status, and unstable housing were high in both groups.

Discussion: We observed poor provision of HIV testing, PrEP and other HIV services for hospitalized PWID across multiple U.S. medical centers. Future initiatives should focus on providing this group with comprehensive HIV testing and treatment services through a status neutral approach.

Background: People who inject drugs (PWID) remain a high priority population under the federal Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative with 11% of new HIV infections attributable to injection drug use. There is a critical need for innovative, efficacious, scalable, and community-driven models of healthcare in non-stigmatizing settings for PWID. We seek to test a Comprehensive-TeleHarm Reduction (C-THR) intervention for HIV prevention services delivered via a syringe services program (SSP).

Methods: The CHARIOT trial is a hybrid type I effectiveness-implementation study using a parallel two-arm randomized controlled trial design. Participants (i.e., PWID; n = 350) will be recruited from a syringe services program (SSP) in Miami, Florida. Participants will be randomized to receive either C-THR or non-SSP clinic referral and patient navigation. The objectives are: (1) to determine if the C-THR intervention increases engagement in HIV prevention (i.e., HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis; PrEP or medications for opioid use disorder; MOUD) compared to non-SSP clinic referral and patient navigation, (2) to examine the long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the C-THR intervention, and (3) to assess the barriers and facilitators to implementation and sustainment of the C-THR intervention. The co-primary outcomes are PrEP or MOUD engagement across follow-up at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. For PrEP, engagement is confirmed by tenofovir on dried blood spot or cabotegravir injection within the previous 8 weeks. For MOUD, engagement is defined as screening positive for norbuprenorphine or methadone on urine drug screen; or naltrexone or buprenorphine injection within the previous 4 weeks. Secondary outcomes include PrEP adherence, engagement in HCV treatment and sustained virologic response, and treatment of sexually transmitted infections. The short and long term cost-effectiveness analyses and mixed-methods implementation evaluation will provide compelling data on the sustainability and possible impact of C-THR on comprehensive HIV prevention delivered via SSPs.

Discussion: The CHARIOT trial will be the first to our knowledge to test the efficacy of an innovative, peer-led telehealth intervention with PWID at risk for HIV delivered via an SSP. This innovative healthcare model seeks to transform the way PWID access care by bypassing the traditional healthcare system, reducing multi-level barriers to care, and meeting PWID where they are.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05897099. Trial registry name: Comprehensive HIV and Harm Prevention Via Telehealth (CHARIOT). Registration date: 06/12/2023.

Background: Amidst increasing opioid-related fatalities in adolescents and young adults (AYA), there is an urgent need to enhance the quality and availability of developmentally appropriate, evidence-based treatments for opioid use disorder (OUD) and improve youth engagement in treatment. Involving families in treatment planning and therapy augments medication-based OUD treatment for AYA by increasing treatment engagement and retention. Yet, uptake of family-involved treatment for OUD remains low. This study examined systems-level barriers and facilitators to integrating families in AYA OUD treatment in Rhode Island.

Methods: An online survey was administered to clinic leaders and direct care providers who work with AYA in programs that provide medication and psychosocial treatments for OUD. The survey assessed attitudes towards and experiences with family-based treatment, barriers and facilitators to family-based treatment utilization, as well as other available treatment services for AYA and family members. Findings were summarized using descriptive statistics.

Results: A total of 104 respondents from 14 distinct treatment programs completed the survey. Most identified as White (72.5%), female (72.7%), and between 25 and 44 years of age (59.4%). Over half (54.1%) of respondents reported no experience with family based treatment and limited current opportunities to involve families. Barriers perceived as most impactful to adopting family-based treatment were related to limited available resources (i.e. for staff training, program expansion) and lack of prioritization of family-based treatment in staff productivity requirements. Barriers perceived as least impactful were respondent beliefs and attitudes about family-based treatment (e.g., perception of the evidence strength and quality of family-based treatment, interest in implementing family-based treatment) as well as leadership support of family-based treatment approaches. Respondents identified several other gaps in availability of comprehensive treatment services, especially for adolescents (e.g. services that increase social recovery capital).

Conclusions: Family-based treatment opportunities for AYA with OUD in Rhode Island are limited. Affordable and accessible training programs are needed to increase provider familiarity and competency with family-based treatment. Implementation of programming to increase family involvement in treatment (i.e. psychoeducational and skills-based groups for family members) rather than adopting a family-based treatment model may be a more feasible step to better meet the needs of AYA with OUD.

Trial registration: not applicable.

Background: Pharmacists remain an underutilized resource in the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD). Although studies have engaged pharmacists in dispensing medications for OUD (MOUD), few studies have evaluated collaborative care models in which pharmacists are an active, integrated part of a primary care team offering OUD care.

Methods: This study seeks to implement a pharmacist integrated MOUD clinical model (called PrIMO) and evaluate its feasibility, acceptability, and impact across four diverse primary care sites. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research is used as an organizing framework for study development and interpretation of findings. Implementation Facilitation is used to support PrIMO adoption. We assess the primary outcome, the feasibility of implementing PrIMO, using the Stages of Implementation Completion (SIC). We evaluate the acceptability and impact of the PrIMO model at the sites using mixed-methods and combine survey and interview data from providers, pharmacists, pharmacy technicians, administrators, and patients receiving MOUD at the primary care sites with patient electronic health record data. We hypothesize that it is feasible to launch delivery of the PrIMO model (reach SIC Stage 6), and that it is acceptable, will positively impact patient outcomes 1 year post model launch (e.g., increased MOUD treatment retention, medication regimen adherence, service utilization for co-morbid conditions, and decreased substance use), and will increase each site's capacity to care for patients with MOUD (e.g., increased number of patients, number of prescribers, and rate of patients per prescriber).

Discussion: This study will provide data on a pharmacist-integrated collaborative model of care for the treatment of OUD that may be feasible, acceptable to both site staff and patients and may favorably impact patients' access to MOUD and treatment outcomes.

Trial registration: The study was registered on Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05310786) on April 5, 2022, https://www.

Clinicaltrials: gov/study/NCT05310786?id=NCT05310786&rank=1.

Background: Potential differences in buprenorphine treatment outcomes across various treatment settings are poorly characterized in multi-state administrative data. We thus evaluated the association of opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment setting and insurance type with risk of buprenorphine discontinuation among commercial insurance and Medicaid enrollees initiated on buprenorphine.

Methods: In this observational, retrospective cohort study using the Merative MarketScan databases (2006-2016), we analyzed buprenorphine retention in 58,200 US adults with OUD. Predictor variables included insurance status (Medicaid vs commercial) and treatment setting, operationalized as substance use disorder (SUD) specialty treatment facility versus outpatient primary care physicians (PCPs) versus outpatient psychiatry, ascertained by linking physician visit codes to buprenorphine prescriptions. Treatment setting was inferred based on timing of prescriber visit claims preceding prescription fills. We estimated time to buprenorphine discontinuation using multivariable cox regression.

Results: Among enrollees with OUD receiving buprenorphine, 26,168 (45.0%) had prescriptions from SUD facilities without outpatient buprenorphine treatment, with the remaining treated by outpatient PCPs (n = 23,899, 41.1%) and psychiatrists (n = 8133, 13.9%). Overall, 50.6% and 73.3% discontinued treatment at 180 and 365 days respectively. Buprenorphine discontinuation was higher among enrollees receiving prescriptions from SUD facilities (aHR = 1.03[1.01-1.06]) and PCPs (aHR = 1.07[1.05-1.10]). Medicaid enrollees had lower buprenorphine retention than those with commercial insurance, particularly those receiving buprenorphine from SUD facilities and PCPs (aHR = 1.24[1.20-1.29] and aHR = 1.39[1.34-1.45] respectively, relative to comparator group of commercial insurance enrollees receiving buprenorphine from outpatient psychiatry).

Conclusion: Buprenorphine discontinuation is high across outpatient PCP, psychiatry, and SUD treatment facility settings, with potentially lower treatment retention among Medicaid enrollees receiving care from SUD facilities and PCPs.