Literature Collection

INTRODUCTION: Treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) with diacetylmorphine is an evidence-based form of drug treatment, but it is not available in the United States (US). Better understanding acceptability of treatment with injectable diacetylmorphine among people who use opioids (PWUO) in the US may expedite future initiatives designed to engage persons in this form of treatment should it become available. The purpose of this research is to examine factors associated with interest in treatment with injectable diacetylmorphine among a sample of PWUO in the US. METHODS: Data are from a cross-sectional study of PWUO in Baltimore City, Maryland. Participants were given a brief description of treatment with injectable diacetylmorphine and then asked to rate their level of interest. We used Poisson regression with robust variance to assess factors associated with interest in treatment with injectable diacetylmorphine. RESULTS: The average age of participants was 48 years, 41% were women, and most (76%) identified as non-Hispanic, Black. The most commonly used substances were non-injection heroin (76%), opioid pain relievers (73%), and non-injection crack/cocaine (73%). Two-thirds of participants (68%) indicated interest in treatment with injectable diacetylmorphine. Factors significantly associated with interest in injectable diacetylmorphine treatment included: having at least a high school education (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR]: 1.23; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.04-1.45), not having health insurance (aPR: 1.23; 95% CI: 1.06-1.44), having ever overdosed (aPR: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.01-1.42), and past utilization of medications for opioid use disorder (aPR: 1.22; 95% CI: 1.01-1.47). Recent non-injection cocaine use was inversely associated with interest in treatment with injectable diacetylmorphine (aPR 0.80; 95% CI: 0.68-0.94). CONCLUSION: The majority of participants reported interest in treatment with injectable diacetylmorphine. Given worsening trends in the addiction and overdose crisis in the US, treatment with injectable diacetylmorphine should be considered as another evidence-based option for treating OUD.KEY MESSAGESInterest in treatment with injectable diacetylmorphine was high among a sample of people who use opioids in the United States.Factors associated with increased interest in treatment with injectable diacetylmorphine included having at least a high school education, having ever overdosed, and not having health insurance.Past utilization of medications for opioid use disorder was associated with interest in treatment with injectable diacetylmorphine.

Background: Concurrent with the opioid overdose crisis there has been an increase in hospitalizations among people with opioid use disorder (OUD), with one in ten hospitalized medical or surgical patients having comorbid opioid-related diagnoses. We sought to conduct a systematic review of hospital-based interventions, their staffing composition, and their impact on outcomes for patients with OUD hospitalized for medical or surgical conditions. Methods: Authors searched PubMed MEDLINE, PsychINFO, and CINAHL from January 2015 through October 2020. The authors screened 463 titles and abstracts for inclusion and reviewed 96 full-text studies. Seventeen articles met inclusion criteria. Extracted were study characteristics, outcomes, and intervention components. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Methodological Quality Rating Scale. Results: Ten of the 17 included studies were controlled retrospective cohort studies, five were uncontrolled retrospective studies, one was a prospective quasi-experimental evaluation, and one was a secondary analysis of a completed randomized clinical trial. Intervention components and outcomes varied across studies. Outcomes included in-hospital initiation and post-discharge connection to medication for OUD, healthcare utilization, and discharge against medical advice. Results were mixed regarding the impact of existing interventions on outcomes. Most studies focused on linkage to medication for OUD during hospitalization and connection to post-discharge OUD care. Conclusions: Given that many individuals with OUD require hospitalization, there is a need for OUD-related interventions for this patient population. Interventions with the best evidence of efficacy facilitated connection to post-discharge OUD care and employed an Addiction Medicine Consult model.

BACKGROUND: A U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) report found no consistent evidence that counseling interventions are effective at reducing drug use or improving other health outcomes in populations whose drug use was identified through primary care-based screening with questions about drug use or drug-related risks (i.e., “screen-detected populations”). Evidence from studies of persons seeking or referred for treatment for substance use or with clinical signs or symptoms of substance use (i.e., “treatment-seeking populations”) might also be useful for informing assessments regarding screening in primary care settings. PURPOSE: This report updates a 2008 USPSTF report on screening for illicit drug use and supplements an updated USPSTF report on screening for any drug use, focusing on the benefits and harms of pharmacotherapy and psychosocial interventions for persons whose drug use was identified when seeking substance use treatment, when presenting with signs or symptoms of drug use, when screened for drug use in primary care or other settings with questions about drug use or drug-related risks, or other means. DATA SOURCES: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO from inception to September 2018; surveillance for new literature was conducted through November 22, 2019. STUDY SELECTION: We included trials of Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved pharmacotherapies for opioid use disorder (methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone) and trials of psychosocial interventions for persons engaging in opioid, stimulant, cannabis, and mixed drug or polysubstance use. We also included trials of preemptive prescribing of naloxone in primary care settings as a rescue medication for opioid-related overdose. Trials compared included interventions against placebo, a minimal intervention, waitlist control, or usual care, and evaluated outcomes at ≥3 months for drug use or other risky behaviors; health, social, and legal consequences of drug use; or harms of treatment. DATA EXTRACTION: One investigator abstracted data and a second investigator checked data abstraction for accuracy. Two investigators independently assessed study quality using methods developed by the USPSTF. DATA SYNTHESIS (RESULTS): We included a total of 71 trials, with 19 trials of pharmacotherapies and 52 trials of psychosocial interventions. All trials of pharmacotherapies and 25 trials of psychosocial interventions were conducted in treatment-seeking populations. Psychosocial interventions commonly incorporated cognitive-behavioral or motivational interventions and ranged from brief interventions consisting of one or two sessions of no more than one hour to multiple treatment sessions over weeks or months. In most pharmacotherapy trials, drug use counseling was provided to all patients. No study evaluated benefits or harms of preemptive naloxone prescribed in primary care settings versus placebo or no naloxone as a rescue medication for opioid-related overdose. In treatment-seeking populations with opioid use disorder, naltrexone (12 trials; relative risk [RR] 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62 to 0.85; number needed to treat [NNT] 5.3) and opioid agonist therapy with methadone or buprenorphine (4 trials; RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.82; NNT 2.9) were associated with decreased risk of drug use relapse compared with placebo or no pharmacotherapy. Naltrexone and methadone/buprenorphine therapy were also associated with increased likelihood of retention in substance use treatment (9 trials; RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.49; NNT 6.7 and 7 trials; RR 2.58, 95% CI 1.78 to 4.59; NNT 2.6; respectively). Evidence on harms of pharmacotherapies was limited, but indicated no increased risk of serious adverse events. Psychosocial interventions were associated with increased likelihood of abstinence from drug use versus control conditions at 3 to 4 months (15 trials, RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.13; NNT 11) and at 6 to 12 months (14 trials; RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.52; NNT 17), based on trials primarily conducted in treatment-seeking populations. Psychosocial interventions were also associated with a greater decrease versus control conditions in the number of drug use days (19 trials; mean difference −0.49 day in the last 7 days, 95% CI −0.85 to −0.13) and a small but statistically significant greater decrease in drug use severity (16 trials; standard mean difference −0.18, 95% CI −0.32 to −0.05) at 3- to 4-month followup. There was no difference between psychosocial interventions versus controls on drug use days or severity at longer (6 to 12 month) followup. Effects of psychosocial interventions were generally stronger in trials of treatment-seeking than screen-detected populations, trials that evaluated cannabis use than other types of drug use, and trials of more intensive than brief interventions. Few trials evaluated effects of psychosocial interventions for opioid or stimulant use, and estimates were imprecise. LIMITATIONS: Limitations included restriction to English-language articles, statistical heterogeneity in pooled analyses, and little evidence on drug-related health, social, or legal outcomes; most trials had methodological limitations. Evidence was lacking on effectiveness of treatments for opioid use disorder related to prescription drug use or stimulant use and evidence was limited for adolescents or pregnant persons. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacotherapy and psychosocial interventions are effective at improving drug use outcomes, but evidence of effectiveness remains primarily derived from trials conducted in treatment-seeking populations. Although the applicability of data from such trials to persons whose drug use is identified through primary care-based screening is uncertain, intervention trials that enrolled patients based on screening identified a spectrum of drug use, ranging from mild drug use to more severe, untreated disease. The applicability of current evidence on drug use interventions to screening might be greater for the subset of patients screened in primary care settings with severe, untreated drug use who could utilize pharmacotherapies or more intensive psychosocial interventions.

The objectives were to analyze the knowledge about overdose prevention, the use of naloxone, and the number of fatal overdoses after the implementation of Systematic Training in Overdose Prevention (STOOP) program. We conducted a quasi-experimental study, and held face-to-face interviews before (n = 725) and after (n = 722) implementation of systematic training in two different samples of people who injected opioids attending harm reduction centers. We asked participants to list the main causes of overdose and the main actions that should be taken when witnessing an overdose. We created two dependent variables, the number of (a) correct and (b) incorrect answers. The main independent variable was Study Group: Intervention Group (IG), Comparison Group (CG), Pre-Intervention Group With Sporadic Training in Overdose Prevention (PREIGS), or Pre-Intervention Group Without Training in Overdose Prevention (PREIGW). The relationship between the dependent and independent variables was assessed using a multivariate Poisson regression analysis. Finally, we conducted an interrupted time series analysis of monthly fatal overdoses before and after the implementation of systematic program during the period 2006-2015. Knowledge of overdose prevention increased after implementing systematic training program. Compared to the PREIGW, the IG gave more correct answers (IRR = 1.40;95%CI:1.33-1.47), and fewer incorrect answers (IRR = 0.33;95%CI:0.25-0.44). Forty percent of people who injected opioids who received a naloxone kit had used the kit in response to an overdose they witnessed. These courses increase knowledge of overdose prevention in people who use opioids, give them the necessary skills to use naloxone, and slightly diminish the number of fatal opioid overdoses in the city of Barcelona.

BACKGROUND: Opioid overdoses have continued to increase at higher rates among Black Americans compared to people from other racial groups. Despite demonstrated effectiveness of MOUD in reducing risk of opioid overdose, Black Americans face decreased access to and uptake of MOUD. The current study aimed to examine the knowledge, perceptions, and experiences with MOUD among a sample of Black adults who use prescription opioids nonmedically in order to inform tailored efforts to improve MOUD uptake. METHODS: Data were derived from a larger study assessing cultural and structural influences on drug use and drug treatment among people who use prescription opioids nonmedically. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 34 Black men and women across four generational cohorts: born 1955-1969; 1970-1979; 1980-1994; and 1995-2001. Participant responses were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Nearly half of participants (44.1%) reported no knowledge or experience with MOUD. Among participants who had any knowledge about MOUD, four major themes regarding their perceptions emerged: MOUD Helps with Recovery; Not Needed for Level of Drug Use; Side Effects and Withdrawal; Equivalence with Illicit Drug Use. The majority reported negative perceptions of MOUD (52.6%), and the youngest cohort (born 1995-2001) had a higher proportion of negative perceptions (80%) relative to other age cohorts (born 1980-1994: 50%; 1970-1979: 75%; 1955-1969: 16.6%). DISCUSSION: Findings indicate a significant knowledge gap and clear points of intervention for improving MOUD uptake. Interventions to improve communication of health information in ways that are culturally relevant and tailored by age group can be used in conjunction with efforts to improve MOUD access among Black individuals who use opioids nonmedically.; Half of our sample of Black Americans who use opioids nonmedically had no knowledge of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD).For those who knew about MOUD, most reported negative perceptions, including concerns about side effects of using MOUD and believing MOUD is equivalent to illicit drug use.The youngest age group endorsed the highest rates of negative perceptions relative to older age cohorts, indicating a need for intervention approaches tailored by age group.; eng

Background: Opioid use and overdose are escalating in the United States. Primary care providers are in a strategic position to assess patients for medication-assisted treatment (MAT). Objectives: To describe the implementation of MAT in an integrated primary care residency clinic and assess provider comfort levels with evaluating patients for high-risk opioid use, conduct crucial conversations about MAT treatment options and referral to MAT for evaluation and treatment. Methods: As part of a Primary Care Training and Enhancement grant through Health Resources and Services Administration, we used an implementation process to allow for optimal clinic flow. The process included assessment of patient populations, identifying a provider champion, organizing multidisciplinary team, engaging a practice facilitator, designing clinic model and infrastructure, creating the electronic health record order sets along with provider and staff training. Providers responded to brief questions to evaluate comfort levels in 3 domains: identifying high-risk opioid use, conducting crucial conversations about treatment options and referral to MAT for evaluation and treatment. Discussion: Incorporating MAT within an integrated primary care clinic and residency program with waiver training for residents was a successful and innovative program. The availability of MAT provided a solution for patients that could benefit from this type of treatment. MAT presence gave providers the opportunity to refer these patients for treatment that had not previously been as accessible. Conclusion: An integrated primary care practice with an embedded MAT can be successful with an organized structure to optimize clinic flow.