Literature Collection

IMPORTANCE: Co-located bridge clinics aim to facilitate a timely transition to outpatient care for inpatients with opioid use disorder (OUD); however, their effect on hospital length of stay (LOS) and postdischarge outcomes remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of a co-located bridge clinic on hospital LOS among inpatients with OUD. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This parallel-group randomized clinical trial recruited 335 adult inpatients with OUD seen by an addiction consultation service and without an existing outpatient clinician to provide medication for OUD (MOUD) between November 25, 2019, and September 28, 2021, at a tertiary care hospital affiliated with a large academic medical center and its bridge clinic. INTERVENTION: The bridge clinic included enhanced case management before and after hospital discharge, MOUD prescription, and referral to a co-located bridge clinic. Usual care included MOUD prescription and referrals to community health care professionals who provided MOUD. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was the index admission LOS. Secondary outcomes, assessed at 16 weeks, were linkage to health care professionals who provided MOUD, MOUD refills, same-center emergency department (ED) and hospital use, recurrent opioid use, quality of life (measured by the Schwartz Outcome Scale-10), overdose, mortality, and cost. Analysis was performed on an intent-to-treat basis. RESULTS: Of 335 participants recruited (167 randomized to the bridge clinic and 168 to usual care), the median age was 38.0 years (IQR, 31.9-45.7 years), and 194 (57.9%) were male. The median LOS did not differ between arms (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.94 [95% CI, 0.65-1.37]; P = .74). At the 16-week follow-up, participants referred to the bridge clinic had fewer hospital-free days (AOR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.32-0.92]), more readmissions (AOR, 2.17 [95% CI, 1.25-3.76]), and higher care costs (AOR, 2.25 [95% CI, 1.51-3.35]), with no differences in ED visits (AOR, 1.15 [95% CI, 0.68-1.94]) or deaths (AOR, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.08-2.72]) compared with those receiving usual care. Follow-up calls were completed for 88 participants (26.3%). Participants referred to the bridge clinic were more likely to receive linkage to health care professionals who provided MOUD (AOR, 2.37 [95% CI, 1.32-4.26]) and have more MOUD refills (AOR, 6.17 [95% CI, 3.69-10.30]) and less likely to experience an overdose (AOR, 0.11 [95% CI, 0.03-0.41]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This randomized clinical trial found that among inpatients with OUD, bridge clinic referrals did not improve hospital LOS. Referrals may improve outpatient metrics but with higher resource use and expenditure. Bending the cost curve may require broader community and regional partnerships. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04084392.

BACKGROUND: Community stigma against people with opioid use disorder (OUD) and intervention stigma (e.g., toward naloxone) exacerbate the opioid overdose crisis. We examined the effects of the Communities that HEAL (CTH) intervention on perceived opioid-related community stigma by stakeholders in the HEALing Communities Study (HCS). METHODS: We collected three surveys from community coalition members in 66 communities across four states participating in HCS. Communities were randomized into Intervention (Wave 1) or Wait-list Control (Wave 2) arms. We conducted multilevel linear mixed models to compare changes in primary outcomes of community stigma toward people treated for OUD, naloxone, and medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) by arm from time 1 (before the start of the intervention) to time 3 (end of the intervention period in the Intervention arm). FINDINGS: Intervention stakeholders reported a larger decrease in perceived community stigma toward people treated for OUD (adjusted mean change (AMC) -3.20 [95% C.I. -4.43, -1.98]) and toward MOUD (AMC -0.33 [95% C.I. -0.56, -0.09]) than stakeholders in Wait-list Control communities (AMC -0.18 [95% C.I. -1.38, 1.02], p = 0.0007 and AMC 0.11 [95% C.I. -0.09, 0.31], p = 0.0066). The relationship between intervention status and change in stigma toward MOUD was moderated by rural-urban status (urban AMC -0.59 [95% CI, -0.87, -0.32], rural AMC not sig.) and state. The difference in stigma toward naloxone between Intervention and Wait-list Control stakeholders was not statistically significant (p = 0.18). INTERPRETATION: The CTH intervention decreased stakeholder perceptions of community stigma toward people treated for OUD and stigma toward MOUD. Implementing the CTH intervention in other communities could decrease OUD stigma across diverse settings nationally. FUNDING: US National Institute on Drug Abuse.

IMPORTANCE: Patients treated in emergency departments (EDs) for opioid overdose often need drug treatment yet are rarely linked to services after discharge. Emergency department-based peer support is a promising approach for promoting treatment linkage, but evidence of its effectiveness is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To examine the association of the Opioid Overdose Recovery Program (OORP), an ED peer recovery support service, with postdischarge addiction treatment initiation, repeat overdose, and acute care utilization. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This intention-to-treat retrospective cohort study used 2014 to 2020 New Jersey Medicaid data for Medicaid enrollees aged 18 to 64 years who were treated for nonfatal opioid overdose from January 2015 to June 2020 at 70 New Jersey acute care hospitals. Data were analyzed from August 2022 to November 2023. EXPOSURE: Hospital OORP implementation. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) initiation within 60 days of discharge. Secondary outcomes included psychosocial treatment initiation, medically treated drug overdoses, and all-cause acute care visits after discharge. An event study design was used to compare 180-day outcomes between patients treated in OORP hospitals and those treated in non-OORP hospitals. Analyses adjusted for patient demographics, comorbidities, and prior service use and for community-level sociodemographics and drug treatment access. RESULTS: A total of 12 046 individuals were included in the study (62.0% male). Preimplementation outcome trends were similar for patients treated in OORP and non-OORP hospitals. Implementation of the OORP was associated with an increase of 0.034 (95% CI, 0.004-0.064) in the probability of 60-day MOUD initiation in the half-year after implementation, representing a 45% increase above the preimplementation mean probability of 0.075 (95% CI, 0.066-0.084). Program implementation was associated with fewer repeat medically treated overdoses 4 half-years (-0.086; 95% CI, -0.154 to -0.018) and 5 half-years (-0.106; 95% CI, -0.184 to -0.028) after implementation. Results differed slightly depending on the reference period used, and hospital-specific models showed substantial heterogeneity in program outcomes across facilities. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this cohort study of patients treated for opioid overdose, OORP implementation was associated with an increase in MOUD initiation and a decrease in repeat medically treated overdoses. The large variation in outcomes across hospitals suggests that treatment effects were heterogeneous and may depend on factors such as implementation success, program embeddedness, and availability of other hospital- and community-based OUD services.

More than 20 million people in the United States have a substance use disorder (SUD), increasing their risk for overdose (OD). Patients arriving to emergency departments (EDs) with OD typically require lifesaving interventions, but inconsistencies exist regarding further intervention and discharge instructions. The purpose of the current integrative review was to determine best care practices for patients presenting to EDs with an illicit drug OD. A literature search included the databases PubMed, EBSCO Host, ProQuest Health and Medicine, and Google Scholar. Thirty-five articles outlined interventions for SUD/OD initiated in EDs; most for opioid OD. Best practice intervention components included psychiatric evaluations, SUD screening tools, buprenorphine initiation, naloxone distribution and training, OD prevention education, referrals to medication-assisted treatment, and harm reduction strategies. Barriers to implementation included legislation, insurance/costs, community resource availability, staffing, training, and potential stigma. With myriad approaches, nurses with SUD care experience can advocate for instituting best practices for patients in the ED and upon discharge. [Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services, 61(6), 18-24.].

IMPORTANCE: US primary care practitioners (PCPs) are the largest clinical workforce, but few provide addiction care. Primary care is a practical place to expand addiction services, including buprenorphine and harm reduction kits, yet the clinical outcomes and health care sector costs are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the long-term clinical outcomes, costs, and cost-effectiveness of integrated buprenorphine and harm reduction kits in primary care for people who inject opioids. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this modeling study, the Reducing Infections Related to Drug Use Cost-Effectiveness (REDUCE) microsimulation model, which tracks serious injection-related infections, overdose, hospitalization, and death, was used to examine the following treatment strategies: (1) PCP services with external referral to addiction care (status quo), (2) PCP services plus onsite buprenorphine prescribing with referral to offsite harm reduction kits (BUP), and (3) PCP services plus onsite buprenorphine prescribing and harm reduction kits (BUP plus HR). Model inputs were derived from clinical trials and observational cohorts, and costs were discounted annually at 3%. The cost-effectiveness was evaluated over a lifetime from the modified health care sector perspective, and sensitivity analyses were performed to address uncertainty. Model simulation began January 1, 2021, and ran for the entire lifetime of the cohort. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Life-years (LYs), hospitalizations, mortality from sequelae (overdose, severe skin and soft tissue infections, and endocarditis), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: The simulated cohort included 2.25 million people and reflected the age and gender of US persons who inject opioids. Status quo resulted in 6.56 discounted LYs at a discounted cost of $203 500 per person (95% credible interval, $203 000-$222 000). Each strategy extended discounted life expectancy: BUP by 0.16 years and BUP plus HR by 0.17 years. Compared with status quo, BUP plus HR reduced sequelae-related mortality by 33%. The mean discounted lifetime cost per person of BUP and BUP plus HR were more than that of the status quo strategy. The dominating strategy was BUP plus HR. Compared with status quo, BUP plus HR was cost-effective (ICER, $34 400 per LY). During a 5-year time horizon, BUP plus HR cost an individual PCP practice approximately $13 000. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This modeling study of integrated addiction service in primary care found improved clinical outcomes and modestly increased costs. The integration of addiction service into primary care practices should be a health care system priority.