Literature Collection

BACKGROUND: Opioid use disorder (OUD) affects approximately 21.9 million people worldwide. This study aims to determine the association between age of onset of opioid use and comorbid disorders, both physical and psychiatric, in patients receiving methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) for OUD. Understanding this association may inform clinical practice about important prognostic factors of patients on MMT, enabling clinicians to identify high-risk patients. METHODS: This study includes data collected between June 2011 and August 2016 for the Genetics of Opioid Addiction research collaborative between McMaster University and the Canadian Addiction Treatment Centers. All patients were interviewed by trained health professionals using the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview and case report forms. Physical comorbidities were verified using patients' electronic medical records. A multi-variable logistic regression model was constructed to determine the strength of the association between age of onset of opioid use and the presence of physical or psychiatric comorbidity while adjusting for current age, sex, body mass index, methadone dose and smoking status. RESULTS: Data from 627 MMT patients with a mean age of 38.8 years (SD = 11.07) were analyzed. Individuals with an age of onset of opioid use younger than 18 years were found to be at higher odds for having a physical or psychiatric comorbid disorder compared to individuals with an age of onset of opioid use of 31 years or older (odds ratio 2.94, 95% confidence interval 1.20, 7.19, p = 0.02). A significant association was not found between the risk of having a comorbidity and an age of onset of opioid use between 18 and 25 years or 26 and 30 years, compared to an age of onset of opioid use of 31 years or older. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates that the younger one begins to use opioids, the greater their chance of having a physical or psychiatric co-morbidity. Understanding the risk posed by an earlier onset of opioid use for the later development of comorbid disorders informs clinical practice about important prognostic predictors and aids in the identification of high-risk patients.

BACKGROUND: Prescription-type opioid use disorder (POUD) is often accompanied by comorbid anxiety, yet the impact of anxiety on retention in opioid agonist therapy (OAT) is unclear. Therefore, this study investigated whether baseline anxiety severity affects retention in OAT and whether this effect differs by OAT type (methadone maintenance therapy (MMT) vs. buprenorphine/naloxone (BNX)). METHODS: This secondary analysis used data from a pan-Canadian randomized trial comparing flexible take-home dosing BNX and standard supervised MMT for 24 weeks. The study included 268 adults with POUD. Baseline anxiety was assessed using the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI), with BAI ≥ 16 indicating moderate-to-severe anxiety. The primary outcomes were retention in assigned and any OAT at week 24. In addition, the impact of anxiety severity on retention was examined, and assigned OAT was considered an effect modifier. RESULTS: Of the participants, 176 (65%) reported moderate-to-severe baseline anxiety. In adjusted analyses, there was no significant difference in retention between those with BAI ≥ 16 and those with BAI < 16 assigned (29% vs. 28%; odds ratio (OR) = 2.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.94-4.40; P = 0.07) or any OAT (35% vs. 34%; OR = 1.57, 95% CI = 0.77-3.21; P = 0.21). In addition, there was no significant effect modification by OAT type for retention in assigned (P = 0.41) or any OAT (P = 0.71). In adjusted analyses, greater retention in treatment was associated with BNX (vs. MMT), male gender identity (vs. female, transgender, or other), enrolment in the Quebec study site (vs. other sites), and absence of a positive urine drug screen for stimulants at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline anxiety severity did not significantly impact retention in OAT for adults with POUD, and there was no significant effect modification by OAT type. However, the overall retention rates were low, highlighting the need to develop new strategies to minimize the risk of attrition from treatment. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03033732).

Screening for psychosis spectrum disorders in primary care could improve early identification and reduce the duration of untreated psychosis. However, the accuracy of psychosis screening in this setting is unknown. To address this, we conducted a diagnostic accuracy study of screening for psychosis spectrum disorders in eight behavioral health services integrated into primary care clinics. Patients attending an integrated behavioral health appointment at their primary care clinic completed the Prodromal Questionnaire - Brief (PQ-B) immediately prior to their intake assessment. This was compared to a diagnostic phone interview based on the Structured Interview for Psychosis Risk Syndromes (SIPS). In total, 145 participants completed all study procedures, of which 100 screened positive and 45 negative at a provisional PQ-B threshold of ≥20. The PQ-B was moderately accurate at differentiating psychosis spectrum from no psychosis spectrum disorders; a PQ-B distress score of ≥27 had a sensitivity and specificity of 71.2 % and 57.0 % respectively. In total, 66 individuals (45.5 %) met criteria for a psychosis spectrum disorder and 24 (16.7 %) were diagnosed with full psychosis, indicating a high prevalence of psychosis in the sample. Overall, screening for psychosis spectrum disorders in an IBH primary care setting identified a relatively high number of individuals and may identify people that would otherwise be missed. The PQ-B performed slightly less well than in population-based screening in community mental health settings. However, the findings suggest this may represent an effective way to streamline the pathway between specialty early psychosis programs and primary care clinics for those in need.

BACKGROUND: Health care delivery systems are increasingly integrating physical and mental health services to address patients' complex needs, contain costs, and improve satisfaction. Therefore, it is critical to understand whether adoption of integrated care models is effective in diverse settings. OBJECTIVE: This study examined the effect of integrated care on physical and mental health outcomes among low-income Latino participants on the US-Mexico border. RESEARCH DESIGN: In this quasi-experimental multisite study, individual-level data were pooled from 8 studies of locally adapted integrated care models. SUBJECTS: Participants were 18 years or older and had 1 or more chronic conditions: diabetes, depression, hypertension, or obesity. The study enrolled 4226 participants with 2254 participants in the intervention group and 1972 in the comparison group. MEASURES: Primary outcomes were depressive symptoms as measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 score and blood glucose measured by hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). Blood pressure, body mass index, and quality of life were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Multivariable linear regression analyses indicated intervention participants had significantly lower Patient Health Questionnaire-9 scores (β=-0.39, P=0.03) and HbA1c (β=-0.14, P=0.02) at 12 months compared with comparison group participants. Stratified analyses showed improvements in HbA1c were even greater among intervention participants who had diabetes, depression, severe and persistent mental illness, were older or female compared with their counterparts in the comparison group. CONCLUSIONS: Health care is constantly transforming, making it critical to study these changes across populations and settings. Findings from this study indicate that integrated care can significantly improve mental and physical health in an underserved Latino population.

BACKGROUND: Individuals living with severe mental illness can have significant emotional, physical and social challenges. Collaborative care combines clinical and organisational components. AIMS: We tested whether a primary care-based collaborative care model (PARTNERS) would improve quality of life for people with diagnoses of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or other psychoses, compared with usual care. METHOD: We conducted a general practice-based, cluster randomised controlled superiority trial. Practices were recruited from four English regions and allocated (1:1) to intervention or control. Individuals receiving limited input in secondary care or who were under primary care only were eligible. The 12-month PARTNERS intervention incorporated person-centred coaching support and liaison work. The primary outcome was quality of life as measured by the Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life (MANSA). RESULTS: We allocated 39 general practices, with 198 participants, to the PARTNERS intervention (20 practices, 116 participants) or control (19 practices, 82 participants). Primary outcome data were available for 99 (85.3%) intervention and 71 (86.6%) control participants. Mean change in overall MANSA score did not differ between the groups (intervention: 0.25, s.d. 0.73; control: 0.21, s.d. 0.86; estimated fully adjusted between-group difference 0.03, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.31; P = 0.819). Acute mental health episodes (safety outcome) included three crises in the intervention group and four in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence of a difference in quality of life, as measured with the MANSA, between those receiving the PARTNERS intervention and usual care. Shifting care to primary care was not associated with increased adverse outcomes.