Literature Collection

OBJECTIVE: Antiretroviral drugs are the mainstay of treatment for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. Lifelong highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) is indicated to prevent disease progression to acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). Efavirenz was a first-line component of HAART across the world for many years. The purpose of this article is to review the psychotropic properties of efavirenz, which are the most important adverse events associated with the drug and commonly result in treatment discontinuation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A PubMed search was conducted using efavirenz as a search term, which returned 4655 results. Titles and abstracts of articles were screened for relevance, and all relevant articles published in English were included in the narrative review. RESULTS: Acute exposure to efavirenz may cause profound perceptual disturbances (delusions and hallucinations) whereas chronic exposure may be associated with abnormal dreams and other sleep disturbances, anxiety, depressed mood and suicidality. It may also be abused as a hallucinogen, especially in individuals with a history of poly-substance abuse. Recent research indicates that efavirenz directly affects monoaminergic neurotransmission and may partially substitute for psychedelic drugs, such as lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD). Efavirenz acts as a serotonin 5-HT2A receptor antagonist, a serotonin-dopamine reuptake inhibitor, an inhibitor of monoamine oxidase (MAO) and a vesicular monoamine transporter 2 (VMAT2) inhibitor, which are mechanisms common with many psychotropic drugs. Efavirenz interacts with many of the same molecular targets as the empathogen methylendioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), but the effects of the 2 drugs may differ. CONCLUSIONS: The exact mechanism of action of efavirenz as a psychotropic drug remains unclear and future studies should focus on evaluating whether prolonged exposure could lead to irreversible side effects.

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.