Literature Collection

This pilot randomized controlled trial examined the feasibility and acceptability of a Syndemics intervention targeting the intersection of stimulant use, trauma, and difficulties with HIV disease management in cocaine-using women. All participants received contingency management (CM) for 3 months with financial incentives for stimulant abstinence during thrice-weekly urine screening and refilling antiretroviral medications monthly. Sixteen participants were randomized to complete four expressive writing (n = 9) or four neutral writing (n = 7) sessions delivered during the CM intervention period. Completion rates for writing sessions were high (15 of 16 women completed all four sessions) and engagement in CM urine screening was moderate with women randomized to expressive writing providing a median of 11 non-reactive urine samples for stimulants. There were non-significant trends for those randomized to expressive writing to provide more CM urine samples that were non-reactive for stimulants, report greater decreases in severity of cocaine use, and display reductions in log(10) HIV viral load at 6 months. Although the Syndemics intervention was feasible and acceptable to many women, qualitative interviews with eligible participants who were not randomized identified structural and psychological barriers to engagement. Further clinical research is needed to test the efficacy of Syndemics interventions with HIV-positive, cocaine-using women.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if men who have sex with men (MSM) with cocaine use disorder (CUD) and actively-using cocaine could be enrolled and retained in a pharmacologic intervention trial of lorcaserin-a novel 5-HT2cR agonist-and determine the degree to which participants would adhere to study procedures. METHODS: This was a phase II randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot study with 2:1 random parallel group assignment to daily extended-release oral lorcaserin 20 mg versus placebo (clinicaltrials.gov identifier-NCT03192995). Twenty-two of a planned 45 cisgender MSM with CUD were enrolled and had weekly follow-up visits during a 12-week treatment period, with substance use counseling, urine specimen collection, and completion of audio-computer assisted self-interview (ACASI) behavioral risk assessments. Adherence was measured by medication event monitoring systems (MEMS) caps and self-report. This study was terminated early because of an FDA safety alert for lorcaserin's long-term use. RESULTS: Eighty-six percent completed the trial, with 82% of weekly study follow-up visits completed. Adherence was 55.3% (lorcaserin 51.6% vs. placebo 66.2%) by MEMS cap and 56.9% (56.5% vs. placebo 57.9%) by self-report and did not differ significantly by treatment assignment. Intention-to-treat analyses (ITT) did not show differences in cocaine positivity by urine screen between the lorcaserin and placebo groups by 12 week follow-up (incidence risk ratio [IRR]: 0.96; 95%CI = 0.24-3.82, P = 0.95). However, self-reported cocaine use in timeline follow-back declined more significantly in the lorcaserin group compared to placebo (IRR: 0.66; 95%CI = 0.49-0.88; P = 0.004). CONCLUSION: We found that it is feasible, acceptable, and tolerable to conduct a placebo-controlled pharmacologic trial for MSM with CUD who are actively using cocaine. Lorcaserin was not associated with significant reductions in cocaine use by urine testing, but was associated with significant reductions in self-reported cocaine use. Future research may be needed to continue to explore the potential utility of 5-HT2cR agonists.

The co-occurrence of substance use (SUD) and mental disorders is increasing in the US. Integrating mental health services into SUD treatment facilities improves treatment retention and success, but access to integrated services is lagging behind growing demand. The purpose of this study was to map the locations of SUD treatment facilities that offer integrated mental health services and identify community characteristics associated with whether a treatment facility offers more comprehensive integrated services. We used the Mental health and Addiction Treatment Tracking Repository to identify the location and characteristics of licensed outpatient SUD treatment facilities in the US (2022; N = 8,858). Our focal predictors included the percentage of a census block group that was White, Black, and Hispanic. We used multilevel multiple logistic regression to model whether a facility offered integrated mental health (y/n), adjusted for relevant facility-, county-, and state-level covariates, and defined state as a random effect. The majority of integrated facilities were located in the eastern US, with notable concentrations around large metropolitan areas of Minneapolis, MN, Chicago, IL, Atlanta, GA, and New York, NY. For every 10-percentage point increase in a census block group's Black and Hispanic population, there was a 5% and 7% decrease in the odds of offering integrated services, respectively (aOR(Black) = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.91-0.99, p = 0.04; aOR(Hispanic) = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.90-0.96, p < 0.0001). We frame our findings around social conditions as fundamental drivers of disease and healthcare access and acknowledge the country's historical disinvestment in nonwhite and rural communities. Racially targeted programs are needed to effectively address growing racial and ethnic inequities in SUD and mental healthcare.

Locating specialized mental healthcare services in the neighborhood of people with severe mental illnesses (SMI) has been suggested as a way of improving treatment outcomes by increasing patient engagement and integration with the local care landscape. The current mixed methods study aimed to examine patient experience and treatment outcomes in three Flexible Assertive Community Treatment (FACT) teams that relocated to the neighborhood they served, compared to seven teams that continued to provide FACT as usual from a central office. Routine Outcome Measurement (ROM) and care use data were analyzed to compare change in treatment outcomes for patients in place-based FACT (n = 255) and FACT as usual (n = 833). Additionally, retrospective in-depth interviews were conducted with twenty patients about their experience with place-based FACT. Quantitative analysis showed mental health admission days decreased more in place-based than FACT as usual, although this difference was small. Both groups showed improved quality of life, psychosocial functioning, and symptomatic remission rates, and decreased unmet and overall needs for care. There was no change over time in met needs for care, employment, and daily activities. Qualitative analysis showed that patients experienced place-based FACT as more accessible, a better safety net, a more personal approach, better integrated with other forms of care, involving their social network, and embedded in their neighborhood and daily environment. This study showed that location and integration matter to patients, and the long term impact of place-based FACT on treatment outcomes should be explored.

BACKGROUND: Patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) often have complex health care needs. Methadone is one of the medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) used in the management of OUDs. Highly restrictive methadone treatment-which requires patient compliance with many rules of care-often results in low retention, especially if there is inadequate support from healthcare providers (HCPs). Nevertheless, HCPs should strive to offer patient-centred care (PCC) as it is deemed the gold standard to care. Such an approach can encourage patients to be actively involved in their care, ultimately increasing retention and yielding positive treatment outcomes. METHODS: In this secondary analysis, we aimed to explore how HCPs were applying the principles of PCC when caring for patients with OUD in a highly restrictive, biomedical and paternalistic setting. We applied Mead and Bower's PCC framework in the secondary analysis of 40 in-depth, semi-structured interviews with both HCPs and patients. RESULTS: We present how PCC's concepts of; (a) biopsychosocial perspective; (b) patient as a person; (c) sharing power and responsibility; (d) therapeutic alliance and (e) doctor as a person-are applied in a methadone treatment program. We identified both opportunities and barriers to providing PCC in these settings. CONCLUSION: In a highly restrictive methadone treatment program, full implementation of PCC is not possible. However, implementation of some aspects of PCC are possible to improve patient empowerment and engagement with care, possibly leading to increase in retention and better treatment outcomes.