Background: To address the opioid use disorder (OUD) public health crisis, the ADvancing Pharmacological Treatments for OUD (ADaPT-OUD) external facilitation randomized trial was conducted in 8 intervention and 27 matched control low-performing Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities to increase the prescribing of medications for OUD (MOUD). Facilities were considered low-performers if they were in the bottom quartile of the facility ratio of Veterans with OUD who received MOUD. The objective of this analysis was to evaluate the healthcare expenditures of Veterans with OUD who received care in ADaPT-OUD intervention facilities compared to those receiving care in matched control facilities. Methods: Difference-in-differences (DID) design was used to compare the overall, outpatient, and inpatient expenditures (extracted from the VHA data warehouse) of Veterans diagnosed with OUD or receiving MOUD between the 2 groups 12 months before and after the intervention. Results: A total of 7348 Veterans with a diagnosis of OUD or prescribed MOUD on at least 1 encounter 12 months after ADaPT-OUD intervention at all sites (92.39% male and 83.26% white) were included for analysis. ADaPT-OUD intervention did not have a substantial impact on overall healthcare costs. However, we reported 4% fewer total encounters in the intervention sites (DID, 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.96 [0.92-1.00]) compared to the control sites, driven by a decline in non-VA services. Notably, the outpatient psychiatric-related costs were $391 (95% CI: $49-$733) higher per Veteran within the year after the intervention sites received external facilitation compared to control sites. Conclusions: Veterans at intervention sites with an OUD history had higher outpatient psychiatric-related costs, which could be explained by increased access to optimal mental health services at VHA. Improving access to OUD treatment at VA may lead to more coordinated and comprehensive treatment of both OUD and other associated mental health and physical comorbidities.
Objectives: To estimate the effect of the passage of state laws targeting patient brokering on opioid-related outcomes. Background: In response to growing awareness of unethical substance use disorder (SUD) treatment practices, several states in the United States have passed laws targeting patient brokering and deceptive marketing. Patient brokering and deceptive marketing laws are intended to reduce the chances individuals with SUD interact with bad actors or suffer from adverse outcomes related to inappropriate SUD treatment, but the effectiveness of these laws is unknown. Methods: Matched event study analysis comparing early population-level outcomes in 6 states that passed laws targeting patient brokering between 2018 and 2019 and 24 comparison states with similar census region and presence of recovery residence regulations, anti-kickback laws, state SUD task forces. Outcomes, analyzed through 2019, included monthly rates of opioid-related mortality and quarterly rates of opioid-related emergency department visits and hospitalizations per 100,000 residents, and state-year prevalence of unusual patterns of claims for SUD-related services. Results: In 2018, there was a mean of 326.9 (SD = 72.0) opioid-related hospitalizations/100k state residents, 234.6 (SD = 37.7) opioid-related ED visits/100k state residents, and 122.9 (SD = 73.6) opioid-related deaths/100k state residents in the states in our treatment group. We did not observe evidence that passage of state laws targeting patient brokering or deceptive marketing was associated with changes in any of our outcomes. Conclusions: The passage of state laws targeting patient brokering is not associated with significant changes in opioid-related outcomes. Additional resources may be needed to accompany implementation and enforcement efforts before desired policy effects are realized.
Background: Substance use is a major global public health challenge. A well-trained health care workforce is needed to prevent, address, and treat substance use disorders (SUD) internationally. Methods: In September 2021, the Yale Schools of Medicine (YSM) and Public Health (YSPH) and the University of Jordan (UJ) collaborated to establish the Yale-UJ Joint Training Program in Addiction Medicine. The curriculum was developed using the six-step Kern Model. The program aimed to create opportunities for cross-cultural, interprofessional education in addiction medicine to address education and treatment gaps. Results: The two-year program led to novel learning, training, and research opportunities in addiction medicine for faculty, staff, and students at YSM, YSPH, and UJ. The program implemented 16 lectures, a live in-person training workshop, three student-led discussion events, a student-led exchange network, a novel elective course, two cross-institutional research projects, and resulted in three published peer reviewed articles, two international conference presentations, three elective training opportunities, and one postdoctoral training. The program was well received by students and faculty and resulted in SUD treatment stakeholder collaboration in both countries. Conclusions: Establishment of a cross-national, interprofessional joint training program creates opportunities to implement novel education, research, and mentorship to prepare a culturally informed workforce.
BACKGROUND:While smoking has been associated with alertness, it has also been reported as a stress relief and sleep aid. However, evidence on tobacco self-medication to improve sleep remains limited, particularly among adolescents. Therefore, the aim of this study was to explore the prevalence of tobacco self-medication in adolescents and analyze the association with sleep quality. METHODS:A cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted with 1,121 Spanish adolescents (mean age = 16.2 ± 0.7; 57.1% female) from public secondary schools. Participants completed assessments on their sleep quality and Cigarette Use. Analysis of variance and multinomial logistic regression analyses were conducted. RESULTS:Among adolescents, 5.4% (n = 61) reported smoking cigarettes as a sleep aid in the past month, accounting for a third of those who had smoked in that timeframe (19.9%; n = 225). Adolescents smoking cigarettes for self-medication showed significantly higher cigarette consumption compared to those with past-month use only (mean diff. = 2.1; η² = .10) and longer regular use (mean diff. = 6.9 months; η² = .08). Self-medication was associated with poorer sleep quality, shorter sleep, longer sleep onset latency, and frequent nighttime awakenings. Adolescents experiencing poor sleep and frequent awakenings had twice the likelihood of using tobacco as a sleep aid in the past month (OR = 2.1 and OR = 2.2, respectively). CONCLUSIONS:This study brings attention to adolescent self-medication practices and their associations with poor sleep outcomes. Findings underscore the need for further investigation into self-medication with implications for prevention strategies during adolescence.
Background: People who inject drugs (PWID) may develop skin and soft tissue infections because of limited access to sterile injection supplies and education regarding safer injection techniques. The purpose of this study was to assess wound care experiences, knowledge, and practices among individuals accessing community-based services and inform service provision for PWID. Methods: Using convenience sampling, participants of an organization that engages with PWID in Austin, Texas, were engaged in a multiphase mixed-methods study. Phase 1 (N = 39) included completion of a 23-item quantitative survey; eligibility required injection drug use in the past 30 days. Phase 2 (N = 20) included brief semi-structured interviews to explore wound care practices. Participants received $20 grocery store gift cards for participating in each phase. Qualitative data were analyzed using an analytic matrix to identify themes. Results: PWID reported injecting methamphetamine, heroin, and fentanyl; 53.8% (21/39) injected more than 1 substance. The same proportion (21/39) had experienced at least 1 injection-related wound in the past 6 months and reported often or always self-treating injection-related wounds. Their reasons included confidence in self-treating, lack of perceived wound severity, and experience of stigma. Interview participants described their experiences with infections, how they cleaned wounds and obtained antibiotics, how they decided when to seek medical care (eg, wound severity, confidence in self-treatment), and barriers to seeking care (eg, stigma, financial concerns). Conclusions: Needs for wound care treatment and education among PWID are currently unmet, and stigma from health care providers remains a challenge to seeking early intervention for infections. Delivering wound care services and education through community-based organizations that have established credibility and connection may enhance access to care.
BACKGROUND:Opioid agonist therapies (OAT), including methadone and buprenorphine, are first-line care in national and international guidelines, yet many countries, including the United States, frequently fail to effectively engage and retain people in OAT. How OAT is delivered-including the goals and culture of care-matters to patient engagement, treatment retention, and health outcomes. France has among the highest OAT receipt and lowest opioid-related morbidity and mortality worldwide. This study explored French interprofessional health care clinicians' approach to OAT, drawing lessons to improve OAT implementation in the United States and elsewhere. METHODS:We recruited interprofessional participants (eg, physicians, pharmacists, nurses, administrators) from diverse health care settings (eg, specialty addiction care, hospitals, public health) and regions and conducted in-depth semi-structured qualitative interviews. We conducted a reflexive thematic analysis using an inductive approach at a semantic level, identifying themes that held meaning to study participants and had implications for the United States and other contexts. RESULTS:Twenty-one people participated. Participants described patient engagement as the primary goal of OAT, which has potential to draw people to care. They felt imposing or expecting abstinence was harmful and might obligate patients to lie or "lead a double life," resulting in mistrust, missed care opportunities, and "losing patients" who disengaged from care. Participants described balancing flexibility and structure. They felt that flexibility promotes OAT access and engagement and that clinicians should contextualize decisions within patients' risk environments, including those of an illicit drug supply and the black market. Participants described that structure should be offered as support, not punishment or control. Finally, they described that practices prioritizing engagement are sustained by policies and professional norms. CONCLUSIONS:Our findings challenge OAT practices and policies centered on abstinence and control. They suggest that approaches that prioritize patient engagement and balance flexibility and structure may be central to achieving high rates of OAT across a population.
Background: Increasing buprenorphine access is critical to facilitating effective opioid use disorder treatment. Buprenorphine prescriber numbers have increased substantially, but most clinicians who start prescribing buprenorphine stop within a year, and most active prescribers treat very few individuals. Little research has examined state policies’ association with the evolution of buprenorphine prescribing clinicians’ patient caseloads. Methods: Our retrospective cohort study design derived from 2006 to 2018 national pharmacy claims identifying buprenorphine prescribers and the number of patients treated monthly. We defined persistent prescribers based on results from a k-clustering approach and were characterized by clinicians who did not quickly stop prescribing and had average monthly caseloads greater than 5 patients for much of the first 6 years after their first dispensed prescription. We examined the association between persistent prescribers (dependent variable) and Medicaid coverage of buprenorphine, prior authorization requirements, and mandated counseling policies (key predictors) that were active within the first 2 years after a prescriber’s first observed dispensed buprenorphine prescription. We used multivariable logistic regression analyses and entropy balancing weights to ensure better comparability of prescribers in states that did and did not implement policies. Results: Medicaid coverage of buprenorphine was associated with a smaller percentage of new prescribers becoming persistent prescribers (OR = 0.72; 95% CI = 0.53, 0.97). There was no evidence that either mandatory counseling or prior authorization was associated with the odds of a clinician being a persistent prescriber with estimated ORs equal to 0.85 (95% CI = 0.63, 1.16) and 1.13 (95% CI = 0.83, 1.55), respectively. Conclusions: Compared to states without coverage, states with Medicaid coverage for buprenorphine had a smaller percentage of new prescribers become persistent prescribers; there was no evidence that the other state policies were associated with changes in the rate of clinicians becoming persistent prescribers. Because buprenorphine treatment is highly concentrated among a small group of clinicians, it is imperative to increase the pool of clinicians providing care to larger numbers of patients for longer periods. Greater efforts are needed to identify and support factors associated with successful persistent prescribing.
BACKGROUND:Tapering long-term opioid therapy is an increasingly common practice, yet rapid opioid dose reductions may increase the risk of overdose. The objective of this study was to compare overdose risk following opioid dose reduction rates of ≤10%, 11% to 20%, 21% to 30%, and >30% per month to stable dosing.METHODS:We conducted a retrospective cohort study in three health systems in Colorado and Wisconsin. Participants were patients ≥18 years of age prescribed long-term opioid therapy between January 1, 2006, and June 30, 2019. Five opioid dosing patterns and drug overdoses (fatal and nonfatal) were identified using electronic health records, pharmacy records, and the National Death Index. Cox proportional hazard regression was conducted on a propensity score-weighted cohort to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for follow-up periods of 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after a dose reduction.RESULTS:In a cohort of 17 540 patients receiving long-term opioid therapy, 42.7% of patients experienced a dose reduction. Relative to stable dosing, a dose reduction rate of >30% was associated with an increased risk of overdose and the aHR estimates decreased as the follow-up increased; the aHRs for the 1-, 6- and 12-month follow-ups were 5.33 (95% CI, 1.98-14.34), 1.81 (95% CI,1.08-3.03), and 1.49 (95% CI, 0.97-2.27), respectively. The slower tapering rates were not associated with overdose risk.CONCLUSIONS:Patients receiving long-term opioid therapy exposed to dose reduction rates of >30% per month had increased overdose risk relative to patients exposed to stable dosing. Results support the use of slow dose reductions to minimize the risk of overdose.
Background: Buprenorphine is a key medication to treat opioid use disorder (OUD). Since its approval in 2002, buprenorphine access has grown markedly, spurred by major federal and state policy changes. This study characterizes buprenorphine treatment episodes during 2007 to 2018 with respect to payer, provider specialty, and patient demographics. Methods: In this observational cohort study, IQVIA Real World pharmacy claims data were used to characterize trends in buprenorphine treatment episodes across four time periods: 2007-2009, 2010-2012, 2013-2015, and 2016-2018. Results: In total, we identified more than 4.1 million buprenorphine treatment episodes among 2 540 710 unique individuals. The number of episodes doubled from 652 994 in 2007-2009 to 1 331 980 in 2016-2018. Our findings indicate that the payer landscape changed dramatically, with the most pronounced growth observed for Medicaid (increased from 17% of episodes in 2007-2009 to 37% of episodes in 2016-2018), accompanied by relative declines for both commercial insurance (declined from 35 to 21%) and self-pay (declined from 27 to 11%). Adult primary care providers (PCPs) were the dominant prescribers throughout the study period. The number of episodes among adults older than 55 increased more than 3-fold from 2007-2009 to 2016-2018. In contrast, youth under age 18 experienced an absolute decline in buprenorphine treatment episodes. Buprenorphine episodes increased in length from 2007-2018, particularly among adults over age 45. Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate that the U.S. experienced clear growth in buprenorphine treatment—particularly for older adults and Medicaid beneficiaries—reflecting some key health policy and implementation success stories. Yet, since the prevalence of OUD and fatal overdose rate have also approximately doubled during this period, the observed growth in buprenorphine treatment did not demonstrably impact the pronounced treatment gap. To date, only a minority of individuals with OUD currently receive treatment, indicating continued need for systemic efforts to equitably improve treatment uptake.
Introduction: Reducing substance-related morbidity requires an educated and well-supported workforce. The New England Office Based Addiction Treatment Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (NE OBAT ECHO) began in 2019 to support community-based addiction care teams through virtual mentoring and case-based learning. We sought to characterize the program’s impact on the knowledge and attitudes of NE OBAT ECHO participants. Methods: We conducted an 18-month prospective evaluation of the NE OBAT ECHO. Participants registered for 1 of 2 successive ECHO clinics. Each 5-month clinic included ten 1.5-hour sessions involving brief didactic lectures and de-identified patient case presentations. Participants completed surveys at Month-0, -6, -12, and -18 to assess attitudes about working with patients who use drugs and evidence based practices (EBPs), stigma toward people who use drugs, and addiction treatment knowledge. We compared outcomes using 2 approaches: (i) between-groups, which involved comparing the first intervention group to the delayed intervention (comparison) group, and (ii) within-groups, which involved comparing outcomes at different time points for all participants. In the within-group approach, each participant acted as their own control. Results: Seventy-six health professionals participated in the NE OBAT ECHO, representing various roles in addiction care teams. Approximately half (47% [36/76]) practiced primary care, internal, or family medicine. The first intervention group reported improved job satisfaction and openness toward EBPs compared to the delayed intervention group. Within-group analyses revealed that ECHO participation was associated with increased positive perceptions of role adequacy, support, legitimacy, and satisfaction 6 months following program completion. No changes were identified in willingness to adopt EBPs or treatment knowledge. Stigma toward people who use drugs was persistent in both groups across time points. Conclusions: NE OBAT ECHO may have improved participants’ confidence and satisfaction providing addiction care. ECHO is likely an effective educational tool for expanding the capacity of the addiction workforce.
BACKGROUND:Patients receiving buprenorphine for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) experience a roughly 50% reduction in mortality risk relative to those not receiving medication. Longer periods of treatment are also associated with improved clinical outcomes. Despite this, patients often express desires to discontinue treatment and some view taper as treatment success. Little is known about the beliefs and medication perspectives of patients engaged in long-term buprenorphine treatment that may underlie motivations to discontinue.METHODS:This study was conducted at the VA Portland Health Care System (2019-2020). Qualitative interviews were conducted with participants prescribed buprenorphine for ≥2 years. Coding and analysis were guided by directed qualitative content analysis.RESULTS:Fourteen patients engaged in office-based buprenorphine treatment completed interviews. While patients expressed strong enthusiasm for buprenorphine as a medication, the majority expressed the desire to discontinue, including patients actively tapering. Motivations to discontinue fell into 4 categories. First, patients were troubled by perceived side effects of the medication, including effects on sleep, emotion, and memory. Second, patients expressed unhappiness with being "dependent" on buprenorphine, framed in opposition to personal strength/independence. Third, patients expressed stigmatized beliefs about buprenorphine, describing it as "illicit," and associated with past drug use. Finally, patients expressed fears about buprenorphine unknowns, including potential long-term health effects and interactions with medications required for surgery.CONCLUSIONS:Despite recognizing benefits, many patients engaged in long-term buprenorphine treatment express a desire to discontinue. Findings from this study may help clinicians anticipate patient concerns and can be used to inform shared decision-making conversations regarding buprenorphine treatment duration.
Low dose buprenorphine initiation (LDBI) is a dosing strategy used to transition patients from full opioid agonists to buprenorphine. The purpose of LDBI is to circumvent obstacles associated with disruption in analgesia, precipitated withdrawal, and prerequisite opioid withdrawal prior to initiating buprenorphine, as not all patients are able to tolerate physical withdrawal symptoms recommended by national guidelines. No literature exists directly comparing traditional buprenorphine initiation to LDBI. Until information on long-term outcomes is available, these dosing strategies should be reserved for patients unable to tolerate traditional buprenorphine initiation. Available published research suggests LDBI strategies will allow some patients to successfully transition to buprenorphine with minimal or no symptoms of withdrawal. Ensuring access to pharmacotherapy during hospital admission is a crucial time for potential intervention and should be considered when appropriate. This narrative review discusses the background of LDBI strategies as well as practical clinical and operational considerations for the inpatient clinician.
Stimulant use disorder (StUD) significantly contributes to substance-related morbidity and mortality in the United States. Overshadowed by the country’s focus on opioid-related overdose deaths, stimulant and stimulant/opioid overdose deaths have increased dramatically over the last decade. Many individuals who use stimulants illicitly or have StUD have multiple, intersecting stigmatized characteristics which exacerbate existing barriers and create new obstacles to attaining addiction treatment. Illicit stimulant use, StUD, and stimulant-related overdose disproportionately impact minoritized racial and gender, and sexuality diverse groups. Historically, people who use illicit stimulants and those with StUD have been highly stigmatized, criminalized, and overly ignored by health care providers, policymakers, and the public compared to people who use other drugs and alcohol. As a result, most people needing treatment for StUD do not receive it. This is partly due to the lack of evidence-based treatment for StUD, which has resulted in few programs specializing in the care of people with StUD. The lack of available treatment is compounded by high rates of StUD in marginalized groups already reluctant to engage with the health care system. As health care professionals, we can improve outcomes for people with StUD by changing how we talk about, document, and respond to illicit stimulant use, related characteristics, behaviors, and social and structural determinants of health. To do this, we must seek to understand the lived realities of people with StUD and illicit stimulant use and use this knowledge to amend existing models of care.
Background:Clinical pharmacist practitioners (CPPs) play an increasingly important role in interdisciplinary care for patients with substance use disorders (SUDs). However, CPPs' scope of practice varies substantially across clinics and settings.Objectives:We sought to describe CPP practices and activities within an interdisciplinary, team-based primary care clinic dedicated to treat Veterans with histories of substance use disorders, experience of homelessness, high medical complexity, and other vulnerabilities.Methods:We conducted a retrospective cohort study of CPP activities using Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) administrative data in 2019.Results:CPPs provided care for 228 patients, including 766 in-clinic visits, 341 telephone visits, and 626 chart reviews, with an average of 2.5 hours spent per patient per year. Patients seen by CPPs frequently experience mental health conditions and SUDs, including depression (66%), post-traumatic stress disorder (52%), opioid use disorder (OUD) (45%), and alcohol use disorder (44%). CPPs managed buprenorphine medications for OUD or chronic pain in 76 patients (33%). Most CPP interventions (3330 total) were for SUDs (33%), mental health conditions (24%), and pain management (24%), with SUD interventions including medication initiation, dose changes, discontinuations and monitoring. As part of opioid risk mitigation efforts, CPPs queried the state's prescription drug monitoring program 769 times and ordered 59 naloxone kits and 661 lab panels for empaneled patients.Conclusion:CPPs managed a high volume of vulnerable patients and provided complex care within an interdisciplinary primary care team. Similar CPP roles could be implemented in other primary care settings to increase access to SUD treatment.
Background: While substance use is known to influence cardiovascular health, most prior studies only consider one substance at a time. We examined associations between the concurrent use of multiple substances and left ventricular mass index (LVMI) in unhoused and unstably housed women. Methods: Between 2016 and 2019, we conducted a cohort study of unstably housed women in which measurements included an interview, serum/urine collection, vital sign assessment, and a single transthoracic echocardiogram at baseline. We evaluated independent associations between 39 separate substances confirmed through toxicology and echocardiography-confirmed LVMI. Results: The study included 194 participants with a median age of 53.5 years and a high proportion of women of color (72.6%). Toxicology-confirmed substance use included: 69.1% nicotine, 56.2% cocaine, 28.9% methamphetamines, 28.9% alcohol, 23.2% opioid analgesics, and 9.8% opioids with catecholaminergic effects. In adjusted analysis, cocaine was independently associated with higher LVMI (Adjusted linear effect: 18%; 95% CI 9.9, 26.6). Associations with other substances did not reach levels of significance and did not significantly interact with cocaine. Conclusion: In a population of vulnerable women where the use of multiple substances is common, cocaine stands out as having particularly detrimental influences on cardiac structure. Blood pressure did not attenuate the association appreciably, suggesting direct effects of cocaine on LVMI. Routinely evaluating stimulant use as a chronic risk factor during risk assessment and preventive clinical care planning may reduce end organ damage, particularly in highly vulnerable women.
Background: Homelessness is an important social determinant of health (SDOH), impacting health outcomes for many medical conditions. Although homelessness is common among people with opioid use disorder (OUD), few studies systematically evaluate homelessness and other SDOH among people enrolled in standard of care treatment for OUD, medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD), or examine whether homelessness affects treatment engagement. Methods: Using data from the 2016 to 2018 U.S. Treatment Episode Dataset Discharges (TEDS-D), patient demographic, social, and clinical characteristics were compared between episodes of outpatient MOUD where homelessness was reported at treatment enrollment versus independent housing using pairwise tests adjusted for multiple testing. A logistic regression model examined the relationship between homelessness and treatment length and treatment completion while accounting for covariates. Results: There were 188 238 eligible treatment episodes. Homelessness was reported in 17 158 episodes (8.7%). In pairwise analysis, episodes involving homelessness were significantly different from those involving independent living on most demographic, social, and clinical characteristics, with significantly greater social vulnerability in most SDOH variables ( P’s < .05). Homelessness was significantly and negatively associated with treatment completion (coefficient = −0.0853, P < 0.001, 95% CI = [−0.114, −0.056], OR = 0.918) and remaining in treatment for greater than 180 days (coefficient = −0.3435, P < 0.001, 95% CI = [−0.371, −0.316], OR = 0.709) after accounting for covariates. Conclusions: Patients reporting homelessness at treatment entry in outpatient MOUD in the U.S. represent a clinically distinct and socially vulnerable population from those not reporting homelessness. Homelessness independently predicts poorer engagement in MOUD confirming that homelessness may be an independent predictor for MOUD treatment discontinuation nationally.
BACKGROUND:Tobacco-related disparities are a leading contributor to health inequities among marginalized communities. Lack of support from health professionals is one of the most cited barriers to tobacco cessation reported by these communities. Improving the proficiencies with which health professionals incorporate social and cultural influences into therapeutic interactions has the potential to address this critical barrier. In general, training to improve these proficiencies has shown promise, but the specific proficiencies required for treating tobacco use among marginalized communities are unknown. This project aimed to develop a competency-based curriculum to improve these proficiencies among health professionals with experience and training in the evidence-based treatment of tobacco use, and then pilot test the content delivered via an expert review of a virtual, self-paced workshop.METHODS:We used the Delphi Technique to systematically identify the specific competencies and corresponding knowledge and skill sets required to achieve these proficiencies. Educational content was developed to teach these competencies in a virtual workshop. The workshop was evaluated by 11 experts in the field by examining pre- and post-training changes in perceived knowledge, skill, and confidence levels and other quantitative and qualitative feedback. Repeated measures analysis of variance and paired sample t-tests were used to examine pre-post training differences.RESULTS:Six competencies and corresponding skill sets were identified. After exposure to the virtual workshop, the experts reported significant increases in the overall proficiency for each competency as well as increases in nearly all levels of knowledge, skill, and confidence within the competency skill sets. Qualitative and quantitative findings indicate that content was relevant to practice.CONCLUSIONS:These findings provide preliminary support for 6 competencies and skills sets needed to improve therapeutic interpersonal interactions that recognize the importance of social and cultural influences in the treatment of tobacco use.
While there is limited research in the field regarding the various dimensions of co-use of alcohol and opioid medication, particularly related to co-use and levels of severity, our research has shown 20% to 30% of community pharmacy patients receiving opioid pain medications are engaged in co-use. Co-use of alcohol and opioid medications is a significant risk factor for opioid-related overdose. Community pharmacy is a valuable yet underutilized resource and setting for addressing the US opioid epidemic, with an untapped potential for identification of and intervention for risks associated with co-use of alcohol and opioids. This commentary describing the “Co-use of Opioid Medications and Alcohol Prevention Study (COAPS)” offers an innovative and promising approach to mitigating serious risks associated with co-use of alcohol (risk and non-risk use) and opioids in community pharmacy. COAPS aim 1involves adapting an existing opioid misuse intervention to target co-use of alcohol and opioid mediations. COAPS aim 2 involves testing the adapted intervention within a small-scale pilot randomized controlled trial (N = 40) to examine feasibility, acceptability and preliminary efficacy of the intervention versus standard care. COAPS aim 3 involves conducting key informant interviews related to future implementation of larger scale studies or service delivery in community pharmacy settings.
The 2023 Consolidated Appropriations Act repealed the special waiver for prescribing buprenorphine to patients with opioid use disorder, a bipartisan goal long sought by advocates. The change has symbolic importance in recognizing that buprenorphine is a mainstream medical treatment. We argue that the maximum potential of the law can be achieved by addressing three bottlenecks. First, it is important that new training requirements for all controlled substances prescribers be grounded in scientific principles of addiction treatment and are robustly evaluated to ensure they meet quality standards. Second, even with the elimination of the waiver, there are potential constraints from state law such as state-specific requirements that practitioners require counseling or obtain a separate credential, and many states also have limiting scope of practice regulations. We recommend that these requirements are eased wherever possible to improve treatment access. Third, it is critical to build onramps to treatment in settings such as primary care, hospitals, and correctional facilities. While we anticipate that buprenorphine prescribing will primarily occur in high-volume practices, there is the potential to activate a broader workforce to serve as entry points to care. We conclude that the stage is set for significant increases in lifesaving treatment but the difficult task ahead is ensuring that the resources and training are available to build strong capacity.
The mission of AMERSA, Inc., the Association of Multidisciplinary Education and Research in substance use and Addiction, is to improve the health and well-being through leadership and advocacy in substance use education, research, clinical care, and policy.1,2 AMERSA has held an annual meeting since its origination over 45 years ago in 1976. In June of 2021, AMERSA’s Board of Directors approved a strategic plan to set a course and guide leadership of the organization through 2024. AMERSA’s overarching goals are to: (1) promote and advance multidisciplinary engagement, education, mentorship, and leadership among those who teach, study, advocate, and provide clinical care in the field of substance use and addiction; (2) champion antiracism, equity, and inclusion for persons who are disproportionately affected by unhealthy substance use; and (3) enhance the organizational infrastructure to support AMERSA’s mission. With the mission and goals in mind, AMERSA members met from November 9 to 12, 2022 in Boston, MA for an inspiring 46th Annual Meeting that highlighted the latest evidence focused on improving the lives of individuals and communities affected by substance use through education, clinical care, research, and policy advances. This was the first in-person meeting since 2019. The theme of the 2022 AMERSA annual conference was Examining Systems, Substance Use and Disenfranchisement. The focus was particularly timely given The White House release of the 2022 National Drug Control Strategy3 in which President Biden specifically identified “a new era of drug policy centered on individuals and communities. . . .[which] lays out, there is so much more we can do to expand access to evidence-based prevention, harm reduction, treatment, and recovery services. . . .” (p. 5). The National Drug Control Strategy specifically states, “We are changing how we help people when it comes to drug use, by meeting them where they are with high-impact harm reduction services and removing barriers to effective treatment for addiction, while addressing the underlying factors that lead to substance use disorder head on.” For the first time in history, harm reduction was a key priority for the Office of National Drug Control Policy. This shift supports individualized care that truly meets people where they are, enabling them to access services across the spectrum of substance use that enhance health and safety. 1169569 SAJXXX10.1177/08897077231169569Substance AbuseBagley et al. research-article2023
