Managed alcohol programs aim to reduce health and social harms associated with severe alcohol use disorder. Here, we describe a young man with severe alcohol use disorder enrolled in a managed alcohol program, who was admitted to hospital with acute liver injury. Fearing that alcohol was contributing, the inpatient care team discontinued the managed alcohol dose in hospital. He was ultimately diagnosed with cephalexin-induced liver injury. After consideration of risks, benefits, and alternative options, the patient and care team jointly decided to restart managed alcohol after hospital discharge. With this case, we describe managed alcohol programs and summarize the emerging evidence-base, including eligibility criteria and outcome measures; we explore clinical and ethical dilemmas in caring for patients with liver disease within managed alcohol programs; and we emphasize principles of harm reduction and patient-centered care when establishing treatment plans for patients with severe alcohol use disorder and unstable housing.

ABSTRACT Background During a COVID-19 outbreak in the congregate shelter system in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, a multidisciplinary health care team provided an emergency “safe supply” of pharmaceutical-grade medications and beverage-grade alcohol to facilitate isolation in COVID-19 hotel shelters for residents who are dependent on these substances. We aimed to evaluate (a) substances and dosages provided, and (b) effectiveness and safety of the program. Methods We retrospectively reviewed medical records of all COVID-19 isolation hotel shelter residents during May 2021. We extracted data on medication and alcohol dosages provided each day. The primary outcome was residents prematurely leaving isolation against public health orders. Adverse events included (a) overdose; (b) intoxication; and (c) diversion, selling, or sharing of medications or alcohol. Results Over 25 days, 77 isolation hotel residents were assessed (mean age 42 ± 14 years; 24% women). Sixty-two (81%) residents were provided medications, alcohol, or cigarettes. Seventeen residents (22%) received opioid agonist treatment medications (methadone, buprenorphine, or slow-release oral morphine) and 27 (35%) received hydromorphone tablets. Thirty-one (40%) residents received stimulant tablets with methylphenidate (27; 35%), dextroamphetamine (8; 10%), or lisdexamfetamine (2; 3%). Six residents (8%) received benzodiazepines. Forty-two (55%) residents received alcohol, including 41 (53%) with strong beer, three (3%) with wine, and one (1%) with hard liquor. Over 14 days in isolation, mean daily dosages increased of hydromorphone (45 ± 32 to 57 ± 42mg), methylphenidate (51 ± 28 to 77 ± 37mg), dextroamphetamine (33 ± 16 to 46 ± 13mg), and alcohol (12.3 ± 7.6 to 13.0 ± 6.9 standard drinks). Six residents (8%) left isolation prematurely, but four of those residents returned. Over 1,059 person-days in isolation, there were zero overdoses. Documented concerns regarding intoxication occurred six times (0.005 events/person-day) and medication diversion or sharing three times (0.003 events/person-day). Conclusions An emergency safe supply and managed alcohol program, paired with housing, was associated with low rates of adverse events and high rates of successful completion of the 14-day isolation period in COVID-19 isolation hotel shelters. This supports the effectiveness and safety of emergency safe supply prescribing and managed alcohol in this setting.

Background: To evaluate a novel, unofficial, trainee-organized, hospital addiction medicine consultation service (AMCS), we aimed to assess whether it was (1) acceptable to hospital providers and patients, (2) feasible to organize and deliver, and (3) impacted patient care. Methods: We performed a retrospective descriptive study of all AMCS consultations over the first 16 months. We determined acceptability via the number of referrals received from admitting services, and the proportion of referred patients who consented to consultation. We evaluated feasibility via continuation/growth of the service over time, and the proportion of referrals successfully completed before hospital discharge. As most referrals related to opioid use disorder, we determined impact through the proportion of eligible patients offered and initiated on opioid agonist therapy (OAT) in hospital, and the proportion of patients who filled their outpatient prescription or attended their first visit with their outpatient OAT prescriber. Results: The unofficial AMCS grew to involve six hospital-based residents and five supervising community-based addiction physicians. The service received 59 referrals, primarily related to injection opioid use, for 50 unique patients from 12 different admitting services. 90% of patients were seen before discharge, and 98% agreed to addiction medicine consultation. Among 34 patients with active moderate-severe opioid use disorder who were not already on OAT, 82% initiated OAT in hospital and 89% of these patients continued after discharge. Conclusions: Established in response to identified gaps in patient care and learning opportunities, a novel, unofficial, trainee-organized AMCS was acceptable, feasible, and positively impacted patient care over the first 16 months. This trainee-organized, unofficial AMCS could be used as a model for other hospitals that do not yet have an official AMCS.