Search

Abstract Background Experts recommend that treatment for substance use disorder (SUD) be integrated into primary care. The Digital Therapeutics for Opioids and Other SUD (DIGITS) Trial tests strategies for implementing reSET® and reSET-O®, which are prescription digital therapeutics for SUD and opioid use disorder, respectively, that include the community reinforcement approach, contingency management, and fluency training to reinforce concept mastery. This purpose of this trial is to test whether two implementation strategies improve implementation success (Aim 1) and achieve better population-level cost effectiveness (Aim 2) over a standard implementation approach. Methods/Design The DIGITS Trial is a hybrid type III cluster-randomized trial. It examines outcomes of implementation strategies, rather than studying clinical outcomes of a digital therapeutic. It includes 22 primary care clinics from a healthcare system in Washington State and patients with unhealthy substance use who visit clinics during an active implementation period (up to one year). Primary care clinics implemented reSET and reSET-O using a multifaceted implementation strategy previously used by clinical leaders to roll-out smartphone apps (“standard implementation” including discrete strategies such as clinician training, electronic health record tools). Clinics were randomized as 21 sites in a 2x2 factorial design to receive up to two added implementation strategies: (1) practice facilitation, and/or (2) health coaching. Outcome data are derived from electronic health records and logs of digital therapeutic usage. Aim 1’s primary outcomes include reach of the digital therapeutics to patients and fidelity of patients’ use of the digital therapeutics to clinical recommendations. Substance use and engagement in SUD care are additional outcomes. In Aim 2, population-level cost effectiveness analysis will inform the economic benefit of the implementation strategies compared to standard implementation. Implementation is monitored using formative evaluation, and sustainment will be studied for up to one year using qualitative and quantitative research methods. Discussion The DIGITS Trial uses an experimental design to test whether implementation strategies increase and improve the delivery of digital therapeutics for SUDs when embedded in a large healthcare system. It will provide data on the potential benefits and cost-effectiveness of alternative implementation strategies. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05160233 (Submitted 12/3/2021). https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05160233

IntroductionStudies of hypertension in pregnancy that use electronic health care data generally identify hypertension using hospital diagnosis codes alone. We sought to compare results from this approach to an approach that included diagnosis codes, antihypertensive medications and blood pressure (BP) values.Materials and methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of 1,45,739 pregnancies from 2009 to 2014 within an integrated healthcare system. Hypertensive pregnancies were identified using the “BP-Inclusive Definition” if at least one of three criteria were met: (1) two elevated outpatient BPs, (2) antihypertensive medication fill plus an outpatient hypertension diagnosis, or (3) hospital discharge diagnosis for preeclampsia or eclampsia. The “Traditional Definition” considered only delivery hospitalization discharge diagnoses. Outcome event analyses compared rates of preterm delivery and small for gestational age (SGA) between the two definitions.ResultsThe BP-Inclusive Definition identified 14,225 (9.8%) hypertensive pregnancies while the Traditional Definition identified 13,637 (9.4%); 10,809 women met both definitions. Preterm delivery occurred in 20.9% of BP-Inclusive Definition pregnancies, 21.8% of Traditional Definition pregnancies and 6.6% of non-hypertensive pregnancies; for SGA the numbers were 15.6, 16.3, and 8.6%, respectively (p < 0.001 for all events compared to non-hypertensive pregnancies). Analyses in women meeting only one hypertension definition (21–24% of positive cases) found much lower rates of both preterm delivery and SGA.ConclusionPrevalence of hypertension in pregnancy was similar between the two study definitions. However, a substantial number of women met only one of the study definitions. Women who met only one of the hypertension definitions had much lower rates of adverse neonatal events than women meeting both definitions.

ObjectiveTo compare maternal and infant outcomes with different antihypertensive medications in pregnancy.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingKaiser Permanente, a large healthcare system in the United States.PopulationWomen aged 15-49 years with a singleton birth from 2005-2014 treated for hypertension.MethodsWe identified medication exposure from automated pharmacy data based on the earliest dispensing after the first prenatal visit. Using logistic regression, we calculated weighted outcome prevalences, adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% confidence intervals, with inverse probability of treatment weighting to address confounding.Main outcome measuresSmall for gestational age, preterm delivery, neonatal and maternal intensive care unit (ICU) admission, preeclampsia, and stillbirth or termination at > 20 weeks.ResultsAmong 6346 deliveries, 87% with chronic hypertension, the risk of the infant being small for gestational age (birthweight < 10th percentile) was lower with methyldopa than labetalol (prevalence 13.6% vs. 16.6%; aOR 0.77, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.92). For birthweight < 3rd percentile the aOR was 0.57 (0.39 to 0.80). Compared with labetalol (26.0%), risk of preterm delivery was similar for methyldopa (26.5%; aOR 1.10 [0.95 to 1.27]) and slightly higher for nifedipine (28.5%; aOR 1.25 [1.06 to 1.46]) and other β-blockers (31.2%; aOR 1.58 [1.07 to 2.23]). Neonatal ICU admission was more common with nifedipine than labetalol (25.9% vs. 23.3%, aOR 1.21 [1.02 to 1.43]) but not elevated with methyldopa. Risks of other outcomes did not differ by medication.ConclusionsRisk of most outcomes was similar comparing labetalol, methyldopa and nifedipine. Risk of the infant being small for gestational age was substantially lower for methyldopa, suggesting this medication may warrant further consideration.