Search

Background: Increasing alcohol use is associated with increased risk of mortality among patients living with HIV (PLWH). This association varies by race/ethnicity among general outpatients, but racial/ethnic variation has not been investigated among PLWH, among whom racial/ethnic minorities are disproportionately represented. Methods: VA electronic health record data from the Veterans Aging Cohort Study (2008-2012) were used to describe and compare mortality rates across race/ethnicity and levels of alcohol use defined by the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C) questionnaire. Within each racial/ethnic group, Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for age, disease severity, and comorbidities, compared mortality risk for moderate-risk (AUDITC = 4-7) and high-risk (AUDIT-C ≥ 8) relative to lower-risk (AUDIT-C = 1-3) alcohol use. Results: Mean follow-up time among black (n = 8518), Hispanic (n = 1353), and white (n = 7368) male PLWH with documented AUDIT-C screening (n = 17,239) was 4.3 years. Black PLWH had the highest mortality rate among patients reporting lower-risk alcohol use (2.9/100 person-years) relative to Hispanic and white PLWH (1.8 and 2.3, respectively) (p value for overall comparison = 0.011). Mortality risk was increased for patients reporting high-risk relative to lower-risk alcohol use in all racial/ethnic groups [black adjusted hazard ratio (AHR) = 1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12-1.66; Hispanic AHR = 2.18, 95% CI 1.30-3.64; and white AHR = 2.04, 95% CI 1.61-2.58]. For only white PLWH, mortality risk was increased for patients reporting moderate-relative to lower-risk alcohol use (black AHR = 1.09, 95% CI 0.93-1.27; Hispanic AHR = 1.36, 95% CI 0.89-2.09; white AHR = 1.51, 95% CI 1.28-1.77). Conclusion: Among all PLWH, mortality risk was increased among patients reporting high-risk alcohol use across all racial/ethnic groups, but mortality risk was only increased among patients reporting moderate-risk relative to lower-risk alcohol use among white PLWH, and black patients appeared to have higher mortality risk relative to white patients at lower-risk levels of alcohol use. Findings of the present study further underscore the need to address unhealthy alcohol use among PLWH, and future research is needed to understand mechanisms underlying observed differences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Various hospital accreditation and quality assurance entities in the United States have approved and endorsed performance measures promoting alcohol brief intervention (BI) for hospitalized individuals who screen positive for unhealthy alcohol use, the spectrum of use ranging from hazardous use to alcohol use disorders. These performance measures have been controversial due to the limited and equivocal evidence for the efficacy of BI among hospitalized individuals. The few BI trials conducted with hospital inpatients vary widely in methodological quality. While the majority of these studies indicate limited to no effects of BI in this population, none have been designed to account for the most pervasive methodological issue in BI studies presumed to drive study findings towards the null: assessment reactivity (AR). Methods/Design: This is a three-arm, single-site, randomized controlled trial of BI for hospitalized patients at a large academic medical center affiliated with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs who use alcohol at hazardous levels but do not have an alcohol use disorder. Participants are randomized to one of three study conditions. Study Arm 1 receives a three-part alcohol BI. Study Arm 2 receives attention control. To account for potential AR, Study Arm 3 receives AC with limited assessment. Primary outcomes will include the number of standard drinks/week and binge drinking episodes reported in the 30-day period prior to a final measurement visit obtained 6 months after hospital discharge. Additional outcomes will include readiness to change drinking behavior and number of adverse consequences of alcohol use. To assess differences in primary outcomes across the three arms, we will use mixed-effects regression models that account for a patient's repeated measures over the timepoints and clustering within medical units. Intervention implementation will be assessed by: a) review of intervention audio recordings to characterize barriers to intervention fidelity; and b) feasibility of participant recruitment, enrollment, and follow-up. Discussion: The results of this methodologically rigorous trial will provide greater justification for or against the use of BI performance measures in the inpatient setting and inform organizational responses to BI-related hospital accreditation and performance measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Increasingly, patients with unhealthy alcohol and other drug use are being seen in primary care and other non-specialty addiction settings. Primary care providers are well positioned to screen, assess, and treat patients with alcohol and other drug use because this use, and substance use disorders, may contribute to a host of medical and mental health harms. We sought to identify and examine important recent advances in addiction medicine in the medical literature that have implications for the care of patients in primary care or other generalist settings. To accomplish this aim, we selected articles in the field of addiction medicine, critically appraised and summarized the manuscripts, and highlighted their implications for generalist practice. During an initial review, we identified articles through an electronic Medline search (limited to human studies and in English) using search terms for alcohol and other drugs of abuse published from January 2010 to January 2012. After this initial review, we searched for other literature in web-based or journal resources for potential articles of interest. From the list of articles identified in these initial reviews, each of the six authors independently selected articles for more intensive review and identified the ones they found to have a potential impact on generalist practice. The identified articles were then ranked by the number of authors who selected each article. Through a consensus process over 4 meetings, the authors reached agreement on the articles with implications for practice for generalist clinicians that warranted inclusion for discussion. The authors then grouped the articles into five categories: 1) screening and brief interventions in outpatient settings, 2) identification and management of substance use among inpatients, 3) medical complications of substance use, 4) use of pharmacotherapy for addiction treatment in primary care and its complications, and 5) integration of addiction treatment and medical care. The authors discuss each selected articles' merits, limitations, conclusions, and implication to advancing addiction screening, assessment, and treatment of addiction in generalist physician practice environments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: As a quality improvement metric, the US Veterans Health Administration (VHA) monitors the proportion of patients with alcohol use disorders (AUD) who receive FDA approved medications for alcohol dependence (naltrexone, acamprosate, and disulfiram). Evidence supporting the off-label use of the antiepileptic medication topiramate to treat alcohol dependence may be as strong as these approved medications. However, little is known about the extent to which topiramate is used in clinical practice. The goal of this study was to describe and examine the overall use, facility-level variation in use, and patient -level predictors of topiramate prescription for patients with AUD in the VHA. Methods: Using national VHA administrative data in a retrospective cohort study, we examined time trends in topiramate use from fiscal years (FY) 2009-2012, and predictors of topiramate prescription in 375,777 patients identified with AUD (ICD-9-CM codes 303.9x or 305.0x) treated in 141 VHA facilities in FY 2011. Results: Among VHA patients with AUD, rates of topiramate prescription have increased from 0.99% in FY 2009 to 1.95% in FY 2012, although substantial variation across facilities exists. Predictors of topiramate prescription were female sex, young age, alcohol dependence diagnoses, engagement in both mental health and addiction specialty care, and psychiatric comorbidity. Conclusions: Veterans Health Administration facilities are monitored regarding the extent to which patients with AUD are receiving FDA-approved pharmacotherapy. Not including topiramate in the metric, which is prescribed more often than acamprosate and disulfiram combined, may underestimate the extent to which VHA patients at specific facilities and overall are receiving pharmacotherapy for AUD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article presents an update on addiction-related medical literature for the calendar years 2010 and 2011, focusing on studies that have implications for generalist practice. We present articles pertaining to medical comorbidities and complications, prescription drug misuse among patients with chronic pain, screening and brief interventions (SBIs), and pharmacotherapy for addiction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Unhealthy alcohol use includes the spectrum of alcohol consumption from risky drinking to alcohol use disorders. Routine alcohol screening, brief intervention (BI) and referral to treatment (RT) are commonly endorsed for improving the identification and management of unhealthy alcohol use in outpatient settings. However, factors which might impact screening, BI, and RT implementation in inpatient settings, particularly if delivered by nurses, are unknown, and must be identified to effectively plan randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of nurse-delivered BI. The purpose of this study was to identify the potential barriers and facilitators associated with nurse-delivered alcohol screening, BI and RT for hospitalized patients. Methods: We conducted audio-recorded focus groups with nurses from three medical-surgical units at a large urban Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Transcripts were analyzed using modified grounded theory techniques to identify key themes regarding anticipated barriers and facilitators to nurse-delivered screening, BI and RT in the inpatient setting. Results: A total of 33 medical-surgical nurses (97% female, 83% white) participated in one of seven focus groups. Nurses consistently anticipated the following barriers to nurse-delivered screening, BI, and RT for hospitalized patients: (1) lack of alcohol-related knowledge and skills; (2) limited interdisciplinary collaboration and communication around alcohol-related care; (3) inadequate alcohol assessment protocols and poor integration with the electronic medical record; (4) concerns about negative patient reaction and limited patient motivation to address alcohol use; (5) questionable compatibility of screening, BI and RT with the acute care paradigm and nursing role; and (6) logistical issues (e.g., lack of time/privacy). Suggested facilitators of nurse-delivered screening, BI, and RT focused on provider- and system-level factors related to: (1) improved provider knowledge, skills, communication, and collaboration; (2) expanded processes of care and nursing roles; and (3) enhanced electronic medical record features. Conclusions: RCTs of nurse-delivered alcohol BI for hospitalized patients should include consideration of the following elements: comprehensive provider education on alcohol screening, BI and RT; record-keeping systems which efficiently document and plan alcohol-related care; a hybrid model of implementation featuring active roles for interdisciplinary generalists and specialists; and ongoing partnerships to facilitate generation of additional evidence for BI efficacy in hospitalized patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Mitigating the risks of adverse outcomes from opioids is critical. Thus, the Veterans Affairs (VA) Healthcare System developed the Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Management (STORM), a dashboard to assist clinicians with opioid risk evaluation and mitigation. Updated daily, STORM calculates a "risk score" of adverse outcomes (e.g., suicide-related events, overdoses, overdose death) from variables in the VA medical record for all patients with an opioid prescription and displays this information along with documentation of recommended risk mitigation strategies and non-opioid pain treatments. In March 2018, the VA issued a policy notice requiring VA Medical Centers (VAMCs) to complete case reviews for patients whom STORM identifies as very high-risk (i.e., top 1% of STORM risk scores). Half of VAMCs were randomly assigned notices that also stated that additional support and oversight would be required for VAMCs that failed to meet an established percentage of case reviews. Using a stepped-wedge cluster randomized design, VAMCs will be further randomized to conduct case reviews for an expanded pool of patients (top 5% of STORM risk scores vs. 1%) starting either 9 or 15 months after the notice was released, creating four natural arms. VA commissioned an evaluation to understand the implementation strategies and factors associated with case review completion rates, whose protocol is described in this report.Methods: This mixed-method study will include an online survey of all VAMCs to identify implementation strategies and interviews at a subset of facilities to identify implementation barriers and facilitators. The survey is based on the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project, which engaged experts to create consensus on 73 implementation strategies. We will use regression models to compare the number and types of implementation strategies across arms and their association with case review completion rates. Using questions from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, we will interview stakeholders at 40 VAMCs with the highest and lowest adherence to opioid therapy guidelines.Discussion: By identifying which implementation strategies, barriers, and facilitators influence case reviews to reduce opioid-related adverse outcomes, this unique implementation evaluation will enable the VA to improve the design of future opioid safety initiatives.Trial Registration: This project is registered at the ISRCTN Registry with number ISRCTN16012111 . The trial was first registered on 5/3/2017. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Problem-solving courts have the potential to help reduce harms associated with the opioid crisis. However, problem-solving courts vary in their policies toward medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), with some courts discouraging or even prohibiting MOUD use. State laws may influence court policies regarding MOUD; thus, we aimed to identify and describe state laws related to MOUD in problem-solving courts across the US from 2005 to 2019., Methods: We searched Westlaw legal software for regulations and statutes (collectively referred to as "state laws") in all US states and D.C. from 2005 to 2019 and included laws related to both MOUD and problem-solving courts in our analytic sample. We conducted a modified iterative categorization process to identify and analyze categories of laws related to MOUD access in problem-solving courts., Results: Since 2005, nine states had laws regarding MOUD in problem-solving courts. We identified two overarching categories of state laws: 1) laws that prohibit MOUD bans, and 2) laws potentially facilitating access to MOUD. Seven states had laws that prohibit MOUD bans, such as laws prohibiting exclusion of participants from programs due to MOUD use or limiting the type of MOUD, dose or treatment duration. Four states had laws that could facilitate access to MOUD, such as requiring courts to make MOUD available to participants., Discussion: Relatively few states have laws facilitating MOUD access and/or preventing MOUD bans in problem-solving courts. To help facilitate MOUD access for court participants across the US, model state legislation should be created. Additionally, future research should explore potential effects of state laws on MOUD access and health outcomes for court participants., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Unhealthy alcohol use includes the spectrum of alcohol consumption from risky drinking to alcohol use disorders. Routine alcohol screening, brief intervention (BI) and referral to treatment (RT) are commonly endorsed for improving the identification and management of unhealthy alcohol use in outpatient settings. However, factors which might impact screening, BI, and RT implementation in inpatient settings, particularly if delivered by nurses, are unknown, and must be identified to effectively plan randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of nurse-delivered BI. The purpose of this study was to identify the potential barriers and facilitators associated with nurse-delivered alcohol screening, BI and RT for hospitalized patients., Methods: We conducted audio-recorded focus groups with nurses from three medical-surgical units at a large urban Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Transcripts were analyzed using modified grounded theory techniques to identify key themes regarding anticipated barriers and facilitators to nurse-delivered screening, BI and RT in the inpatient setting., Results: A total of 33 medical-surgical nurses (97% female, 83% white) participated in one of seven focus groups. Nurses consistently anticipated the following barriers to nurse-delivered screening, BI, and RT for hospitalized patients: (1) lack of alcohol-related knowledge and skills; (2) limited interdisciplinary collaboration and communication around alcohol-related care; (3) inadequate alcohol assessment protocols and poor integration with the electronic medical record; (4) concerns about negative patient reaction and limited patient motivation to address alcohol use; (5) questionable compatibility of screening, BI and RT with the acute care paradigm and nursing role; and (6) logistical issues (e.g., lack of time/privacy). Suggested facilitators of nurse-delivered screening, BI, and RT focused on provider- and system-level factors related to: (1) improved provider knowledge, skills, communication, and collaboration; (2) expanded processes of care and nursing roles; and (3) enhanced electronic medical record features., Conclusions: RCTs of nurse-delivered alcohol BI for hospitalized patients should include consideration of the following elements: comprehensive provider education on alcohol screening, BI and RT; record-keeping systems which efficiently document and plan alcohol-related care; a hybrid model of implementation featuring active roles for interdisciplinary generalists and specialists; and ongoing partnerships to facilitate generation of additional evidence for BI efficacy in hospitalized patients.