Search

Background Among the nearly 750,000 inmates in U.S. jails, 12% report using opioids regularly, 8% report use in the month prior to their offense, and 4% report use at the time of their offense. Although ample evidence exists that medications effectively treat Opiate Use Disorder (OUD) in the community, strong evidence is lacking in jail settings. The general lack of medications for OUD in jail settings may place persons suffering from OUD at high risk for relapse to drug use and overdose following release from jail. Methods The three study sites in this collaborative are pooling data for secondary analyses from three open-label randomized effectiveness trials comparing: (1) the initiation of extended-release naltrexone [XR-NTX] in Sites 1 and 2 and interim methadone in Site 3 with enhanced treatment-as usual (ETAU); (2) the additional benefit of patient navigation plus medications at Sites 2 and 3 vs. medication alone vs. ETAU. Participants are adults with OUD incarcerated in jail and transitioning to the community. Results We describe the rationale, specific aims, and designs of three separate studies harmonized to enhance their scientific yield to investigate how to best prevent jail inmates from relapsing to opioid use and associated problems as they transition back to the community. Conclusions Conducting drug abuse research during incarceration is challenging and study designs with data harmonization across different sites can increase the potential value of research to develop effective treatments for individuals in jail with OUD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), and Veterans Health Administration (VHA) share an interest in promoting high quality, rigorous health services research to improve the availability and utilization of evidence-based treatment for substance use disorders (SUD). Recent and continuing changes in the healthcare policy and funding environments prioritize the integration of evidence-based substance abuse treatments into primary care and general medical settings. This area is a prime candidate for implementation research. Recent and ongoing implementation projects funded by these agencies are reviewed. Research in five areas is highlighted: screening and brief intervention for risky drinking; screening and brief intervention for tobacco use; uptake of FDA-approved addiction pharmacotherapies; safe opioid prescribing; and disease management. Gaps in the portfolios, and priorities for future research, are described. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: This special issue consolidates some recent research findings and scientific thought on co-occurring disorders from both the substance abuse and mental health fields. This summary article recaps and synthesizes the main findings and themes, then considers additional issues in the field today to arrive at an agenda for future co-occurring disorders research. Plans must: (1) encourage and assist further development of treatment programs that respond to an array of types and severities of co-occurring disorders while taking into account the limited resources typically available; (2) continue the development and testing of continuing care models by exploring strategies that will sustain the recovery of treated individuals who remain vulnerable to relapse; and (3) contribute to our understanding of the mechanisms and processes that enable new interventions and practices to be adopted, implemented, and sustained. “Co-occurring disorders” is a relatively new area of research; this special issue illustrates the productivity of work to date and indicates the potential for advances to come. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Social determinants of health (SDoH), such as socioeconomic status, education level, and food insecurity, are believed to influence the opioid crisis. While global SDoH indices such as the CDC's Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) and Area Deprivation Index (ADI) combine the explanatory power of multiple social factors for understanding health outcomes, they may be less applicable to the specific challenges of opioid misuse and associated outcomes. This study develops a novel index tailored to opioid misuse outcomes, tests the efficacy of this index in predicting drug overdose deaths across contexts, and compares the explanatory power of this index to other SDoH indices. Focusing on four HEALing Communities Study (HCS) states (Kentucky, Massachusetts, New York and Ohio; encompassing 4269 ZIP codes), we identified multilevel SDoH potentially associated with opioid misuse and aggregated publicly available data for each measure. We then leveraged a random forest model to develop a composite measure that predicts age-adjusted drug overdose mortality rates based on SDoH. We used this composite measure to understand HCS and non-HCS communities in terms of overdose risk across areas of varying racial composition. Finally, we compared variance in drug overdose deaths explained by this index to variance explained by the SVI and ADI. Our composite measure included 28 SDoH measures and explained approximately 89 % percent of variance in age-adjusted drug overdose mortality across HCS states. Health care measures, including emergency department visits and primary care provider availability, were top predictors within the index. Index accuracy was robust within and outside of HCS communities and states. This measure identified high levels of overdose mortality risk in segregated communities. Existing SDoH indices fail to explain much variation in area-level overdose mortality rates. Having tailored composite indices can help us to identify places in which residents are at highest risk based on their composite contexts. A comprehensive index can also help to develop effective community interventions for programs such as HCS by considering the context in which people live. • Drug overdose mortality rates vary widely and are correlated with differences in social determinants of health (SDoH). • A random forest model with 28 SDoH measures explains 70 to 94% of variance in overdose mortality across HCS states. • Efforts to target areas for opioid misuse may consider health systems (ED visits, PCPs, insurance) as well as food and housing. • Our random forest SDoH index explains more variance in overdose mortality than other SDoH indices or a similar OLS model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: NIDA''s Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies (CJ-DATS) is the primary vehicle for testing emerging treatment interventions and fostering adoption of evidence-based therapies in criminal justice settings. The papers in this issue of Drug and Alcohol Dependence use data from the CJ-DATS National Criminal Justice Treatment Practice Survey to explore the influence of organizational and system variables on access to addiction treatment and the types of services available within correctional settings. This essay provides context for the papers in this issue of Drug and Alcohol Dependence. Systems and organizational interventions that improve the delivery and quality of drug abuse treatment services are described and the potential to apply systems change thinking to addiction treatment services available in the criminal justice system is discussed. Each paper is described briefly. CJ-DATS is evolving to support research at the organizational and systems level that facilitates the implementation and sustainability of research-supported treatments and business practices in criminal justice settings. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: The development and approval of an efficacious pharmacotherapy for stimulant use disorders has been limited by the lack of a meaningful indicator of treatment success, other than sustained abstinence.Methods: In March, 2015, a meeting sponsored by Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) was convened to discuss the current state of the evidence regarding meaningful outcome measures in clinical trials for stimulant use disorders. Attendees included members of academia, funding and regulatory agencies, pharmaceutical companies, and healthcare organizations. The goal was to establish a research agenda for the development of a meaningful outcome measure that may be used as an endpoint in clinical trials for stimulant use disorders.Results and Conclusions: Based on guidelines for the selection of clinical trial endpoints, the lessons learned from prior addiction clinical trials, and the process that led to identification of a meaningful indicator of treatment success for alcohol use disorders, several recommendations for future research were generated. These include a focus on the validation of patient reported outcome measures of functioning, the exploration of patterns of stimulant abstinence that may be associated with physical and/or psychosocial benefits, the role of urine testing for validating self-reported measures of stimulant abstinence, and the operational definitions for reduction-based measures in terms of frequency rather than quantity of stimulant use. These recommendations may be useful for secondary analyses of clinical trial data, and in the design of future clinical trials that may help establish a meaningful indicator of treatment success. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Drug addiction research requires but lacks a valid and reliable way to measure both the risk (propensity) to develop addiction and the severity of manifest addiction. This paper argues for a new measurement approach and instrument to quantify propensity to and severity of addiction, based on the testable assumption that these constructs can be mapped onto the same dimension of liability to addiction. The case for this new direction becomes clear from a critical review of empirical data and the current instrumentation. The many assessment instruments in use today have proven utility, reliability, and validity, but they are of limited use for evaluating individual differences in propensity and severity. The conceptual and methodological shortcomings of instruments currently used in research and clinical practice can be overcome through the use of new technologies to develop a reliable, valid, and standardized assessment instrument(s) to measure and distinguish individual variations in expression of the underlying latent trait(s) that comprises propensity to and severity of drug addiction. Such instrumentation would enhance our capacity for drug addiction research on linkages and interactions among familial, genetic, psychosocial, and neurobiological factors associated with variations in propensity and severity. It would lead to new opportunities in substance abuse prevention, treatment, and services research, as well as in interventions and implementation science for drug addiction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]