Search

Crisis stabilization units (CSUs), which offer a range of short-term psychiatric and psychological services, are one of several treatment programs that may create "alternative to arrest" options for law enforcement. Here, we examined the characteristics of the population who was referred to a newly established CSU in its first year of operation and examined the impact of the CSU on regional jail bookings. Administrative medical records and regional jail booking data were merged to form our study sample. Adults who had at least one jail booking and/or one CSU admission during our study period were included. We found that from September 1, 2018 to August 30, 2019, 458 people were admitted into the CSU. Approximately one-third (33.8%) had a jail booking during the study period. In the 3 months following CSU admission, 4.1% had an increase in jail bookings, 11.1% had a decrease, and 66.2% had no change. CSU patients self-reported high depressive and posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms, while also reporting low quality of life scores overall. We conclude that CSUs may be promising components of jail diversion efforts, providing critical services to populations experiencing significant mental health symptoms and who are at risk for incarceration. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) are shown to reduce opioid use and the risk of overdose. People with opioid use disorder (OUD) who exit inpatient medically managed withdrawal programs (detox) without initiating MOUD and linking to outpatient care have high rates of overdose. While detox encounters provide a theoretical opportunity for MOUD initiation, this is not ubiquitous in the United States. We used simulation modeling to estimate the population-level health effects and cost-effectiveness of a policy encouraging MOUD initiation during inpatient detox encounters.We employed a dynamic population state-transition model to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of using detox programs as venues for initiating MOUD in Massachusetts, United States. We compared standard of care, where no detox patients initiate MOUD or link to outpatient MOUD providers, to strategies of offering MOUD to detox patients and linking those patients to outpatient MOUD.Budgetary impact to the Massachusetts health-care sector, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) and total counts and percentage differences of fatal overdoses prevented.Initiating MOUD in detox with perfect linkage to outpatient MOUD would reduce fatal overdoses by 4.5% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.3-5.9], at an ICER of $56 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, compared with the standard of care. With moderate linkage, fatal overdoses would be reduced by 2.3% (95% CI= 1.2-3.1) with an ICER of $78 500 per QALY gained, compared with standard of care. Budgetary increase to Massachusetts health-care spending ranged from 0.5-1%.A simulation model indicates that initiation of medications for opioid use disorder and linkage policies among detox patients in Massachusetts, USA could prevent fatal opioid overdoses in the opioid use disorder population and would be cost-effective from a health-care sector perspective.

To estimate the number of treatment initiations, averted fatal opioid overdoses and the cost-effectiveness associated with offering buprenorphine-naloxone (buprenorphine) treatment on-site within existing syringe service programs (SSPs) in Massachusetts, USA.This was a cohort-based mathematical model and cost-effectiveness analysis. We derived model inputs from state and national surveillance data, clinical trials and observational cohort studies. We compared an intervention scenario where 30% of SSP clients initiated buprenorphine treatment on-site at least once annually to a status quo scenario where no buprenorphine was available on-site among community treatment providers in Massachusetts, 2020-30. In individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) we assumed that 80% of SSP clients had recently injected drugs and that treatment within SSPs would have similar or improved retention compared with standard-of-care buprenorphine programs, but higher rates of active opioid use while in treatment.Number of treatment initiations (i.e. individuals began treatment on a medication for opioid use disorder or entered medically managed withdrawal), averted fatal opioid overdoses, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and life-time discounted costs from a health sector and a limited societal perspective.The status quo scenario resulted in 23 051 fatal overdoses and 1 511 613 treatment initiations over a 10-year simulation period. An intervention scenario with on-site SSP buprenorphine treatment averted 4797 (-20.8%) fatal opioid overdoses and resulted in 129 359 (+8.6%) additional treatment initiations compared with the status quo. The intervention scenario was the dominating scenario: providing OUD treatment through Massachusetts SSPs cost less (-$3612 per person) with patients accumulating more QALYs (0.2 per person) compared with the status quo scenario.Offering buprenorphine treatment on-site within syringe service programs has the potential to decrease fatal overdoses substantially, improve treatment engagement and save on costs.

Crisis stabilization units (CSUs) are one type of “alternative to arrest” program used for jail diversion. We aimed to estimate the economic costs of starting and operating a CSU in Arkansas. We estimated the economic costs of the Pulaski County Regional CSU (PCRCSU) located in Little Rock, Arkansas, from September 1, 2018, to August 31, 2019. We collected data through interviews about start-up and ongoing management costs. We calculated total annual economic cost, average admission cost, and average 24 hr admission cost. There were 536 admissions to the CSU during the study period. The average length of stay was 60.27 hr. The total annual cost of the PCRCSU was $1,636,831 and average per admission cost was $3,054. Our results provide valuable economic data to government stakeholders who are considering establishing a CSU.

We investigated the association of 90-day opioid and stimulant co-use and HIV risk behaviors in a cross-sectional analysis of hospitalized HIV-negative people who inject drugs (PWID). We compared those injecting opioids alone to two sub-groups who co-used opioids with (1) cocaine, (2) amphetamine-type stimulants (ATS), on sex and injection drug risk behaviors assessed via the Risk Assessment Battery (RAB), where a higher score indicates a higher risk. Of 197 participants who injected opioids, 53% co-used cocaine only, 5% co-used ATS only, 18% co-used both cocaine and ATS, 24% co-used neither stimulant. PWID who injected opioids alone had a mean RAB drug risk score of 5.98 points and sex risk score of 2.16 points. Compared to PWID who injected opioids alone, PWID who co-used stimulants had higher mean drug risk RAB scores: cocaine, b = 2.84 points [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01; 4.67]; ATS, b = 3.43 points (95% CI 1.29; 5.57). Compared to PWID who injected opioids alone, cocaine co-use was associated with higher sex RAB scores b = 1.06 points (95% CI 0.32; 1.79). Overall, we found a significant association between stimulant co-use and higher HIV sex and drug risk scores.Investigamos la asociación entre el uso conjunto de opioides y estimulantes durante 90 días y las conductas de riesgo frente al VIH en un análisis transversal de personas hospitalizadas que se inyectan drogas y que son VIH negativas (“PWID” en lo sucesivo). Se comparó a los que consumían únicamente opioides con dos subgrupos que consumían opioides junto con (1) cocaína, (2) estimulantes de tipo anfetamínico (“ATS” en lo sucesivo), en relación con las conductas de riesgo evaluadas mediante la Serie de Pruebas de Evaluación de Riesgos (“RAB” en lo sucesivo). De los 197 participantes, el 53% sólo consumía cocaína, el 5% sólo ATS y el 18% cocaína y ATS; el 24% restante únicamente se inyectaba opiáceos. En comparación con las PWID que únicamente se inyectaban opioides, las PWID que consumían paralelamente estimulantes tenían puntuaciones medias más altas en el RAB de riesgo de drogas: cocaína, b = 2.84 puntos (intervalo de confianza [IC] del 95% 1.01; 4.67); ATS, b = 3.43 puntos (IC del 95% 1.29; 5.57). En comparación con las PWID que únicamente se inyectaban opioides, el co-consumo de cocaína se relacionó con puntuaciones más altas en la RAB en el sexo (1.06 puntos, IC del 95% 0.32; 1.79). En general, se encontró una asociación significativa entre el co-consumo de estimulantes y las puntuaciones más altas de riesgo sexual y de drogas frente al VIH.

BACKGROUND: As stimulant use increases across the United States, emergency medical services (EMS) are crucial touchpoints in the health care system. To better measure the prevalence of stimulant use, misuse, and EMS incidents related to stimulant intoxication, definitions for stimulant-related incidents (SRIs) are needed. METHODS: We used the Massachusetts Ambulance Trip Record Information System (MATRIS) from 2013 to 2020 to develop definitions of stimulant-related incidents. EMS runs reported to MATRIS were categorized based on stimulant-related words and symptoms. The three tiers were “any stimulant use” (class 1), “problematic stimulant use” (class 2), and “acute stimulant-related incidents” (class 3). A group of four reviewers studied over 650 cases in eight rounds to refine the search terms, achieving definitions with a correct characterization of over 80% of cases that the code selected. RESULTS: SRI definitions were applied against all EMS runs within Massachusetts between 2013 and 2020 (n = 6,584,836 runs). Of these, 43,538 (0.7%) met the class 1 definition, 38,669 (0.6%) met the class 2 definition, and 19,157 (0.3%) met the class 3 definition. Incidents at all tiers of severity increased over time and were more likely to occur among younger adults and males. Race and ethnicity data indicated that Hispanic/Latinx and Black non-Hispanic/non-Latinx residents formed a disproportionately large percentage of SRIs relative to their total percentage of EMS runs. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of all three tiers of SRIs are increasing in Massachusetts, and this protocol provides a source of administrative data on stimulant use that complements sources such as hospital, treatment-based, and/or prescribing records.

Kentucky has one of the highest opioid overdose mortality rates in the United States. Accurate estimates of people with opioid use disorder (OUD) are critical to plan for the scope of interventions required to reduce overdose and opioid misuse. Commonly used household surveys are known to underestimate OUD at the state-level and do not provide county-level estimates.We performed a multi-sample capture-recapture analysis to estimate OUD prevalence in Kentucky in 2018 and 2019. We utilized four statewide datasets that were linked at the individual level: 1) Registry of Vital Statistics, 2) Emergency Medical Services (EMS), 3) Kentucky's Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP), and 4) Kentucky Medicaid. We included persons aged 18-64 years who resided in Kentucky between 2018 and 2019. We identified individuals with administrative data consistent with OUD in each of the datasets, including a fatal opioid-involved overdose (Vital Statistics), EMS runs for suspected opioid overdose, receipt of buprenorphine for OUD treatment (PDMP), or Medicaid claims for OUD. Observed and estimated counts of OUD cases and prevalence of OUD among the adult population in Kentucky.The estimated statewide OUD prevalence was 5.5 % and 5.9 % for 2018 and 2019, respectively, ranging from 1.3 % to 17.7 % across Kentucky counties. As expected, counties with the highest OUD rates were Appalachian counties (eastern area) of the state.Our analysis reveals a substantially larger proportion of KY residents have OUD than previously estimated. Our approach offers a model for states needing county-level estimates of OUD.

Summary Background The syndemic of injection drug use and serious injection-related infections is leading to increasing mortality in the USA. Although outpatient treatment with medications for opioid use disorder reduces overdose risk and recurrent infections, hospitalisation remains common. We evaluated the clinical impact, costs, and cost-effectiveness of hospital-based strategies to address the US opioid epidemic. Methods We developed a microsimulation model to compare the cost-effectiveness of: standard hospital care—detoxification for opioids, no addiction consult service (status quo); expanded inpatient prescribing of medications for opioid use disorder, including bridge prescriptions (ie, medication until they can see an outpatient provider) when possible (medications for opioid use disorder with bridge); implementation of addiction consult services within the hospital (addiction consult services alone); and a combined medication for opioid use disorder with addiction consult services strategy (combined). We used clinical trials and observational cohorts to inform model inputs. Outcomes were life-years, discounted costs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, hospitalisations, and deaths. We did deterministic sensitivity analyses on key model inputs related to costs and sequelae of drug use and probabilistic sensitivity analysis to further address uncertainty. Findings Among people who inject opioids in the USA, we estimated that expanding medications for opioid use disorder with bridge prescriptions would reduce hospitalisations and overdose deaths by 3·2% and 3·6%, respectively, and the combination of expanded medications with opioid use disorder along with addiction consult sevices would reduce hospitalisations and overdoses by 5·2% and 6·6%, respectively, compared with the status quo. Mean lifetime costs ranged from US$731 400 (95% credible interval 447 911–859 189 for the medications for opioid use disorder strategy) to $741 200 (470 930–868 551 for the combined strategy) per person. Assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per life-year gained, medications for opioid use disorder with bridge and combined strategies were cost-effective ($7600 and $14 300, respectively). A scenario that assumed ideal access to harm reduction services came to the same conclusions as the base case and our results were robust in deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Interpretation The combined interventions of expanding hospital-based prescribing of medications for opioid use disorder and implementing addiction consult services could improve life expectancy, be cost-effective, and could be the basis for a comprehensive hospital-based strategy for addressing the opioid epidemic in the USA and countries with similar opioid epidemics. Funding National Institute on Drug Abuse and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Background Untreated opioid use disorder (OUD) affects the care of HIV/HCV co-infected people who inject opioids. Despite active injection opioid use, there is evidence of increasing engagement in HIV care and adherence to HIV medications among HIV/HCV co-infected persons. However, less than one-half of this population is offered HCV treatment onsite. Treatment for OUD is also rare and largely occurs offsite. Integrating buprenorphine-naloxone (BUP-NX) into onsite care for HIV/HCV co-infected persons may improve outcomes, but the clinical impact and costs are unknown. We evaluated the clinical impact, costs, and cost-effectiveness of integrating (BUP-NX) into onsite HIV/HCV treatment compared with the status quo of offsite referral for medications for OUD. Methods We used a Monte Carlo microsimulation of HCV to compare two strategies for people who inject opioids: 1) standard HIV care with onsite HCV treatment and referral to offsite OUD care (status quo) and 2) standard HIV care with onsite HCV and BUP-NX treatment (integrated care). Both strategies assume that all individuals are already in HIV care. Data from national databases, clinical trials, and cohorts informed model inputs. Outcomes included mortality, HCV reinfection, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs (2017 US dollars), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Results Integrated care reduced HCV reinfections by 7%, cases of cirrhosis by 1%, and liver-related deaths by 3%. Compared to the status quo, this strategy also resulted in an estimated 11/1,000 fewer non-liver attributable deaths at one year and 28/1,000 fewer of these deaths at five years, at a cost-effectiveness ratio of $57,100/QALY. Integrated care remained cost-effective in sensitivity analyses that varied the proportion of the population actively injecting opioids, availability of BUP-NX, and quality of life weights. Conclusions Integrating BUP-NX for OUD into treatment for HIV/HCV co-infected adults who inject opioids increases life expectancy and is cost-effective at a $100,000/QALY threshold.

Background and aims While prescribed and illicit opioid use are primary drivers of the national surges in overdose deaths, opioid overdose deaths in which stimulants are also present are increasing in the U.S. We determined the social determinants and sociodemographic factors associated with opioid-only versus polysubstance opioid overdose deaths in Massachusetts. Particular attention was focused on the role of stimulants in opioid overdose deaths. Methods We analyzed all opioid-related overdose deaths from 2014 to 2015 in an individually-linked population database in Massachusetts. We used linked postmortem toxicology data to identify drugs present at the time of death. We constructed a multinomial logistic regression model to identify factors associated with three mutually exclusive overdose death groups based on toxicological results: opioid-related deaths with (1) opioids only present, (2) opioids and other substances not including stimulants, and (3) opioids and stimulants with or without other substances. Results Between 2014 and 2015, there were 2,244 opioid-related overdose deaths in Massachusetts that had accompanying toxicology results. Toxicology reports indicated that 17% had opioids only, 36% had opioids plus stimulants, and 46% had opioids plus another non-stimulant substance. Persons older than 24 years, non-rural residents, those with comorbid mental illness, non-Hispanic black residents, and persons with recent homelessness were more likely than their counterparts to die with opioids and stimulants than opioids alone. Conclusions Polysubstance opioid overdose is increasingly common in the US. Addressing modifiable social determinants of health, including barriers to mental health services and homelessness, is important to reduce polysubstance use and overdose deaths.

Injecting-related skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) are a preventable cause of inpatient hospitalisation among people who inject drugs (PWID). This study aimed to determine the prevalence of hospitalisation for SSTIs among PWID, and identify similarities and differences in factors associated with hospitalisation for SSTIs versus non-bacterial harms related to injecting drug use.We performed cross-sectional analyses of baseline data from an observational cohort study of PWID attending drug treatment clinics and needle and syringe programs in Australia. Logistic regression models were used to identify factors associated with self-reported hospitalisation for (1) SSTIs (abscess and/or cellulitis), and (2) non-bacterial harms related to injecting drug use (e.g., non-fatal overdose; hereafter referred to as non-bacterial harms), both together and separately.1851 participants who injected drugs in the previous six months were enrolled (67% male; 85% injected in the past month; 42% receiving opioid agonist treatment [OAT]). In the previous year, 40% (n = 737) had been hospitalised for drug-related causes: 20% (n = 377) and 29% (n = 528) of participants were admitted to hospital for an SSTI and non-bacterial harm, respectively. Participants who were female (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.53, 95% CI: 1.19-1.97) or homeless (aOR: 1.59, 95% CI: 1.16-2.19) were more likely to be hospitalised for an SSTI, but not a non-bacterial harm. Both types of hospitalisation were more likely among people recently released from prison.Hospitalisation for SSTIs is common among PWID. Community-based interventions to prevent SSTIs and subsequent hospitalisation among PWID will require targeting of at-risk groups, including women, people experiencing homelessness, and incarcerated people upon prison release.

Background and Aims While the United States is in the midst of an overdose epidemic, effective treatments are underutilized and commonly discontinued. Innovations in medication delivery, including an extended-release formulations, have the potential to improve treatment access and reduce discontinuation. We sought to assess extended-release buprenorphine discontinuation among individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) in a real-world, nationally representative cohort. Setting United States Participants Commercially insured individuals initiating one of four FDA-approved medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) in 2018: extended-release buprenorphine, extended-release naltrexone, mucosal buprenorphine (mono- or co-formulated with naloxone), or methadone. Measurements Our primary outcome was medication discontinuation, defined as a gap of more than 14 days between the end of one prescription or administration and the subsequent dose. Findings We identified 14,358 individuals initiating MOUD in 2018, including 204 (1%) extended-release buprenorphine, 1,173 (8%) extended-release naltrexone, 12,171 (85%) mucosal buprenorphine, and 810 (6%) methadone initiations. Three months after initiation, 50% (95% confidence interval [CI] 40%-60%) of extended-release buprenorphine, 64% (95% CI 61%-69%) of extended-release naltrexone, 34% (95% CI 33%-35%) of mucosal buprenorphine, and 58% (95% CI 54%-62%) of methadone initiators had discontinued treatment. Conclusions Across all treatment groups, medication discontinuation was high, and in this sample of early adopters with limited follow-up time, we found no evidence that extended-release buprenorphine offered a retention advantage compared to other MOUD in real-world settings. Retention continues to represent a major obstacle to treatment effectiveness, and interventions are needed to address this challenge even as new MOUD formulations become available.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Some adolescents and young adults (termed ‘youth’) prescribed an opioid will develop opioid use disorder or experience overdose. This study aimed to identify patient and prescription characteristics associated with subsequent risk of opioid use disorder or overdose during the year after an opioid is first dispensed. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Commercial health insurance claims in a large US database from 2006 to 2016. PARTICIPANTS: Youth aged 11–25 years filling an initial opioid prescription. EXPOSURES: Patient (sociodemographic information, and physical and mental health diagnoses) and prescription characteristics (opioid formulation, dose, and duration). MEASUREMENT: The primary outcome was development of an ‘opioid-related complication’ (a diagnosis of opioid use disorder or opioid-related overdose) during the subsequent 12 months. Exposures of interest were patient (sociodemographic information, and physical and mental health diagnoses) and prescription characteristics (opioid formulation, dose, and duration). FINDINGS: Among 3,278,990 youth filling an initial opioid prescription, median age was 18 years (IQR, 16–21) and 56.1% were female. During the subsequent 12 months, 10,405 (0.3%) youth experienced an opioid-related complication. Conditions associated with increased risk included mood/anxiety disorders (aRR, 4.45 [95% CI, 4.25–4.66]) and substance use (aRR, 20.77 [95% CI, 19.74–21.84]). Comorbid substance use disorders were present among 72.8% of youth experiencing an opioid-related complication and included alcohol (33.4%), cannabis (33.0%), nicotine (43.2%), and other substance use disorders (75.5%). Long-acting opioids (aRR, 2.59 [95% CI, 2.18–3.09]) and longer durations were associated with increased risk (7–14 days: aRR, 1.15 [95% CI, 1.08–1.22]; ≥15 days: aRR, 1.96 [95% CI, 1.80–2.12]) compared to short-acting formulations and durations ≤3 days, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Complications after an initial opioid prescription are relatively rare. Screening for mental health conditions and substance use before prescribing might identify youth at risk for OUD and overdose. Clinicians might mitigate the risk by prescribing short-acting opioids for short durations.

BACKGROUND: Sharing needles and injection drug preparation equipment (IDPE) among people who inject drugs (PWID) are well-established risk factors for viral transmission. Shared needles and IDPE may serve as bacterial niduses for skin and soft tissue infections (SSTI). Given the rising rates of SSTI in PWID, we investigated the association of needle and IDPE sharing on incidence of SSTI in a cohort of PWID. METHODS: Inpatient PWID (N=252) were recruited to a randomized controlled trial of an intervention aimed at reducing infections. The primary outcome was self-reported incidence of SSTI one-year post-hospitalization. In this secondary analysis, we assessed two variables: 1) sharing of IDPE alone, 2) sharing needles with or without IDPE, and compared these groups separately to persons who reported no sharing of needles or IDPE via a mixed-effects negative binomial regression model to estimate the effect of baseline sharing behavior on SSTI during follow-up via incidence rate ratios (IRR). RESULTS: Participant characteristics: 38 years [mean], 58% male, 60% White, 90% primarily injected opioids, 1.58 (± 2.35) mean SSTI in the year prior to baseline. In terms of sharing behavior, 29% didn’t share needles or IDPE, 13% shared IDPE only, and 58% shared needles with or without IDPE three months prior to baseline. After adjusting for co-variables, PWID who shared IDPE alone had a 2.2 fold higher IRR of SSTI (95%CI 1.27; 3.85, p = 0.005) and PWID who shared needles with or without IDPE had a 3.31 fold higher IRR of SSTI (95%CI 2.04; 5.37, p < 0.001), compared to those who did not share any equipment. The number of SSTI at baseline was associated with an IRR of 1.20 of SSTI during follow-up (95%CI 1.09; 1.32, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of hospitalized PWID, we found a significant association between baseline sharing of IDPE alone and of sharing of needles with or without IDPE with one-year incidence of SSTI.

Business Not as Usual Persons with substance use disorders — particularly those in living conditions that increase Covid risk — should be prioritized to receive SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, and vaccine-rol...

Introduction Addiction consult services (ACS) engage hospitalized patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) in care and help meet their goals for substance use treatment. Little is known about how ACS affect mortality for patients with OUD. The objective of this study was to design and validate a model that estimates the impact of ACS care on 12-month mortality among hospitalized patients with OUD. Methods We developed a Markov model of referral to an ACS, post-discharge engagement in SUD care, and 12-month drug-related and non-drug related mortality among hospitalized patients with OUD. We populated our model using Oregon Medicaid data and validated it using international modeling standards. Results There were 6,654 patients with OUD hospitalized from April 2015 through December 2017. There were 114 (1.7%) drug-related deaths and 408 (6.1%) non-drug related deaths at 12 months. Bayesian logistic regression models estimated four percent (4%, 95% CI = 2%, 6%) of patients were referred to an ACS. Of those, 47% (95% CI = 37%, 57%) engaged in post-discharge OUD care, versus 20% not referred to an ACS (95% CI = 16%, 24%). The risk of drug-related death at 12 months among patients in post-discharge OUD care was 3% (95% CI = 0%, 7%) versus 6% not in care (95% CI = 2%, 10%). The risk of non-drug related death was 7% (95% CI = 1%, 13%) among patients in post-discharge OUD treatment, versus 9% not in care (95% CI = 5%, 13%). We validated our model by evaluating its predictive, external, internal, face and cross validity. Discussion Our novel Markov model reflects trajectories of care and survival for patients hospitalized with OUD. This model can be used to evaluate the impact of other clinical and policy changes to improve patient survival.

SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination and Vulnerable Populations In this audio interview conducted on December 9, 2020, the editors are joined by Dr. Joshua Barocas, an infectious disease specialist at Boston Med...

In response to the novel coronavirus 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic, many people experiencing homelessness and substance use disorders entered respite and recuperation facilities for care and to isolate and prevent subsequent SARS-CoV-2 transmission. However, because drug use was officially prohibited in these facilities, we observed people who use substances leaving isolation temporarily or prematurely. The initial Covid-19 surge magnified the need for harm reduction access for those who use substances to ensure their safety and well-being and that of their local communities. In this commentary, we argue that expanding harm reduction access is crucial for subsequent waves of SARS-CoV-2 infection and also for patients who use substances and are hospitalized for other reasons., Highlights • The Covid-19 pandemic disproportionately affects people experiencing homelessness. • Respite facilities allow people experiencing homelessness and Covid-19 to isolate. • Prohibiting substance use in respite facilities is a barrier to isolation. • Harm reduction interventions could facilitate successful and safe isolation. • Harm reduction interventions should be broadly integrated into clinical care.

Background: As COVID-19 surged in people experiencing homelessness, leaders at Boston Medical Center (BMC), New England’s largest safety-net hospital, developed a program to care for them.Aim: Provide an opportunity for COVID-infected people experiencing homelessness to isolate and receive care until no longer contagiousSetting: A decommissioned hospital building.Participants: COVID-infected people experiencing homelessnessProgram Description: Care was provided by physician volunteers and furloughed staff. Care focused on allowing isolation, managing COVID-19 symptoms, harm-reduction interventions, and addressing problems related to substance use and mental illness.Program evaluation: Among 226 patients who received care, 65% were referred from BMC. Five percent were transferred to the hospital for a complication that appeared COVID-related. There were no deaths, but 7 patients had non-fatal overdoses. Seventy-nine % had at least one diagnosis of mental illness, and 42% reported actively using at least one substance at the time of admission. Thirty % had at least one mental health diagnosis plus active substance use.Discussion: This hospital-based COVID Recuperation Unit was rapidly deployed, provided safe isolation for 226 patients over 8 weeks, treated frequent SUD and mental illness, and helped prevent the hospital’s acute-care bed capacity from being overwhelmed during the peak of the COVID-19 epidemic.

In response to the opioid crisis, IDSA and HIVMA established a working group to drive an evidence- and human rights-based response to illicit drug use and associated infectious diseases. Infectious diseases and HIV physicians have an opportunity to intervene, addressing both conditions. IDSA and HIVMA have developed a policy agenda highlighting evidence-based practices that need further dissemination. This paper reviews (1) programs most relevant to infectious diseases in the 2018 SUPPORT Act; (2) opportunities offered by the “End the HIV Epidemic” initiative; and (3) policy changes necessary to affect the trajectory of the opioid epidemic and associated infections. Issues addressed include leveraging harm reduction tools and improving integrated prevention and treatment services for the infectious diseases and substance use disorder care continuum. By strengthening collaborations between infectious diseases and addiction specialists, including increasing training in substance use disorder treatment among infectious diseases and addiction specialists, we can decrease morbidity and mortality associated with these overlapping epidemics.

Highlights • The HEALing Communities Study (HCS) is designed to implement and evaluate the Communities That HEAL (CTH) intervention to reduce opioid overdose deaths. • The HCS includes a health economics study. • Costs of CTH will be estimated for multiple perspectives. • The health economics study includes cost-effectiveness analyses and simulation modeling., Background The HEALing Communities Study (HCS) is designed to implement and evaluate the Communities That HEAL (CTH) intervention, a conceptually driven framework to assist communities in selecting and adopting evidence-based practices to reduce opioid overdose deaths. The goal of the HCS is to produce generalizable information for policy makers and community stakeholders seeking to implement CTH or a similar community intervention. To support this objective, one aim of the HCS is a health economics study (HES), the results of which will inform decisions around fiscal feasibility and sustainability relevant to other community settings. Methods The HES is integrated into the HCS design: an unblinded, multisite, parallel arm, cluster randomized, wait list–controlled trial of the CTH intervention implemented in 67 communities in four U.S. states: Kentucky, Massachusetts, New York, and Ohio. The objectives of the HES are to estimate the economic costs to communities of implementing and sustaining CTH; estimate broader societal costs associated with CTH; estimate the cost-effectiveness of CTH for overdose deaths avoided; and use simulation modeling to evaluate the short- and long-term health and economic impact of CTH, including future overdose deaths avoided and quality-adjusted life years saved, and to develop a simulation policy tool for communities that seek to implement CTH or a similar community intervention. Discussion The HCS offers an unprecedented opportunity to conduct health economics research on solutions to the opioid crisis and to increase understanding of the impact and value of complex, community-level interventions.

Infective endocarditis associated with injection drug use (IDU-IE) is markedly increasing in the United States and Canada. Long-term outcomes are dismal and stem from insufficient substance use disorder treatment. In this review, we summarize the principles of antimicrobial and surgical management for infective endocarditis associated with injection drug use. We discuss approaches to opioid use disorder care and harm reduction in the inpatient setting and review opportunities to address preventable infections among persons injecting drugs. We highlight barriers to implementing optimal treatment and consider novel approaches that may reshape infective endocarditis associated with injection drug use treatment in coming years.

Highlights • HEALing Communities Study is a parallel-group cluster randomized controlled trial. • Communities That HEAL intervention’s goal is to reduce opioid overdose deaths. • Structured consensus decision-making strategy guided study measure development. • More than 80 study measure specifications and a common data model were developed. • The study will provide methodology and longitudinal community data for research., Background Opioid overdose deaths remain high in the U.S. Despite having effective interventions to prevent overdose deaths, there are numerous barriers that impede their adoption. The primary aim of the HEALing Communities Study (HCS) is to determine the impact of an intervention consisting of community-engaged, data-driven selection, and implementation of an integrated set of evidence-based practices (EBPs) on reducing opioid overdose deaths. Methods The HCS is a four year multi-site, parallel-group, cluster randomized wait-list controlled trial. Communities (n = 67) in Kentucky, Massachusetts, New York and Ohio are randomized to active intervention (Wave 1), which starts the intervention in Year 1 or the wait-list control (Wave 2), which starts the intervention in Year 3. The HCS will test a conceptually driven framework to assist communities in selecting and adopting EBPs with three components: 1) A community engagement strategy with local coalitions to guide and implement the intervention; 2) A compendium of EBPs coupled with technical assistance; and 3) A series of communication campaigns to increase awareness and demand for EBPs and reduce stigma. An implementation science framework guides the intervention and allows for examination of the multilevel contexts that promote or impede adoption and expansion of EBPs. The primary outcome, number of opioid overdose deaths, will be compared between Wave 1 and Wave 2 communities during Year 2 of the intervention for Wave 1. Numerous secondary outcomes will be examined. Discussion The HCS is the largest community-based implementation study in the field of addiction with an ambitious goal of significantly reducing fatal opioid overdoses.

Background An epidemic of opioid overdose has spread across North America, with illicit drug-related overdose emerging as a leading cause of death in recent years. Estimates of opioid use disorder (OUD) prevalence at the level of the public health service delivery area are needed to project resource needs and identify priority areas for targeted intervention. Our objective is to estimate the annual prevalence of OUD in British Columbia (BC), Canada, from 2000 to 2017. Methods We performed a multi-sample stratified capture-recapture analysis to estimate OUD prevalence in BC. The analysis included individuals identified from 3 administrative databases for 2000–2011 and 4 databases for 2012–2017, linked at the individual level. Negative binomial regression models on the counts of individuals within these strata were used to estimate prevalence, adjusting for dependency between databases. Results OUD prevalence in BC among people aged 12 years or older was 1.00 % (N = 34,663 individuals) in 2000 and increased to 1.54 % (N = 61,080) in 2011. Between 2013 and 2017 prevalence increased from 1.57 % (95 % confidence interval: 1.56–1.58) to 1.92 % (1.89–1.95; N = 83,760; 82,492-84,855). The greatest increases in prevalence were observed among males 12–30 years old and 31–44 years old, with 43.2 % and 40.2 % increases from 2013 to 2017. Conclusions In BC, the OUD prevalence was 1.92 % among people 12 years or older in 2017. We estimated that prevalence has nearly doubled since 2000, with the highest increases in prevalence observed among males under 45.

A Homeless Man with Covid-19 A 66-year-old homeless man was evaluated for cough and rhinorrhea during the Covid-19 pandemic. He had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 through a universal testing progra...

Background The expansion of the US opioid epidemic has led to significant increases in infections, such as infective endocarditis (IE), which is tied to injection behaviors. We aimed to estimate the population-level IE mortality rate among people who inject opioids and compare the risk of IE death against the risks of death from other causes. Methods We developed a microsimulation model of the natural history of injection opioid use. We defined injection behavior profiles by both injection frequency and injection techniques. We accounted for competing risks of death and populated the model with primary and published data. We modeled cohorts of 1 million individuals with different injection behavior profiles until age 60 years. We combined model-generated estimates with published data to project the total expected number of IE deaths in the United States by 2030. Results The probabilities of death from IE by age 60 years for 20-, 30-, and 40-year-old men with high-frequency use with higher infection risk techniques compared to lower risk techniques for IE were 53.8% versus 3.7%, 51.4% versus 3.1%, and 44.5% versus 2.2%, respectively. The predicted population-level attributable fraction of 10-year mortality from IE among all risk groups was 20%. We estimated that approximately 257 800 people are expected to die from IE by 2030. Conclusions The expected burden of IE among people who inject opioids in the United States is large. Adopting a harm reduction approach, including through expansion of syringe service programs, to address injection behaviors could have a major impact on decreasing the mortality rate associated with the opioid epidemic.

Background Inpatient treatment for substance use disorders is a collection of strategies ranging from short term detoxification to longer term residential treatment. How those with opioid use disorder (OUD) navigate this inpatient treatment system after an encounter for detoxification and subsequent risk of opioid-related overdose is not well understood. Methods We used a comprehensive Massachusetts database to characterize the movement of people with OUD through inpatient care from 2013 to 2015, identifying admissions to inpatient detoxification, subsequent inpatient care, and opioid overdose while navigating treatment. We measured the person-years accumulated during each transition period to calculate rates of opioid-related overdose, and investigated how overdose differed in select populations. Results Sixty-one percent of inpatient detoxification admissions resulted in a subsequent inpatient detoxification admission without progressing to further inpatient care. Overall, there were 287 fatal and 7337 non-fatal overdoses. Persons exiting treatment after detoxification had the greatest risk of overdose (17.3 per 100 person-years) compared to those who exited after subsequent inpatient care (ranging from 5.9 to 6.6 overdoses per 100 person-years). Non-Hispanic whites were most at risk for opioid related overdose with 16 overdoses per 100 person-years and non-Hispanic blacks had the lowest risk with 5 overdoses per 100 person-years. Conclusions The majority of inpatient detoxification admissions do not progress to further inpatient care. Recurrent inpatient detoxification admission is common, likely signifying relapse. Rather than functioning as the first step to inpatient care, inpatient detoxification might be more effective as a venue for implementing strategies to expand addiction services or treatment such as medications for opioid use disorder.

Background Endocarditis, once predominately found in older adults, is increasingly common among younger persons who inject drugs. Untreated opioid use disorder (OUD) complicates endocarditis management. We aimed to determine if rates of overdose and rehospitalization differ between persons with OUD with endocarditis who are initiated on medications for OUD (MOUDs) within 30 days of hospital discharge and those who are not. Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study using a large commercial health insurance claims database of persons ≥18 years between July 1, 2010, and June 30, 2016. Primary outcomes included opioid-related overdoses and 1-year all-cause rehospitalization. We calculated incidence rates for the primary outcomes and developed Cox hazards models to predict time from discharge to each primary outcome as a function of receipt of MOUDs. Results The cohort included 768 individuals (mean age 39 years, 51% male). Only 5.7% of people received MOUDs in the 30 days following hospitalization. The opioid-related overdose rate among those who did receive MOUDs in the 30 days following hospitalization was lower than among those who did not (5.8 per 100 person-years [95% confidence interval [CI], 5.1–6.4] vs 7.3 per 100-person years [95% CI, 7.1–7.5], respectively). The rate of 1-year rehospitalization among those who received MOUDs was also lower than those who did not (162.0 per 100 person-years [95% CI, 157.4–166.6] vs 255.4 per 100 person-years [95% CI, 254.0–256.8], respectively). In the Cox hazards models, the receipt of MOUDs was not associated with either of the outcomes. Conclusions MOUD receipt following endocarditis may improve important health-related outcomes in commercially insured persons with OUD.

OBJECTIVES: The global pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) may disproportionately affect persons in congregate settings, including those in residential substance use treatment facilities. To limit the spread of SARS-CoV-2 through congregate settings, universal testing may be necessary. We aimed to determine the point prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in a residential treatment program setting and to understand the unique challenges of Covid-19 transmission in this setting. METHODS: We performed a case series of SARS-CoV-2 rT-PCR testing via nasopharyngeal in a residential substance use treatment program for women in Boston. Staff and residents of the treatment program were tested for SARS-CoV-2. The primary outcome was SARS-CoV-2 test result. RESULTS: A total of 31 residents and staff were tested. Twenty-seven percent (6/22) of the residents and 44% (4/9) of staff tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. All of the SARS-CoV-2 positive residents resided in the same residential unit. Two positive cases resided together with two negative cases in a 4-person room. Two other positive cases resided together in a 2-person room. One positive case resided with two negative cases in a 3-person room. One positive case resided with a negative case in a 2-person room. Based on test results, residents were cohorted by infection status and continued to participate in addiction treatment on-site. CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2 infection was common among staff and residents within a residential substance use treatment program for women in Boston. Universal SARS-CoV-2 testing in residential substance use programs can be instituted to reduce the risk of further transmission and continue addiction treatment programming when accompanied by adequate space, supplies, and staffing.

Emerging evidence supports the use of outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) and, in many cases, partial oral antibiotic therapy for the treatment of injection drug use-associated infective endocarditis (IDU-IE); however, long-term outcomes and cost-effectiveness remain unknown.To compare the added value of inpatient addiction care services and the cost-effectiveness and clinical outcomes of alternative antibiotic treatment strategies for patients with IDU-IE.This decision analytical modeling study used a validated microsimulation model to compare antibiotic treatment strategies for patients with IDU-IE. Model inputs were derived from clinical trials and observational cohort studies. The model included all patients with injection opioid drug use (N = 5 million) in the US who were eligible to receive OPAT either in the home or at a postacute care facility. Costs were annually discounted at 3%. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated from a health care sector perspective over a lifetime starting in 2020. Probabilistic sensitivity, scenario, and threshold analyses were performed to address uncertainty.The model simulated 4 treatment strategies: (1) 4 to 6 weeks of inpatient intravenous (IV) antibiotic therapy along with opioid detoxification (usual care strategy), (2) 4 to 6 weeks of inpatient IV antibiotic therapy along with inpatient addiction care services that offered medication for opioid use disorder (usual care/addiction care strategy), (3) 3 weeks of inpatient IV antibiotic therapy along with addiction care services followed by OPAT (OPAT strategy), and (4) 3 weeks of inpatient IV antibiotic therapy along with addiction care services followed by partial oral antibiotic therapy (partial oral antibiotic strategy).Mean percentage of patients completing treatment for IDU-IE, deaths associated with IDU-IE, life expectancy (measured in life-years [LYs]), mean cost per person, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).All modeled scenarios were initialized with 5 million individuals (mean age, 42 years; range, 18-64 years; 70% male) who had a history of injection opioid drug use. The usual care strategy resulted in 18.63 LYs at a cost of $416 570 per person, with 77.6% of hospitalized patients completing treatment. Life expectancy was extended by each alternative strategy. The partial oral antibiotic strategy yielded the highest treatment completion rate (80.3%) compared with the OPAT strategy (78.8%) and the usual care/addiction care strategy (77.6%). The OPAT strategy was the least expensive at $412 150 per person. Compared with the OPAT strategy, the partial oral antibiotic strategy had an ICER of $163 370 per LY. Increasing IDU-IE treatment uptake and decreasing treatment discontinuation made the partial oral antibiotic strategy more cost-effective compared with the OPAT strategy. When assuming that all patients with IDU-IE were eligible to receive partial oral antibiotic therapy, the strategy was cost-saving and resulted in 0.0247 additional discounted LYs. When treatment discontinuation was decreased from 3.30% to 2.65% per week, the partial oral antibiotic strategy was cost-effective compared with OPAT at the $100 000 per LY threshold.In this decision analytical modeling study, incorporation of OPAT or partial oral antibiotic approaches along with addiction care services for the treatment of patients with IDU-IE was associated with increases in the number of people completing treatment, decreases in mortality, and savings in cost compared with the usual care strategy of providing inpatient IV antibiotic therapy alone.

BACKGROUND: People with a history of incarceration are at high risk for opioid overdose. A variety of factors contribute to this elevated risk though our understanding of these factors is deficient. Research to identify risk and protective factors for overdose is often conducted using administrative data or researcher-derived surveys and without explicit input from people with lived experience. We aimed to understand the scope of U.S. research on factors associated with opioid overdose among previously incarcerated people. We did this by conducting a narrative review of the literature and convening expert panels of people with lived experience. We then categorized these factors using a social determinants of health framework to help contextualize our findings. METHODS: We first conducted a narrative review of the published literature. A search was performed using PubMed and APA PsycInfo. We then convened two expert panels consisting of people with lived experience and people who work with people who were previously incarcerated. Experts were asked to evaluate the literature derived factors for completeness and add factors that were not identified. Finally, we categorized factors as either intermediary or structural according to the World Health Organization’s Social Determinants of Health (SDOH) Framework. RESULTS: We identified 13 papers that met our inclusion criteria for the narrative review. Within these 13 papers, we identified 22 relevant factors for their role in the relationship between overdose and people with a history of incarceration, 16 were risk factors and six were protective factors. Five of these were structural factors (three risk and two protective) and 17 were intermediary factors (13 risk and four protective). The expert panels identified 21 additional factors, 10 of which were structural (six risk and four protective) and 11 of which were intermediary (eight risk and three protective). CONCLUSION: This narrative review along with expert panels demonstrates a gap in the published literature regarding factors associated with overdose among people who were previously incarcerated. Additionally, this review highlights a substantial gap with regard to the types of factors that are typically identified. Incorporating voices of people with lived experience is crucial to our understanding of overdose in this at-risk population.

Objectives. To estimate the annual prevalence of opioid use disorder (OUD) in Massachusetts from 2011 to 2015. Methods. We performed a multisample stratified capture–recapture analysis to estimate OUD prevalence in Massachusetts. Individuals identified from 6 administrative databases for 2011 to 2012 and 7 databases for 2013 to 2015 were linked at the individual level and included in the analysis. Individuals were stratified by age group, sex, and county of residence. Results. The OUD prevalence in Massachusetts among people aged 11 years or older was 2.72% in 2011 and 2.87% in 2012. Between 2013 and 2015, the prevalence increased from 3.87% to 4.60%. The greatest increase in prevalence was observed among those in the youngest age group (11–25 years), a 76% increase from 2011 to 2012 and a 42% increase from 2013 to 2015. Conclusions. In Massachusetts, the OUD prevalence was 4.6% among people 11 years or older in 2015. The number of individuals with OUD is likely increasing, particularly among young people.

Infectious diseases (ID) physicians are increasingly responsible for the management of infectious consequences of substance use disorders (SUD). While we are often consulted for diagnosis and treatment of the infectious disease, it is clear that successful management of these infections requires a holistic approach, including acknowledgement and treatment of the underlying SUD. As we have learned through years of treating human immunodeficiency virus and hepatitis C virus infections, ID physicians have unique expertise in addressing both the infection and the complex biopsychosocial factors that underpin the infection. Many ID physicians have incorporated the management of addiction as part of their scope of practice, and here we seek to give a name and define the role of these ID/addiction dual specialists. We define the potential role of ID/addiction physicians in clinical care, health administration, and research, as well as provide recommendations to bolster the supply and reach of this burgeoning subspecialty.

Background and aims Liver disease in people living with HIV co-infected with hepatitis C virus is a source of morbidity and mortality in Russia. HIV accelerates liver fibrosis in the setting of HCV co-infection and alcohol use. Zinc deficiency is common among people living with HIV and may be a factor that facilitates the underlying mechanisms of liver fibrosis. We investigated the association between zinc deficiency and advanced liver fibrosis in a cohort of HIV/HCV co-infected persons reporting heavy drinking in Russia. Methods This is a secondary data analysis of baseline data from 204 anti-retroviral treatment naive HIV/HCV co-infected Russians with heavy drinking that were recruited into a clinical trial of zinc supplementation. The primary outcome of interest in this cross-sectional study was advanced liver fibrosis. Zinc deficiency, the main independent variable, was defined as plasma zinc

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may spread rapidly through homeless shelters because they are congregate settings1,2 where factors associated with the spread of the virus are common, including lack of personal protective equipment, overcrowding, and lack of recuperation spaces. As Boston experienced a COVID-19 surge that disproportionately affected persons experiencing homelessness (PEH) and threatened to overwhelm hospital capacity, a large safety-net hospital implemented a novel COVID-19 Recuperation Unit (CRU) for this population. The CRU, located adjacent to Boston Medical Center (BMC), provided isolation and quarantine for PEH and treatment for substance use.3 We aimed to determine the association of the care provided by the CRU with COVID-19 hospitalizations among PEH.

Importance The United States is experiencing a crisis of opioid overdose. In response, the US Department of Health and Human Services has defined a goal to reduce overdose mortality by 40% by 2022. Objective To identify specific combinations of 3 interventions (initiating more people to medications for opioid use disorder [MOUD], increasing 6-month retention with MOUD, and increasing naloxone distribution) associated with at least a 40% reduction in opioid overdose in simulated populations. Design, Setting, and Participants This decision analytical model used a dynamic population-level state-transition model to project outcomes over a 2-year horizon. Each intervention scenario was compared with the counterfactual of no intervention in simulated urban and rural communities in Massachusetts. Simulation modeling was used to determine the associations of community-level interventions with opioid overdose rates. The 3 examined interventions were initiation of more people to MOUD, increasing individuals’ retention with MOUD, and increasing distribution of naloxone. Data were analyzed from July to November 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures Reduction in overdose mortality, medication treatment capacity needs, and naloxone needs. Results No single intervention was associated with a 40% reduction in overdose mortality in the simulated communities. Reaching this goal required use of MOUD and naloxone. Achieving a 40% reduction required that 10% to 15% of the estimated OUD population not already receiving MOUD initiate MOUD every month, with 45% to 60%% retention for at least 6 months, and increased naloxone distribution. In all feasible settings and scenarios, attaining a 40% reduction in overdose mortality required that in every month, at least 10% of the population with OUD who were not currently receiving treatment initiate an MOUD. Conclusions and Relevance In this modeling study, only communities with increased capacity for treating with MOUD and increased MOUD retention experienced a 40% decrease in overdose mortality. These findings could provide a framework for developing community-level interventions to reduce opioid overdose death.

Opioid-related overdose has substantially increased among adolescents and young adults in recent years. How overdose differs by age and sex among youths and the factors associated with overdose by sex remain poorly described.To compare the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of female and male youths who have experienced a nonfatal opioid overdose (NFOD) and compare the incidence of NFOD by sex.This retrospective cohort study used data on US individuals aged 11 to 24 years with a diagnosis of NFOD from the IBM MarketScan Commercial Database from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2017.Sex.The primary outcome was NFOD stratified by sex; covariates included sociodemographic and clinical characteristics.Among 20 312 youths aged 11 to 24 years who had a history of NFOD and met study eligibility criteria, the median age was 20 years (interquartile range, 18-22 years; mean [SD] age, 20.0 [2.9] years) and 56.7% were male. Compared with male youths, female youths had a higher baseline prevalence of mood or anxiety disorder (65.5% vs 51.9%, P .001), trauma and stress-related disorders (16.4% vs 10.1%, P .001), and history of suicide attempt or self-harm (14.6% vs 9.9%, P .001). Male youths had a higher prevalence of opioid use disorder (44.7% vs 29.2%, P .001), cannabis use disorder (18.3% vs 11.3%, P .001), and alcohol use disorder (20.3% vs 14.4%, P .001). The incidence rate ratio of NFODs in females vs males was greater than 1 for ages 11 to 16 years and was less than or equal to 1 after age 17 years.This cohort study found differences between female and male youths in sociodemographic and clinical characteristics and incidence of NFOD. Although female and male youths who experience overdose appear to have different risk factors, many of these risk factors may be amenable to early detection through screening and intervention.

This comparative effectiveness research study uses 2010-2017 data from the MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database to compare the rates of opioid-related overdose and all-cause hospitalization after treatment of opioid use disorder in outpatient vs inpatient care settings., Key Points Question Do the rates of overdose and hospitalization differ after outpatient medication treatment or inpatient care for opioid use disorder? Findings In this comparative effectiveness research study of 37 090 propensity score–matched individuals with opioid use disorder receiving outpatient medication treatment or inpatient care, all forms of inpatient care (short or long term) were associated with higher risk of subsequent overdose and hospitalization. Meaning The findings suggest that outpatient medication may be less likely than inpatient care to be associated with subsequent overdose or hospitalization., Importance Whereas outpatient treatment with medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) is evidence based, there is a large network of inpatient facilities in the US that are reimbursed by commercial insurers and do not typically offer MOUD. Objective To compare the rates of opioid-related overdose and all-cause hospitalization after outpatient MOUD treatment vs inpatient care. Design, Setting, and Participants This comparative effectiveness research study used deidentified claims of commercially insured individuals in the US from the MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2017, to obtain a sample of 37 090 individuals with opioid use disorder who initiated treatment with inpatient care and/or MOUD. Data were analyzed from October 1, 2019, to May 1, 2020. To address nonrandom treatment assignment, individuals with opioid use disorder who initiated MOUD or who entered inpatient care were matched 1:1 based on propensity scores. Exposures The independent variable of interest was the type of treatment initiated. Individuals could initiate 1 of 5 potential treatments: (1) outpatient MOUD, (2) short-term inpatient care, (3) short-term inpatient care followed by outpatient MOUD within 30 days, (4) long-term inpatient care, or (5) long-term inpatient care followed by outpatient MOUD within 30 days. Main Outcomes and Measures Opioid-related overdose and all-cause hospitalization at any point within the 12 months after treatment of opioid use disorder. The hazard for each outcome was estimated using a time-to-event Cox proportional hazards regression model. Results The cohort included 37 090 individuals matched 1:1 between inpatient and outpatient treatment (20 723 [56%] were younger than 30 years; 23 250 [63%] were male). After propensity score matching, compared with the inpatient treatments, initiation of outpatient MOUD alone was followed by the lowest 1-year overdose rate (2.2 [95% CI, 2.0-2.5] per 100 person-years vs 3.5 [95% CI, 2.7-4.4] to 7.0 [95% CI, 4.6-10.7] per 100 person-years) and hospitalization rate (39 [95% CI, 38-40] per 100 person-years vs 57 [95% CI, 54-61] to 74 [95% CI, 73-76] per 100 person-years). Outpatient MOUD was also associated with the lowest hazard of these events compared with inpatient care, which had hazard ratios ranging from 1.71 (95% CI, 1.35-2.17) to 2.67 (95% CI, 1.68-4.23) for overdose and 1.33 (95% CI, 1.23-1.44) to 1.90 (95% CI, 1.83-1.97) for hospitalizations. Conclusions and Relevance The results of this comparative effectiveness research study suggest that lower rates of subsequent overdose and hospitalization are associated with outpatient MOUD compared with short- or long-term inpatient care. When patients and clinicians have a choice of treatment, outpatient MOUD treatment may be associated with lower overdose and hospitalization on balance. Future research should assess which patients benefit most from inpatient care and how best to leverage existing inpatient treatment infrastructure.

Background Skin and soft tissue infections (SSTI) are common complications of injection drug use. We aimed to determine if rehospitalization and recurrent SSTI differ among persons with opioid use disorder (OUD) hospitalized for SSTI who are initiated on MOUD within 30 days of discharge and those who are not. Methods We performed a retrospective analysis of commercially insured adults aged 18 years and older in the U.S. with OUD and hospitalization for injection-related SSTI from 2010–2017. The primary exposure was initiation of MOUD in the 30 days following hospitalization for SSTI. The primary outcomes included 30-day and 1-year 1) all-cause rehospitalization and 2) recurrent SSTI. We calculated the incidence rates for the two groups: MOUD group and no MOUD group for the primary outcomes. We developed Cox models to determine if rehospitalization and recurrent SSTI differ between the two groups. Results Only 5.5 % (357/6538) of people received MOUD in the month following their index SSTI hospitalization. 30-day rehospitalization incidence was higher in the MOUD group compared to no MOUD (35.9 vs 27.5 per 100 person-30 days) and one-year SSTI recurrence was lower (10.3 vs 18.7 per 100 person-years). In multivariable modeling, the MOUD group remained at significantly higher risk of 30-day rehospitalization compared to the no MOUD group and at lower risk for one-year SSTI recurrence. Conclusions MOUD receipt following SSTI hospitalization decreases risk of recurrent SSTI among persons with OUD. Further expansion of these in-hospital services could provide an effective tool in the U.S. response to the opioid epidemic.

BACKGROUND: Not enough evidence exists to compare buprenorphine–naloxone with extended-release naltrexone for treating opioid use disorder. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of buprenorphine–naloxone versus extended-release naltrexone. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a previously reported randomized clinical trial of 570 adults in 8 U.S. inpatient or residential treatment programs. DATA SOURCES: Study instruments. TARGET POPULATION: Adults with opioid use disorder. TIME HORIZON: 24-week intervention with an additional 12 weeks of observation. PERSPECTIVE: Health care sector and societal. INTERVENTIONS: Buprenorphine–naloxone and extended-release naltrexone. OUTCOME MEASURES: Incremental costs combined with incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental time abstinent from opioids. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: Use of the health care sector perspective and a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY showed buprenorphine–naloxone to be preferable to extended-release naltrexone in 97% of bootstrap replications at 24 weeks and in 85% at 36 weeks. Similar results were obtained with incremental time abstinent from opioids as an outcome and with use of the societal perspective. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: The base-case results were sensitive to the cost of the 2 treatments and the success of randomized treatment initiation. LIMITATION: Relatively short follow-up for a chronic condition, substantial missing data, no information on patient out-of-pocket and social service costs. CONCLUSION: Buprenorphine–naloxone is preferred to extended-release naltrexone as first-line treatment when both options are clinically appropriate and patients require detoxification before initiating extended-release naltrexone.