Search

Background: Medications for opioid use disorders (MOUDs) are effective, but most people with opioid use disorder (OUD) do not receive treatment. Prior research has explored patients' structural barriers to access and perceptions of MOUD. Little research has considered treatment knowledge and perceptions outside of the patient population. Members of the public without OUD themselves (eg, family, friends) can significantly influence treatment decisions of persons with OUD. Considering these gaps, we conducted an original survey with a diverse sample of US adults to explore knowledge and preferences toward OUD treatments., Methods: We conducted an online survey with 1505 White, Black, and Latino/a Americans including a small percentage (8.5%) with self-reported lifetime OUD. The survey used vignettes to describe hypothetical patients with OUD, provide basic treatment information (ie, methadone, buprenorphine, naltrexone, nonmedication treatment), and then assessed treatment preferences. Using multivariable logistic regression, we examined associations between covariates of interest (eg, perceived access, knowledge, demographics) and preference for MOUD versus nonmedication treatment., Results: There were 523 White, 502 Black, and 480 Latino/a respondents. Across racial/ethnic subsamples, respondents had the greatest knowledge of nonmedication treatments, with Black (72.7%) and Latino/a (70.2%) respondents having significantly greater knowledge compared to White respondents (61.8%). However, after viewing the vignette, a greater proportion of respondents chose methadone (35.8%) or buprenorphine (34.8%) as their first-choice treatment for hypothetical patients. Multivariable logistic regression suggested that among Black respondents, those with knowledge of nonmedication treatment were more likely to choose MOUD than those without knowledge (odds ratio = 2.41, 95% confidence interval = 1.34-4.34). Perceived treatment access did not affect treatment choice., Conclusions: Across racial groups, knowledge and perceived access to nonmedication treatment was greater than for MOUD, but many still selected MOUD as a first-choice treatment. Significant findings emphasized the importance of treatment knowledge around decision-making, highlighting opportunities for tailored education efforts to improve uptake of evidence-based treatment., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: None. The authors have no conflicts of interest to report. AB served as an expert witness in cases against opioid distributors.

Background: Adolescents and young adults with risk factors for opioid misuse and opioid use disorder are at elevated risk for overdose. We examined prior non-fatal overdose experiences among at-risk adolescents/young adults to inform prevention efforts., Methods: Adolescents/young adults (ages 16-30) in two US emergency departments self-reporting past year opioid misuse or opioid use plus a misuse risk factor completed a baseline survey as part of an ongoing randomised controlled trial. We describe baseline factors associated with (a) overall non-fatal overdose experiences and (b) groups based on substance(s) used during the worst overdose experience., Results: Among 771 participants (27.9% male), 40.7% reported a non-fatal overdose experience. Compared with those without a prior overdose experience, those with prior overdose experience(s) were less likely to be heterosexual, and more likely to report a prior suicide attempt and greater peer substance misuse. Regarding the worst overdose experience, substance(s) included: 36.6% alcohol only, 28.0% alcohol and cannabis, 22.6% alcohol with other substance(s) and 12.7% other substance(s) only (eg, opioids). Compared with the alcohol only group, the alcohol and cannabis group were younger and less likely to be heterosexual; the alcohol with other substance(s) group were older and had greater peer substance misuse; and the other substance(s) only group were more likely to be male, receive public assistance, screen positive for anxiety and less likely to be heterosexual., Conclusions: Among at-risk adolescents/young adults, findings support the need for tailored overdose prevention efforts based on substance(s) used, with consideration of sexuality, mental health and peer substance use., Trial Registration Number: NCT04550715., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) including methadone (MMT), buprenorphine (BUP), and naltrexone (NTX) are safe and effective. However, there are significant negative perceptions surrounding MOUD, creating barriers to uptake. While research on MOUD stigma has largely focused on provider and patient experiences, fewer studies have explored MOUD perceptions among the general public. Given that MOUD stigma expressed by social ties surrounding individuals with OUD can influence treatment choices, we assessed MOUD perceptions among U.S. adults to determine how beliefs impacted treatment preference. We further explored how MOUD perceptions may be amplified among racialized groups with histories of experiencing drug-related discrimination., Methods: The study collected survey data from a diverse sample of U.S. adults (n = 1508) between October 2020 and January 2021. The survey measured knowledge of MOUD and non-medication treatments, relative agreement with common MOUD perceptions, and treatment preferences. Multinomial logistic regression analysis tested associations with treatment preference, stratified by race/ethnicity., Results: Descriptive results indicated that across groups, many respondents (66.8 %) had knowledge of MOUD, but believed MOUD was a "substitute" for opioids and had some degree of concern about misuse. Multivariable results showed knowledge of non-medication treatments was positively associated with MOUD preference among White (MMT OR = 3.16, 95 % CI = 1.35-7.39; BUP OR = 2.69, CI = 1.11-6.47), Black (MMT OR = 3.91, CI = 1.58-9.69), and Latino/a (MMT OR = 5.12, CI = 1.99-13.2; BUP OR = 3.85, CI = 1.5-9.87; NTX OR = 4.51, CI = 1.44-14.06) respondents. Among White respondents, we identified positive associations between MOUD experience and buprenorphine preference (OR = 4.33, CI = 1.17-16.06); non-medication treatment experience and preference for buprenorphine (OR = 2.86, CI = 1.03-7.94) and naltrexone (OR = 3.17, CI = 1.08-9.28). Concerns around misuse of methadone were negatively associated with methadone preference among White (OR = 0.65, CI = 0.43-0.98) and Latino/a (OR = 0.49, CI = 0.34-0.7), and concerns around misuse of buprenorphine was negatively associated with preference for MOUD among White (MMT OR = 0.62, CI = 0.39-0.99; BUP OR = 0.48, CI = 0.3-0.77; NTX OR = 0.6, CI = 0.36-0.99) and Latino/a (BUP OR = 0.59, CI = 0.39-0.89) respondents., Conclusions: This analysis offers critical insights into treatment perceptions beyond the patient population, finding that negative beliefs around MOUD are common and negatively associated with preferences for medication-based treatment. These findings highlight implications for public support of evidence-based treatment and lay the groundwork for future interventions addressing public stigma toward MOUD., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Pooja Lagisetty reports financial support was provided by National Institute on Drug Abuse. Amy Bohnert reports financial support was provided by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. Amy Bohnert reports financial support was provided by Michigan Department of Health and Human Services. Amy Bohnert reports a relationship with State of Michigan that includes: paid expert testimony. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Increasing access to naloxone (an opioid antagonist that can reverse overdose) could slow the US opioid epidemic. Prior studies suggest cost sharing may be a barrier to dispensing of naloxone prescriptions, but these studies were limited by their cross-sectional designs and use of databases that do not capture prescriptions that are not filled (abandoned)., Objective: To evaluate the association between cost sharing and naloxone prescription abandonment (nondispensing of naloxone prescriptions)., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional, regression discontinuity analysis exploited the fact that deductibles typically reset at the beginning of the year in commercial and Medicare plans. The included data were derived from the 2020-2021 IQVIA Formulary Impact Analyzer (a pharmacy transactions database that represents 63% of prescriptions at US pharmacies). The analysis included claims for naloxone nasal spray among commercially insured patients and Medicare patients that occurred during the 60 days before January 1, 2021, through 59 days after January 1, 2021., Exposure: Cost sharing, which is defined as the amount patients would have to pay to fill prescriptions., Main Outcomes and Measures: Local linear regression models were used to assess for abrupt changes in cost sharing and the probability of prescription abandonment on January 1, 2021. To estimate the association between cost sharing and prescription abandonment, a fuzzy regression discontinuity analysis was conducted., Results: These analyses included naloxone claims for 71 306 commercially insured patients and 101 706 Medicare patients (40 019 [56.1%] and 61 410 [60.4%], respectively, were female). The commercially insured patients and Medicare patients accounted for 73 311 and 106 076 naloxone claims, respectively. On January 1, 2021, the mean cost sharing per claim increased by $15.0 (95% CI, $13.8-$16.2) for commercially insured patients and increased by $12.3 (95% CI, $10.9-$13.6) for Medicare patients and the probability of abandonment increased by 4.7 (95% CI, 3.2-6.2) percentage points and 2.8 (95% CI, 1.6-4.1) percentage points, respectively. The results from the fuzzy regression discontinuity analysis suggest a decision by commercial and Medicare plans to increase naloxone cost sharing by $10 would be associated with percentage-point increases of 3.1 (95% CI, 2.2-4.1) and 2.3 (95% CI, 1.4-3.2), respectively, in the probability of abandonment., Conclusions: The elimination of cost sharing might be associated with increased naloxone dispensing to commercially insured and Medicare patients.

Importance: Buprenorphine is an underused treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) that can be prescribed in general medical settings. Founded in 2017, the Michigan Opioid Collaborative (MOC) is an outreach and educational program that aims to address clinician and community barriers to buprenorphine access; however, the association between the MOC and buprenorphine treatment is unknown., Objective: To evaluate the association between MOC service use and county-level temporal trends of density of buprenorphine prescribers and patients receiving buprenorphine., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study exploited staggered implementation of MOC services across all Michigan counties. Difference-in-difference analyses were conducted by applying linear fixed-effects regression across all counties to estimate the overall association of MOC engagement with outcomes and linear regression for each MOC-engaged county separately to infer county-specific results using data from May 2015 to August 2020. Analyses were conducted from September 2021 to November 2023., Exposures: MOC engagement., Main Outcomes and Measures: County-level monthly numbers of buprenorphine prescribers and patients receiving buprenorphine (per 100 000 population)., Results: Among 83 total counties, 57 counties (68.7%) in Michigan were engaged by MOC by 2020, with 3 (3.6%) initiating engagement in 2017, 19 (22.9%) in 2018, 27 (32.5%) in 2019, and 8 (9.6%) in 2020. Michigan is made up of 83 counties with a total population size of 9 990 000. A total of 5 070 000 (50.8%) were female, 1 410 000 (14.1%) were African American or Black, 530 000 (5.3%) were Hispanic or Latino, and 7 470 000 (74.7%) were non-Hispanic White. The mean (SD) value of median age across counties was 44.8 (6.4). The monthly increases in buprenorphine prescriber numbers in the preengagement (including all time points for nonengaged counties) and postengagement periods were 0.07 and 0.39 per 100 000 population, respectively, with the absolute difference being 0.33 (95% CI, 0.12-0.53) prescribers per 100 000 population (P = .002). The numbers of patients receiving buprenorphine increased by an average of 0.6 and 7.15 per 100 000 population per month in preengagement and postengagement periods, respectively, indicating an estimated additional 6.56 (95% CI, 2.09-11.02) patients receiving buprenorphine per 100 000 population (P = .004) monthly increase after engagement compared with before., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study measuring buprenorphine prescriptions in Michigan over time, counties' engagement in OUD-focused outreach and clinician education services delivered by a multidisciplinary team was associated with a temporal increase in buprenorphine prescribers and patients receiving buprenorphine.

Background: Some patients prescribed opioid analgesic (OA) medications for pain experience serious side effects, including dependence, sedation, and overdose. As most patients are at low risk for OA-related harms, risk reduction interventions requiring multiple counseling sessions are impractical on a large scale., Objective: This study evaluates whether an intervention based on reinforcement learning (RL), a field of artificial intelligence, learned through experience to personalize interactions with patients with pain discharged from the emergency department (ED) and decreased self-reported OA misuse behaviors while conserving counselors' time., Methods: We used data representing 2439 weekly interactions between a digital health intervention ("Prescription Opioid Wellness and Engagement Research in the ED" [PowerED]) and 228 patients with pain discharged from 2 EDs who reported recent opioid misuse. During each patient's 12 weeks of intervention, PowerED used RL to select from 3 treatment options: a brief motivational message delivered via an interactive voice response (IVR) call, a longer motivational IVR call, or a live call from a counselor. The algorithm selected session types for each patient each week, with the goal of minimizing OA risk, defined in terms of a dynamic score reflecting patient reports during IVR monitoring calls. When a live counseling call was predicted to have a similar impact on future risk as an IVR message, the algorithm favored IVR to conserve counselor time. We used logit models to estimate changes in the relative frequency of each session type as PowerED gained experience. Poisson regression was used to examine the changes in self-reported OA risk scores over calendar time, controlling for the ordinal session number (1st to 12th)., Results: Participants on average were 40 (SD 12.7) years of age; 66.7% (152/228) were women and 51.3% (117/228) were unemployed. Most participants (175/228, 76.8%) reported chronic pain, and 46.2% (104/225) had moderate to severe depressive symptoms. As PowerED gained experience through interactions over a period of 142 weeks, it delivered fewer live counseling sessions than brief IVR sessions (P=.006) and extended IVR sessions (P<.001). Live counseling sessions were selected 33.5% of the time in the first 5 weeks of interactions (95% CI 27.4%-39.7%) but only for 16.4% of sessions (95% CI 12.7%-20%) after 125 weeks. Controlling for each patient's changes during the course of treatment, this adaptation of treatment-type allocation led to progressively greater improvements in self-reported OA risk scores (P<.001) over calendar time, as measured by the number of weeks since enrollment began. Improvement in risk behaviors over time was especially pronounced among patients with the highest risk at baseline (P=.02)., Conclusions: The RL-supported program learned which treatment modalities worked best to improve self-reported OA risk behaviors while conserving counselors' time. RL-supported interventions represent a scalable solution for patients with pain receiving OA prescriptions., Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02990377; https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02990377., (©John D Piette, Laura Thomas, Sean Newman, Nicolle Marinec, Joel Krauss, Jenny Chen, Zhenke Wu, Amy S B Bohnert. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 11.07.2023.)

Objective: The present study assessed concordance in perioperative opioid fulfillment data between Michigan's prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) and a national pharmacy prescription database., Background: PDMPs and pharmacy dispensation databases are widely utilized, yet no research has compared their opioid fulfilment data postoperatively., Methods: This retrospective study included participants (N=19,823) from 2 registry studies at Michigan Medicine between July 1, 2016, and February 7, 2019. We assessed the concordance of opioid prescription fulfilment between the Michigan PDMP and a national pharmacy prescription database (Surescripts). The primary outcome was concordance of opioid fill data in the 91 to 180 days after surgical discharge, a time period frequently used to define persistent opioid use. Secondary outcomes included concordance of opioid dose and number of prescriptions fulfilled. Multinomial logistic regression analysis examined concordance across key subgroups., Results: In total, 3076 participants had ≥1 opioid fulfillments 91 to 180 days after discharge, with 1489 (49%) documented in PDMP only, 243 (8%) in Surescripts only, and 1332 (43%) in both databases. Among participants with fulfillments in both databases, there were differences in the number (n=239; 18%) and dose (n=227; 17%). The PDMP database was more likely to capture fulfillment among younger and publicly insured participants, while Surescripts was more likely to capture fulfillment from counties bordering neighboring states. The prevalence of persistent opioid use was 10.7% using PDMP data, 5.5% using Surescripts data only, and 11.7% using both data resources., Conclusions: The state PDMP appears reliable for detecting opioid fulfillment after surgery, detecting 2 times more patients with persistent opioid use compared with Surescripts., Competing Interests: C.M.B. is a consultant for Heron Therapeutics and Vertex Pharmaceuticals. He has performed 1-time advisory roles for Alosa Health and the Benter Foundation. In addition, he provides expert testimony for medical malpractice. The remaining authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patterns of opioid use vary, including prescribed use without aberrancy, limited aberrant use, and potential opioid use disorder (OUD). In clinical practice, similar opioid-related International Classification of Disease (ICD) codes are applied across this spectrum, limiting understanding of how groups vary by sociodemographic factors, comorbidities, and long-term risks., Objective: (1) Examine how Veterans assigned opioid abuse/dependence ICD codes vary at diagnosis and with respect to long-term risks. (2) Determine whether those with limited aberrant use share more similarities to likely OUD vs those using opioids as prescribed., Design: Longitudinal observational cohort study., Participants: National sample of Veterans categorized as having (1) likely OUD, (2) limited aberrant opioid use, or (3) prescribed, non-aberrant use based upon enhanced medical chart review., Main Measures: Comparison of sociodemographic and clinical factors at diagnosis and rates of age-adjusted mortality, non-fatal opioid overdose, and hospitalization after diagnosis. An exploratory machine learning analysis investigated how closely those with limited aberrant use resembled those with likely OUD., Key Results: Veterans (n = 483) were categorized as likely OUD (62.1%), limited aberrant use (17.8%), and prescribed, non-aberrant use (20.1%). Age, proportion experiencing homelessness, chronic pain, anxiety disorders, and non-opioid substance use disorders differed by group. All-cause mortality was high (44.2 per 1000 person-years (95% CI 33.9, 56.7)). Hospitalization rates per 1000 person-years were highest in the likely OUD group (831.5 (95% CI 771.0, 895.5)), compared to limited aberrant use (739.8 (95% CI 637.1, 854.4)) and prescribed, non-aberrant use (411.9 (95% CI 342.6, 490.4). The exploratory analysis reclassified 29.1% of those with limited aberrant use as having likely OUD with high confidence., Conclusions: Veterans assigned opioid abuse/dependence ICD codes are heterogeneous and face variable long-term risks. Limited aberrant use confers increased risk compared to no aberrant use, and some may already have OUD. Findings warrant future investigation of this understudied population., (© 2022. This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply.)

Background: This study examined factors associated with treatment recommendations for patients with a new diagnosis of opioid use disorder (OUD), comparing recommendations for patients with clear signs of OUD versus those with lower likelihood of OUD., Methods: The study conducted a retrospective medical chart review in a randomly selected national sample of 520 Veteran Health Administration patients with a new opioid-related electronic health record (EHR) diagnosis from 2012 to 2017. The study categorized patients as having "high likelihood" or "lower likelihood of OUD" based on the presence or absence of clinician documentation in medical records of specific qualifying criteria (e.g., clinician documentation of patient meeting diagnostic criteria for OUD, etc). Analyses examined the association between baseline demographic and clinical characteristics with recommendations for medication and other treatments for OUD., Results: Among patients with a new diagnosis of OUD, 28.7 % (n = 149) were recommended medication treatment, 52.5 % (n = 273) were recommended specialty substance use disorder (SUD) treatment, and 41.9 % (n = 218) were recommended treatment in non-SUD mental health settings. In adjusted models, high likelihood of OUD (AOR 8.31, 95 % CI 4.81-15.03) was strongly associated with the clinician recommending medications for OUD, while age 56-75 (compared to &lt;35, AOR 0.36, 95 % CI 0.18-0.69), stimulant use disorder (AOR 0.28, 95 % CI 0.15-0.53), and rural residence (AOR 0.51, 95 % CI 0.30-0.85) were associated with lower likelihood of being recommended medication treatment., Conclusions: Differentiating among patients with EHR diagnoses of OUD to identify the subset with higher likelihood of underlying OUD is important to accurately understand OUD treatment rates and disparities. However, even among patients with a clear diagnosis of OUD, medication treatment is still recommended less often than other treatments, suggesting interventions are needed to encourage clinicians to prioritize medication treatment as a first-line treatment, especially for older, rural patients and those with polysubstance use., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Importance: Opioid dosage tapering has emerged as a strategy to reduce harms associated with long-term opioid therapy; however, evidence supporting this approach is limited., Objective: To identify the association of opioid tapering or abrupt discontinuation with opioid overdose and suicide events among patients receiving stable long-term opioid therapy without evidence of opioid misuse., Design, Setting, and Participants: This comparative effectiveness study with a trial emulation approach used a large US claims data set of individuals with commercial insurance or Medicare Advantage who were aged 18 years or older and receiving stable long-term opioid therapy without evidence of opioid misuse between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2018. Statistical analysis was performed from January 17, 2020, through November 12, 2021., Interventions: Three opioid dosage strategies: stable dosage, tapering (dosage reduction ≥15%), or abrupt discontinuation., Main Outcomes and Measures: Time to opioid overdose or suicide event identified from International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision and International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision diagnosis codes in medical claims over 11 months of follow-up. Inverse probability weighting was used to adjust for baseline confounders. The primary analysis used an intention-to-treat approach; follow-up after assignment regardless of changes in opioid dose was included. A per-protocol analysis was also conducted, in which episodes were censored for lack of adherence to assigned treatment., Results: A cohort of 199 836 individuals (45.1% men; mean [SD] age, 56.9 [12.4] years; and 57.6% aged 45-64 years) had 415 123 qualifying, long-term opioid therapy episodes; 87.1% of episodes were considered stable, 11.1% were considered a taper, and 1.8% were considered abrupt discontinuation. The adjusted cumulative incidence of opioid overdose or suicide events 11 months after baseline was 0.96% (95% CI, 0.92%-0.99%) with a stable dosage strategy, 1.10% (95% CI, 0.99%-1.22%) with a tapered dosage strategy, and 1.28% (95% CI, 0.93%-1.38%) with an abrupt discontinuation strategy. The risk difference between a taper and a stable dosage was 0.15% (95% CI, 0.03%-0.26%), and the risk difference between abrupt discontinuation and a stable dosage was 0.33% (95% CI, -0.03% to 0.74%). Results were similar using the per-protocol approach., Conclusions and Relevance: This study identified a small absolute increase in risk of harms associated with opioid tapering compared with a stable opioid dosage. These results do not suggest that policies of mandatory dosage tapering for individuals receiving a stable long-term opioid dosage without evidence of opioid misuse will reduce short-term harm via suicide and overdose.

Background: More than 100 million surgeries take place annually in the United States, and more than 90% of surgical patients receive an opioid prescription. A sizable minority of these patients will go on to use opioids long-term, contributing to the national opioid epidemic., Methods: The objective of this study was to develop and validate a model to predict persistent opioid use after surgery. Participants included surgical patients (≥18 years old) enrolled in a cohort study at an academic medical center between 2015 and 2018. Persistent opioid use was defined as filling opioid prescriptions in postdischarge days 4 to 90 and 91 to 180. Predictors included electronic health record data, state prescription drug monitoring data, and patient-reported measures. Three models were developed: a full, a restricted, and a minimal model using a derivation and validation cohort., Results: Of 24,040 patients, 4,879 (20%) experienced persistent opioid use. In the validation cohort, the full, restricted, and minimal model had C-statistics of 0.87 (95% CI 0.86-0.88), 0.86 (0.85-0.88), and 0.85 (0.84-0.87), respectively. All models performed better among patients with preoperative opioid use compared to opioid-naive patients (P < .001). The models slightly overpredicted risk in the validation cohort. The net benefit of using the restricted model to refer patients for preoperative counseling was 0.072 to 0.092, which is superior to evaluating no patients (net benefit of 0) or all patients (net benefit of -0.22 to -0.63)., Conclusion: This study developed and validated a prediction model for persistent opioid use using accessible data resources. The models achieved strong performance, outperforming prior published models., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To determine the effect of prescription opioid use in the year before surgery on opioid consumption after surgery., Background: Recently developed postoperative opioid prescribing guidelines rely on data from opioid-naïve patients. However, opioid use in the USA is common, and the impact of prior opioid exposure on the consumption of opioids after surgery is unclear., Methods: Population-based cohort study of 26,001 adults 18 years of age and older who underwent one of nine elective general or gynecologic surgical procedures between January 1, 2017 and October 31, 2019, with prospectively collected patient-reported data from the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative (MSQC) linked to state prescription drug monitoring program at 70 MSQC-participating hospitals on 30-day patient-reported opioid consumption in oral morphine equivalents (OME) (primary outcome)., Results: Compared with opioid-naïve participants, opioid-exposed participants (26% of sample) consumed more prescription opioids after surgery (adjusted OME difference 12, 95% CI 10 to 14). Greater opioid exposure was associated with higher postoperative consumption in a dose-dependent manner, with chronic users reporting the greatest consumption (additional OMEs 32, 95% CI 21 to 42). However, for eight of nine procedures, 90% of opioid-exposed participants consumed ≤150 OMEs. Among those receiving perioperative prescriptions, opioid-exposed participants had higher likelihood of refill (adjusted OR 4.7, 95% CI 4.4 to 5.1), number of refills (adjusted incidence rate ratio 4.0, 95% CI 3.7 to 4.3), and average refill amount (adjusted OME difference 333, 95% CI 292 to 374))., Conclusions: Preoperative opioid use is associated with small increases in patient-reported opioid consumption after surgery for most patients, though greater differences exist for patients with chronic use. For most patients with preoperative opioid exposure, existing guidelines may meet their postoperative needs. However, guidelines may need tailoring for patients with chronic use, and providers should anticipate a higher likelihood of postoperative refills for all opioid-exposed patients., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MCB has received consulting fees from Axial Healthcare and Alosa Health. CMB has served as a consultant for Heron Therapeutics, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, and Alosa Health, and provides expert medicolegal testimony. Otherwise the authors declare no competing interests., (© American Society of Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine 2022. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Competing Interests: Declaration of interests KH has been supported by the Esther Ting Memorial Professorship at Stanford University School of Medicine and research grants from the US Veterans Administration Health Services Research and Development Service (RCS 04-141-3, HX-12-001, and HX002714-01A2), the US National Institute on Drug Abuse (3UG1 DA015815-17S4 and 2UG1DA015815-19), the US Food and Drug Administration, Wu Tsai Neurosciences Institute, the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, the County of Santa Clara California, and the American Board of Family Medicine. He has received speaking honoraria and travel expenses from the American College of Medical Toxicology, Arizona State University, Barclays Bank, Caron Foundation, the University of Florida, the New York Museum of Modern Art, Syracuse University, West Virginia University School of Medicine, and the West Virginia Medical Professionals Health Program. He has received writing honoraria or royalties from the Association of Psychological Science, American Academy of Political and Social Science, Brookings Institution, Cambridge University Press, and Washington Monthly. He has been a paid consultant to AELIS Pharma, Harvard Medical School, and Harvard University Press. CLS has been employed by Stanford University, the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, Heluna Health, and the Los Angeles LGBT Center. She has received research funding or stipends from the US National Institute on Drug Abuse (K01DA050771, T32DA035165), the RAND Opioid Policy Tools and Information Center), Wu Tsai Neurosciences Institute, and UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine, and speaking honoraria or travel expenses from Emory University, New York University, UCLA, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the University of Southern California, the University of Pittsburgh, the University of Chicago, the University of Western Ontario, the Nevada State Medical Association, RAND, the University of California, Irvine, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, College on Problems of Drug Dependence, the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, HIV Research for Prevention, Addiction Health Services Research, and the American Psychopathological Association. CMA has been supported by the Arnold School of Public Health at the University of South Carolina, and by research grants from the US National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA034634, K01DA041628, U2CDA050097, R01DA049776, and R01DA052425), the US National Institute on Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse (R01AA029097 and R01AA029821), and the South Carolina Department of Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse Services, and has been a paid consultant to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, RTI International, the Medical University of South Carolina, the State of Pennsylvania Department of Public Health, and the State of Illinois Division of Health Care and Family Services. ASBB has been supported by grants from the US National Institutes for Health (R01 DA045705), the US Veterans Health Administration (IIR 13-322 and C19 21-278), the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U01CE002780), Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, the US Department of Defense, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, the Michigan Health Endowment Fund, and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration via sub-contracts from the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, has received speaker honoraria or travel expenses from the Illinois Health and Hospital Association, the International Summit on Suicide Research, the Washington State Department of Labor & Industries, the American Psychopathological Association, and the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area program, has been paid as a consultant by New York University, and has received products from Fitbit at a reduced cost and Headspace for free for research purposes. MLB has been supported by research grants from the US Department of Veterans Affairs and the US National Institute on Drug Abuse (R37-DA15612), and a Koret Foundation gift for Smart Cities and Digital Living, has received travel expenses from the University of Maryland, the University of Auckland, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the European Working Group on Stochastic Modeling, INSEAD, the University of Michigan, and the University of Oklahoma, and has been a paid consultant to Compass Lexecon and DE Shaw. JPC has received a National Science Foundation EAGER Grant on Detecting and Disrupting Illicit Supply Networks via Traffic Distribution Systems, is a consultant to the RAND Corporation's Drug Policy Research Center, has consulted with or received honoraria from the Actis—Norwegian Policy Network on Alcohol and Drugs, the Arnold Foundation, Bank of Montreal, Boston University, the Foreign Affairs, Justice Research and Statistics Association, Lisbon Addictions Conference, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, National Affairs, the National Institute of Justice, Oxford University Press, Pew, PIRE, the Russell Sage Foundation, Springer Verlag, Stanford University, the US State Department, Texas Research Society on Alcoholism, the US Veteran's Administration, Washington Monthly, and the WT Grant Foundation. JHC has received research support or funding from the US National Institutes of Health and National Library of Medicine (R56LM013365), the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (GBMF8040), the US National Science Foundation (SPO181514); Google (SPO13604), the Stanford Clinical Excellence Research Center, the Stanford Department of Medicine and Department of Pathology, and the Stanford Aging and Ethnogeriatrics Research Center (P30AG059307), which is part of the Resource Centers for Minority Aging Research programme led by the US National Institute on Aging at the National Institutes of Health, is the co-founder of Reaction Explorer (which develops and licenses organic chemistry education software), and has been paid consulting or speaker fees by the US National Institute of Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network, Tuolc, Roche, and Younker Hyde MacFarlane. M-FC has served as president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a justice of the Supreme Court of California, the Herman Phleger Professor at Stanford Law School, a distinguished visiting jurist at the New York University School of Law, the Castle Distinguished Lecturer in Ethics, Politics, and Economics at Yale University, a member of the President & Fellows of Harvard College (the Harvard Corporation), a member of the board of directors of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, a member of the Council of the American Law Institute, chair of the board of directors of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, chair of the advisory board of the Seed Initiative at the Stanford Graduate School of Business, and a member of the advisory board at the Stanford Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence Institute. His work has been supported by Stanford Law School and by a grant from the Stanford Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence Institute, and he was previously chair of the advisory board of the AI Now Institute at New York University. YLH has received research grants from the US National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA050323, DA048613, DA008227, DA043247, DA030359, DA037317, and DA15446), research funding from GW Pharmaceuticals, speaking honoraria or travel expenses, or both, from the University of North Carolina, the American Society for the Advancement of Science, the Society for Neuroscience Public Education & Communication Committee, Washington University in St Louis, Temple University, Tufts School of Medicine, Indiana University, the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology, the Iowa Neuroscience Institute, the Franklin Institute, State University of New York Upstate Medical University, the Canadian Consortium for the Investigation of Cannabinoids, the University of Michigan, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the US National Institutes of Health, Penn State Hershey College of Medicine, the US National Academy of Medicine, the Mediterranean Neuroscience Society, the Wu Tsai Neurosciences Institute, Society of Biological Psychiatry, International College of Neuropharmacology, the Federation of European Neuroscience Societies, Gordon Research Conference, the National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Research Council, and the Society of Neuroscience. DNJ has received research grants from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research and the Ontario Ministry of Health, financial support from the departments of medicine at both the University of Toronto and Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, travel expenses or speaking honoraria from Dalhousie University, the University of Ottawa, the University of Saskatchewan, the University of Calgary, the Bloomberg Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, the American College of Physicians, the University of Alabama at Birmingham, the American Society of Nephrology, the Canadian Society of Internal Medicine, the Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society, The Canadian Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Western Canada Addiction Forum, and the Canadian House of Commons Standing Committee on Health, and payment for expert witness testimony from (and has been retained by) Sanis, a generic drug manufacturer and distributor to provide advice related to an ongoing Canadian class action, and is a volunteer member of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing. HKK has been supported by grants from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (77667, 74275, and 73359), the John Templeton Foundation (52125), the JPB Foundation (1085 and 439), and the Association of State and Territorial Health Officers (1584), has received honoraria from Jefferson University, Jefferson Health, the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, MaineHealth Center for Tobacco Independence, Harvard University Memorial Church, the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, the University of Wisconsin Medical School, Wake Forest Baptist Health (in partnership with Shaw University), the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation advisory committee, the American College of Gastroenterology, and Tufts University School of Medicine, has been a consultant to the Commonwealth Fund, and is a member of the Community COVID Coalition Advisory Group, Phillips Academy Public Health Expert Advisory Panel, the Policy Advisory Group, the board of the Bipartisan Policy Center, the Palliative and Advanced Illness Research Center External Advisory Board (at the Perelman School of Medicine), the American Cancer Society Eastern New England Area Council of Advisors, the American University of Beirut International Advisory Council, the US National Advisory Board, the Culture of Health Year in Review Advisory Committee and Culture of Health as a Business Imperative Initiative of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the editorial board of the Journal of the American Medical Association, the New England Donor Services board of trustees, the Josiah Macy Jr Foundation board of directors, and the Lancet–O'Neill Institute, Georgetown University Commission on Global Health and the Law. EEK has received research funding from the US Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development (COR 19-489, 1I01HX003063-01A1, 5I01HX001752-05, 5I01HX002737-02, 5I01HX001288-05, and 5I01HX000911-06), the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (OPD-1511-33052), the US National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (5R01AT008387-04, 5UH3AT009761- 04/5UG3AT009761-02, and 4UH3AT009765-03/5UG3AT009765-02), and the US National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (1U01DK123816-01), and travel expenses from the law firm Nix Patterson representing the state of Oklahoma (to serve as an expert witness in support of the state's litigation against opioid manufacturers), the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, the Association of Academic Physiatrists, the Australian Pain Society, the Cleveland VA Medical Research and Education Foundation, the Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy, the Foundation for Medical Excellence, the Foundation for Opioid Response Efforts, the Friends of VA Medical Care and Health Research, the Hennepin Healthcare Research Institute, the Indiana Institute for Medical Research, the US National Academies of Medicine, the US National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, the National Governors Association, the North American Spine Society, the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute at Stanford University, the US Food and Drug Administration, and the Washington State Department of Labor & Industries. AL has received consulting fees for her work as a medical expert witness in federal and state litigation against opioid manufacturers, distributors, and pharmacies, book royalties from Johns Hopkins University Press and Dutton Penguin Random House, speaking honoraria or travel expenses, or both, from the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, the Ohio State University School of Medicine, the University of Kansas School of Medicine (sponsorship of the Alpha Omega Alpha Visiting Professorship), the Oregon Pain Guidance, the Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council, the Perrin's Opioid Litigation Conference, the Public Funds Forum, the Baton Rouge Health District, the Montrose Colorado Annual Continuing Medical Education Conference, the PerformRX Pharmacy Benefits Manager Annual Conference, the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, the Psych Congress, the 69th Annual Canadian Refresher Course for Family Physicians, the Ohio State University Inter-Professional Summit, the University of Texas, the Geminus Community Partners Annual Conference of Indiana, the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse, the Stanford Sierra Camp Womens' Alumni Wellness Retreat, the American Psychiatric Association, the Association for Medical Education and Research in Substance Abuse, and the Southwestern Gynecologic Assembly. SCM has been supported by the Redlich Professorship and the Rosekrans Pain Research Endowment Fund at Stanford University School of Medicine and research grants awarded to Stanford University from the US National Institutes of Health (R61NS118651, R03HD094577, R01DA045027, R01NS109450, R01AT008561, K24DA02926207, R01DA035484, and P01AT00665105), the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI OPD-1610- 370707), the Stanford Wu Tsai Neurosciences Institute, and the University of California, San Francisco–Stanford Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation (FDA) (2U01FD005978-06), has received speaking honoraria or travel expenses from Walter Reed, Harvard University, the American Academy of Pain Medicine, Washington University, the US Food and Drug Administration, the US National Institutes of Health, the US National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, the University of Washington, George Washington University, New York University, Weill Cornell Medical College, Duke University, the University of Utah, the World Institute of Pain, and the Canadian Pain Society, has received payment for testimony (unrelated to opioids) from Lauria Tokunaga Gates and Linn, and has received payment for consulting (unrelated to opioids) from the American Society of Anesthesiology; Favros Law; Fain Anderson VanDerhoef Rosendahl O'Halloran Spillane; Cox, Wootton, Lerner, Griffin & Hansen; Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith; Muro & Lampe; McCormick Barstow; Schmid & Voiles; and the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center. LLO has received travel expenses or honoraria from Cardozo Law School, Claremont McKenna College, Duke University, ETH Zürich, Georgetown University, Harvard University, the Los Angeles Intellectual Property Law Association, Michigan State University, New York University, Northwestern University, the University of Chicago, the University of Houston, the University of Kansas, the University of Nebraska, the University of San Diego, the University of Texas, the University of Villanova, the World Intellectual Property Organization, and Yale University, has received a writing honoraria from the Brookings Institution (to write a policy proposal for the Hamilton Project), and is a paid consultant to the MITRE Corporation (to assist with evaluations of the US Patent and Trademark Office requested by the Department of Commerce). BS has received research support from the US National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (R01 AA023650 and K23 AA023284), the US National Institute of Drug Abuse (R21 DA043181), the US National Institute of Mental Health (P50MH115838), and the US National Highway Transportation Safety Authority, has received royalties from a software licence to healthStratica, and has several invention disclosures with the University of Pittsburgh for digital behavioral interventions. CT has been supported by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA HSR&D IIR 15-298, IIR 18-253, IIR 20-058, and PPO 16-337) and the US National Institutes of Health (NIAAA 1R01AA024136-01).

Background: Telemedicine-delivered buprenorphine (tele-buprenorphine) can potentially increase access to buprenorphine for patients with opioid use disorder (OUD), especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, but we know little about use in clinical care., Methods: This study was a retrospective national cohort study of veterans diagnosed with opioid use disorder (OUD) receiving buprenorphine treatment from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) in fiscal years 2012-2019. The study examined trends in use of tele-buprenorphine and compared demographic and clinical characteristics in patients who received tele-buprenorphine versus those who received in-person treatment only., Results: Utilization of tele-buprenorphine increased from 2.29% of buprenorphine patients in FY2012 (n = 187) to 7.96% (n = 1352) in FY2019 in VHA veterans nationally. Compared to patients receiving only in-person care, tele-buprenorphine patients were less likely to be male (AOR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.73-0.98) or Black (AOR = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.45-0.65). Tele-buprenorphine patients were more likely to be treated in community-based outpatient clinics rather than large medical centers (AOR = 2.91, 95% CI: 2.67-3.17) and to live in rural areas (AOR = 2.12, 95% CI:1.92-2.35). The median days supplied of buprenorphine treatment was 722 (interquartile range: 322-1459) among the tele-buprenorphine patients compared to 295 (interquartile range: 67-854) among patients who received treatment in-person., Conclusions: Use of telemedicine to deliver buprenorphine treatment in VHA increased 3.5-fold between 2012 and 2019, though overall use remained low prior to COVID-19. Tele-buprenorphine is a promising modality especially when treatment access is limited. However, we must continue to understand how practitioners and patient are using telemedicine and how these patients' outcomes compare to those using in-person care., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Context: Opioid prescribing to cancer patients is declining, but it is unknown whether reductions have been tailored to those at highest risk of opioid-related harms., Objectives: Examine whether declines in opioid dispensing to patients receiving active cancer treatment are sharper in patients with substance use disorder (SUD) or mental health diagnoses., Methods: We used 2008-2018 national, commercial healthcare claims data to examine adjusted and unadjusted trends in opioid dispensing (receipt of ≥1 fill; average daily dosage; receipt of high-dose opioids; receipt of concurrent opioids and benzodiazepines) to patients ages ≥18 receiving treatment for one of four cancer types (breast; colorectal; head and neck; sarcoma; N = 324,789 patients). To compare declines across subgroups with varying risk of opioid-related harms, we stratified by SUD and mental health diagnosis. To address potential confounding, we estimated subgroup-specific trends using generalized estimating equations, adjusting for covariates., Results: Across groups, rate of ≥1 opioid fill per quarter fell 32.5% (95% CI: 31.8%-33.2%) from 2008 to 2018; daily dose among those receiving opioids fell 37.6% (95% CI: 36.7%-38.6%). In most cases, these declines were not sharper in subgroups at greater risk of opioid-related harms. For example, patients with opioid use disorder experienced the smallest declines in dispensing frequency, and there was no evidence that declines were sharper in patients with mental health diagnoses., Conclusion: Sharp declines in opioid prescribing during the drug overdose crisis have affected a wide range of patients undergoing cancer treatment and may not have been sufficiently tailored to patient characteristics. Research on implications for opioid-related harms and pain management is needed., (Copyright © 2021 American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. All rights reserved.)

Preventing opioid misuse and opioid use disorder is critical among at-risk adolescents and young adults (AYAs). An Emergency Department (ED) visit provides an opportunity for delivering interventions during a rapidly changing opioid landscape. This paper describes pilot data and the protocol for a 2 × 2 factorial randomized controlled trial testing efficacy of early interventions to reduce escalation of opioid (prescription or illicit) misuse among at-risk AYAs. Interventions are delivered using technology by health coaches. AYAs ages 16-30 in the ED screening positive for prescription opioid use (+ ≥ 1 risk factor) or opioid misuse will be stratified by risk severity, sex, and age group. Participants will be randomly assigned to a condition at intake, either a live video health coach-delivered single session or a control condition of an enhanced usual care (EUC) community resource brochure. They are also randomly assigned to one of two post-intake conditions: health coach-delivered portal-like messaging via web portal over 30 days or EUC delivered at 30 days post-intake. Thus, the trial has four groups: health coach-delivered session+portal, health coach-delivered session+EUC, EUC + portal, and EUC + EUC. Outcomes will be measured at 3-, 6-, and 12-months. The primary outcome is opioid misuse based on a modified Alcohol Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test. Secondary outcomes include other opioid outcomes (e.g., days of opioid misuse, overdose risk behaviors), other substance misuse and consequences, and impaired driving. This study is innovative by testing the efficacy of feasible and scalable technology-enabled interventions to reduce and prevent opioid misuse and opioid use disorder. Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov University of Michigan HUM00177625 NCT Registration: NCT04550715., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Efforts to address opioid-involved overdose fatalities have led to widespread implementation of various initiatives to taper (i.e., reduce or discontinue) opioid prescriptions despite a limited understanding of patients' experience., Methods: From 2019-2020, we recruited patients with chronic, non-cancer pain who had undergone a reduction in opioid daily dosage of ≥50 % in the past two years at Boston Medical Center or Michigan Medicine. Participants completed semi-structured interviews exploring health history, opioid use, and taper experiences. Inductive analysis, guided by theoretical conceptualizations of structural stigma, identified emergent themes., Results: Among 41 participants, three elements of structural stigma were identified across participants' lives. First, participants identified themselves as overlooked subjects of the U.S. opioid crisis, who experienced overprescribing, subsequent stigmatization and surveillance of opioid use (e.g., toxicology screening, "pill counts"), and various tapering initiatives. Second, during the course of pain treatment, participants felt stigmatized and invalidated by cultural norms linking chronic pain to stereotypes of acting disingenuously (e.g., "drug-seeking"). Finally, during and after tapers, institutional policies and programs further increased participants' feelings of marginalization, producing multiple unintended consequences, including reduced access to medical care and feeling "orphaned by the system.", Conclusions: Opioid tapers may exacerbate the social production and burden of stigma among patients with chronic pain, especially when processes are perceived to invalidate pain, endorse stereotypes, and label previously effective, acceptable treatment as inappropriate. Findings highlight how various tapering initiatives reinforce the devalued status of people living with chronic pain while also reducing patients' wellbeing and confidence in medical systems., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Abstract: Many primary care clinics are resistant to accept new patients taking prescription opioids for chronic pain. It is unclear how much of this practice is specific to individuals who may be perceived to have aberrant opioid use. This study sought to determine whether clinics are more or less willing to accept and prescribe opioids to patients depending on whether their history is more or less suggestive of aberrant opioid use by conducting an audit survey of primary care clinics in 9 states from May to July 2019. Simulated patients taking opioids for chronic pain called each clinic twice, giving one of 2 scenarios for needing a new provider: their previous physician had either (1) retired or (2) stopped prescribing opioids for unspecified reasons. Clinic willingness to continue prescribing opioids and accept the patient for general primary care were assessed. Of 452 clinics responding to both scenarios (904 calls), 193 (43%) said their providers would not prescribe opioids in either scenario, 146 (32%) said their providers might prescribe in both, and 113 (25%) responded differently to each scenario. Clinics responding differently had greater odds (odds ratio = 1.83 confidence interval [1.23-2.76]) of willingness to prescribe when the previous doctor retired than when the doctor had stopped prescribing. These findings suggest that primary care access is limited for patients taking opioids for chronic pain, and differentially further reduced for patients whose histories are suggestive of aberrant use. This denial of care could lead to unintended harms such as worsened pain or conversion to illicit substances., (Copyright © 2020 International Association for the Study of Pain.)

Background: Policy evaluations and health system interventions often utilize International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes of opioid use, dependence, and abuse to identify individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) and assess receipt of evidence-based treatments. However, ICD codes may not map directly onto the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder (DSM-5) OUD criteria. This study investigates the positive predictive value of ICD codes in identifying patients with OUD., Methods: We conducted a clinical chart review on a national sample of 520 Veterans assigned ICD-9 or ICD-10 codes for opioid use, dependence, or abuse from 2012 to 2017. We extracted evidence of DSM-5 OUD criteria and opioid misuse from clinical documentation in the month preceding and three months following initial ICD code listing, and categorized patients into: 1) high likelihood of OUD, 2) limited aberrant opioid use, 3) prescribed opioid use without evidence of aberrant use, and 4) insufficient information. Positive predictive value was calculated as the percentage of individuals with these ICD codes meeting high likelihood of OUD criteria upon chart review., Results: Only 57.7 % of patients were categorized as high likelihood of OUD; 16.5 % were categorized as limited aberrant opioid use, 18.9 % prescribed opioid use without evidence of aberrant use, and 6.9 % insufficient information., Conclusions: Patients assigned ICD codes for opioid use, dependence, or abuse often lack documentation of meeting OUD criteria. Many receive long-term opioid therapy for chronic pain without evidence of misuse. Robust methods of identifying individuals with OUD are crucial to improving access to clinically appropriate treatment., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: Increasing naloxone awareness and carrying among individuals who misuse opioid analgesic medications (OAs) could reduce opioid overdose mortality. Methods : Self-report surveys were completed by 322 adults receiving residential addiction treatment who misused OAs in the past year. Descriptive analyses and prevalence ratios (using Poisson generalized estimating equations) examined whether illegal opioid (e.g., heroin) initiation was associated with naloxone awareness. Results : Among this sample of participants who misused OAs, naloxone awareness was lowest among those who never used illegal opioids (26%) and highest among those who transitioned from OAs to illegal opioid use over time (83%). Naloxone awareness remained higher among participants who had used illegal opioids after adjustment for sociodemographic and substance use characteristics. Those who used OAs before initiating illegal opioids were 2.3-fold (95% CI: 1.5-3.3) more likely to have naloxone awareness than those who had only misused OAs after adjustment. Half of participants who had only used OAs had experienced an overdose, 75% had witnessed an overdose, and 61% were prescribed OAs to treat pain in the past 6 months. Conclusions: Implementing overdose education and naloxone distribution programs during addiction treatment could bolster naloxone awareness among people who misuse OAs but who have not used illegal opioids.

Aims: To understand the role of comorbid substance use disorders (SUDs), or polysubstance use, in the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD), this study compared patients with OUD only to those with additional SUDs and examined association with OUD treatment receipt., Design, Setting and Participants: Retrospective national cohort study of Veterans diagnosed with OUD (n = 65 741) receiving care from the US Veterans Health Administration (VHA) in fiscal year (FY) 2017., Measurements: Patient characteristics were compared among those diagnosed with OUD only versus those with one other SUD (OUD + 1 SUD) and with multiple SUDs (OUD + ≥ 2 SUDs). The study examined the relationship between comorbid SUDs and receipt of buprenorphine, methadone and SUD outpatient treatment during 1-year follow-up, adjusting for patient demographic characteristics and clinical conditions., Findings: Among the 65 741 Veterans with OUD in FY 2017, 41.2% had OUD only, 22.9% had OUD + 1 SUD and 35.9% had OUD + ≥ 2 SUDs. Common comorbid SUDs included alcohol use disorder (41.3%), cocaine/stimulant use disorder (30.0%) and cannabis use disorder (22.4%). Adjusting for patient characteristics, patients with OUD + 1 SUD [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.82-0.93] and patients with OUD +≥ 2 SUDs (aOR = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.61-0.69) had lower odds of receiving buprenorphine compared with OUD only patients. There were also lower odds of receiving methadone for patients with OUD + 1 SUD (aOR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.86-0.97)and for those with OUD + ≥2 SUDs (aOR = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.74-0.84). Patients with OUD + 1 SUD (aOR = 1.85, 95% CI = 1.77-1.93) and patients with OUD + ≥2 SUDs (aOR = 3.25, 95% CI = 3.103.41) were much more likely to have a SUD clinic visit., Conclusions: The majority of Veterans in the US Veterans Health Administration diagnosed with opioid use disorder appeared to have at least one comorbid substance use disorder and many have multiple substance use disorders. Despite the higher likelihood of a substance use disorder clinic visit, having a non-opioid substance use disorder is associated with lower likelihood of buprenorphine treatment, suggesting the importance of addressing polysubstance use within efforts to expand treatment for opioid use disorder., (Published 2020. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.)

Murine models suggest that opioids alter the gut microbiota, which may impact opioid tolerance and psychopathology. We examined how gut microbiota characteristics related to use of opioid agonists and antagonists among people receiving outpatient addiction treatment. Patients (n = 46) collected stool samples and were grouped by use of opioid agonists (heroin, prescription opioids), antagonists (naltrexone), agonist-antagonist combinations (buprenorphine-naloxone), or neither agonists nor antagonists within the month before enrollment. We sequenced the V4 region of the 16S rRNA gene using Illumina MiSeq to examine how alpha diversity, enterotypes, and relative abundance of bacterial genera varied by opioid agonist and antagonist exposures. Compared to 31 participants who used neither agonists nor antagonists, 5 participants who used opioid agonists (without antagonists) had lower microbiota diversity, Bacteroides enterotypes, and lower relative abundance of Roseburia, a butyrate producing genus, and Bilophila, a bile acid metabolizing genus. There were no differences in gut microbiota features between those using agonist + antagonists (n = 4), antagonists only (n = 6), and neither agonists nor antagonists. Similar to murine morphine exposure models, opioid agonist use was associated with lower microbiota diversity. Lower abundance of Roseburia and Bilophila may relate to the gut inflammation/permeability and dysregulated bile acid metabolism observed in opioid-exposed mice.

Objective: To describe if patients with chronic opioid use with a consistent usual prescriber (UP) prior to surgery and if early return to that UP (<30 d) would be associated with fewer high risk prescribing events in the postoperative period., Summary Background Data: Over 10 million people each year are prescribed opioids for chronic pain. There is little evidence regarding coordination of opioid management and best practices for patients on long-term opioid therapy patients following surgery., Methods: The study design is a retrospective cohort study. We identified 5749 commercially insured patients aged 18 to 64 with chronic opioid use who underwent elective surgery between January 2008 and March 2015. The predictors were presence of a UP and early return (<30 d from surgery) to a UP. The primary outcome was new high-risk opioid prescribing in the 90-day postoperative period (multiple prescribers, overlapping opioid and/or benzodiazepine prescriptions, new long acting opioid prescriptions, or new dose escalations to > 100 mg OME)., Results: In this cohort, 73.8% of patients were exposed to high risk prescribing postoperatively. Overall, 10% of patients did not have a UP preoperatively, and were more likely to have prescriptions from multiple prescribers (OR 2.23 95% CI 1.75-2.83) and new long acting opioid prescriptions (OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.05-2.71). Among patients with a UP, earlier return was associated with decreased odds of receiving prescriptions from multiple prescribers (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.68-0.95)., Conclusion: Patients without a UP prior to surgery are more likely to be exposed to high-risk opioid prescribing following surgery. Among patients who have a UP, early return visits may enhance care coordination with fewer prescribers.

Introduction: Prescription opioid use and driving is a public health concern given the risks associated with drugged driving, but the issue remains under-studied. We examined the prevalence and correlates of driving after taking prescription opioids (DAPO) among adults seeking emergency department (ED) treatment., Methods: Participants (aged 25-60) seeking ED care at a Level I trauma center completed a computerized survey. Validated instruments measured prescription opioid use, driving behaviors, and risky driving. Patients who reported past three-month prescription opioid use and drove at least twice weekly were administered an extended study survey measuring DAPO, depression, pain, and substance use., Results: Among participants completing the screening survey (n = 756; mean age = 42.8 [standard deviation {SD} =10.4]), 37.8% reported past three-month prescription opioid use (30.8% of whom used daily), and 14.7% reported past three-month DAPO. Of screened participants, 22.5% (n = 170) were eligible for the extended study survey. Unadjusted analyses demonstrated that participants reporting DAPO were more likely to use opioids daily (51.1% vs 15.9%) and had higher rates of opioid misuse (mean Current Opioid Misuse Measure score 3.4 [SD = 3.8] vs 1.1 [SD = 2.1]) chronic pain (80.7% vs 42.7%), and driving after marijuana or alcohol use (mean intoxicated driving score 2.1 [SD = 1.3] vs 0.3 [SD = 0.8]) compared to patients not reporting DAPO (all p<0.001). Adjusting for age, gender, employment, and insurance in a logistic regression model, participants reporting DAPO were more likely to report a chronic pain diagnosis (odds ratio [OR] = 3.77, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.55-9.17), daily opioid use (OR = 3.81, 95% CI, 1.64-8.85), and higher levels of intoxicated driving (OR = 1.62, 95% CI, 1.07-2.45). Alcohol and marijuana use, depression, and opioid misuse were not associated with DAPO in adjusted analyses., Conclusion: Nearly one in six adult patients seeking ED care reported DAPO. The ED may be an important site for interventions addressing opioid-related drugged driving.

Purpose: Clinical pharmacists in primary care clinics can potentially help manage chronic pain and opioid prescriptions by providing services similar to those provided within their scope of practice to patients with diabetes and hypertension. We evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of a pharmacist-physician collaborative care model for patients with chronic pain., Methods: The program consisted of an in-person pharmacist consultation and optional follow-up visits over 4 months in 2 primary care practices. Eligible patients had chronic pain and a long-term prescription for opioids or buprenorphine or were referred by their primary care physician (PCP). Pharmacist recommendations were communicated to PCPs via the electronic medical record (EMR) and direct communication. Mixed-methods evaluation included baseline and follow-up surveys with patients, EMR review of opioid-related clinical encounters, and provider interviews., Results: Between January and October 2018, 47 of the 182 eligible patients enrolled, with 46 completing all follow-up; 43 patients (91%) had received opioids over the past 6 months. The pharmacist recommended adding or switching to a nonopioid pain medication for 30 patients, switching to buprenorphine for pain and complex persistent opioid dependence for 20 patients, and tapering opioids for 3 patients. All physicians found the intervention acceptable but wanted more guidance on prescribing buprenorphine for pain. Most patients found the intervention helpful, but some reported a lack of physician follow-up on recommended changes., Conclusion: The study demonstrated that comanagement of patients with chronic pain is feasible and acceptable. Policy changes to increase pharmacists' authority to prescribe may increase physician willingness and confidence to carry out opioid tapers and prescribe buprenorphine for pain., (© American Society of Health-System Pharmacists 2020. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Prescribing naloxone to patients is a key strategy to prevent opioid overdoses, but little is known about the reach of naloxone prescribing., Objective: Determine patient factors associated with receiving naloxone and trends over time in patients with key overdose risk factors., Design: Retrospective observational study., Participants: Using the Clinformatics DataMart, a US-wide health insurance claims dataset, we compared adults who received opioids and naloxone (opioid+naloxone) from January 2014 to June 2017 with adults who received opioids without naloxone (opioids only), matched on gender, age ± 5 years, month/year of opioid fill, and number of opioid claims., Main Measures: Key patient-level opioid overdose risk factors included receipt of high-dosage opioids, concurrent benzodiazepines, history of opioid and other substance use disorders, and history of opioid overdose., Results: We included 3963 opioid+naloxone and 19,815 opioid only patients. Key factors associated with naloxone fills included high opioid daily dosage (50 to < 90 morphine milligram equivalents (MME): AOR = 2.43, 95% CI 2.15-2.76 and ≥ 90 MME: AOR = 3.94, 95% CI 3.47-4.46; reference: < 50 MME), receiving concurrent benzodiazepines (AOR = 1.27, 95% CI 1.16-1.38), and having a diagnosis of opioid use disorder (AOR = 1.56, 95% CI 1.40-1.73). History of opioid overdose was not associated with naloxone (AOR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.74-1.15). The percent of patients receiving naloxone increased, yet less than 2% of patients in any of the key overdose risk factor groups received naloxone by the last 6 months of the study period., Conclusions: Naloxone prescribing has increased and was more likely to be co-prescribed to patients with some risk factors for overdose. However, overall prescribing remains minimal. Additional efforts are needed across health systems to increase naloxone prescribing for patients at risk for opioid overdose.

Background: Any opioid-related hospitalization is an indicator of opioid-related harm and should ideally trigger carefully monitored decreases in opioid prescribing after inpatient stays in many, if not most, cases. However, past studies on opioid prescribing after hospitalizations have largely been limited to overdose related visits. It is unclear whether prescribing is different for other opioid-related indications such as opioid dependence and abuse and how that may compare with hospitalizations for overdose., Objective: To examine opioid-prescribing patterns before and after opioid-related hospitalizations for all opioid-related indications, not limited to overdose., Research Design: Retrospective cohort analysis of Veterans Health Administration (VHA) administrative claims from 2011 to 2014., Subjects: VHA patients who were hospitalized between fiscal years 2011 and 2014 and had at least 1 prescription opioid medication filled through the VHA pharmacy before their hospitalization., Measures: Opioid dispensing trajectories after hospitalization by opioid-related indication (ie, opioid dependence and/or abuse vs. overdose) compared with prescribing patterns for non-opioid-related hospitalizations., Results: Overall, opioid dosage dropped significantly (66% for dependence/abuse, 42% for overdose, and 3% for nonopioid diagnoses; P<0.001) across all 3 categories when comparing dose 57-63 days after admission to 57-63 days before hospitalization. However, 47% of the patients remained on the same dose or increased their opioid dose at 60 days after an opioid-related hospitalization. After adjusting for covariates, patients with a primary diagnosis of dependence/abuse had higher odds of having their dose discontinued compared with those with overdose: odds ratio (OR) 2.17 (1.19-3.96). Patients with admissions for opioid dependence and/or abuse had a statistically significant higher prevalence of depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and substance use disorders compared with those with an opioid overdose hospitalization., Conclusions: Opioid prescribing and patient risk factors before and after opioid-related hospitalizations vary by indication for hospitalization. To reduce costs and morbidity associated with opioid-related hospitalizations, opioid deintensification efforts need to be tailored to indication for hospitalization.

Introduction: To inform overdose prevention, this study assessed both recent trends in opioid overdose mortality across opioid categories and receipt of prescription opioid analgesics among Veterans who died from overdose in the Veterans Health Administration., Methods: Using Veterans Health Administration records linked to National Death Index data, annual cohorts (2010-2016) of Veterans who received Veterans Health Administration care were obtained and were examined by opioid overdose categories (natural/semisynthetic opioids, heroin, methadone, and other synthetic opioids) on (1) overdose rates and changes in rates adjusted for age, sex, and race/ethnicity; and (2) Veterans Health Administration prescription opioid receipt. Analyses were conducted in 2018., Results: The overall rate of opioid overdose among Veterans increased from 14.47 per 100,000 person-years in 2010 to 21.08 per 100,000 person-years in 2016 (adjusted rate ratio=1.65, 95% CI=1.51, 1.81). There was a decline in methadone overdose (adjusted rate ratio=0.66, 95% CI=0.51, 0.84) and no significant change in natural/semisynthetic opioid overdose (adjusted rate ratio=1.08, 95% CI=0.94, 1.24). However, the synthetic opioid overdose rate (adjusted rate ratio=5.46, 95% CI=4.41, 6.75) and heroin overdose rate (adjusted rate ratio=4.91, 95% CI=3.92, 6.15) increased substantially. Among all opioid overdose decedents, prescription opioid receipt within 3 months before death declined from 54% in 2010 to 26% in 2016., Conclusions: Opioid overdose rates among Veterans Health Administration Veterans increased because of increases in heroin and synthetic opioid overdose rates. Prescriptions of opioids declined among patients who died from all categories of opioid overdose; by 2016, only a minority received an opioid analgesic from Veterans Health Administration within 3 months of overdose. Future prevention efforts should extend beyond patients actively receiving opioid prescriptions., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Importance: Opioid overdose deaths in the United States continue to increase, reflecting a growing need to treat those with opioid use disorder (OUD). Little is known about counties with high rates of opioid overdose mortality but low availability of OUD treatment., Objective: To identify characteristics of US counties with persistently high rates of opioid overdose mortality and low capacity to deliver OUD medications., Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional study of data from 3142 US counties from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2017, rates of opioid overdose mortality were compared with availability in 2017 of OUD medication providers (24 851 buprenorphine-waivered clinicians [physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants], 1517 opioid treatment programs [providing methadone], and 5222 health care professionals who could prescribe extended-release naltrexone). Statistical analysis was performed from April 20, 2018, to May 8, 2019., Exposures: Demographic, workforce, lack of insurance, road density, urbanicity, opioid prescribing, and regional division county-level characteristics., Main Outcome and Measures: The outcome variable, "opioid high-risk county," was a binary indicator of a high (above national) rate of opioid overdose mortality with a low (below national) rate of provider availability to deliver OUD medication. Spatial logistic regression models were used to determine associations with being an opioid high-risk county., Results: Of 3142 counties, 751 (23.9%) had high rates of opioid overdose mortality. A total of 1457 counties (46.4%), and 946 of 1328 rural counties (71.2%), lacked a publicly available OUD medication provider in 2017. In adjusted models, compared with the West North Central division, counties in the East North Central, Mountain, and South Atlantic divisions had increased odds of being opioid high-risk counties (East North Central: odds ratio [OR], 2.21; 95% CI, 1.19-4.12; Mountain: OR, 4.15; 95% CI, 1.34-12.89; and South Atlantic: OR, 2.99; 95% CI, 1.26-7.11). A 1% increase in unemployment was associated with increased odds (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.03-1.15) of a county being an opioid high-risk county. Counties with an additional 10 primary care clinicians per 100 000 population had a reduced risk of being opioid high-risk counties (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.85-0.93), as did counties that were micropolitan (vs metropolitan) (OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.50-0.90) and those that had an additional 1% of the population younger than 25 years (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.92-0.98)., Conclusions and Relevance: Counties with low availability of OUD medication providers and high rates of opioid overdose mortality were less likely to be micropolitan and have lower primary care clinician density, but were more likely to be in the East North Central, South Atlantic, or Mountain division and have higher rates of unemployment. Strategies to increase medication treatment must account for these factors.

Purpose: Overdose from alcohol and/or drugs kills tens of thousands of Americans annually, with a large number of deaths attributed to opioid pain medications. Addiction treatment patients are known to be at high risk for overdose; however, the relationship between pain and overdose history within this group is understudied, especially in relation to alcohol overdoses. In the present study, we evaluated whether nonfatal overdose history was more likely among addiction treatment patients with pain, and examined the characteristics of overdoses among those with and without pain., Methods: We analyzed cross-sectional data from 739 patients at a large residential addiction treatment center (median age 37, 25.7% female). We used 2-stepped binary regression models to evaluate whether demographics, pain type (chronic, acute, or both), depression symptoms, and opioid misuse were associated with lifetime history of nonfatal (1) alcohol and (2) drug overdose (lifetime yes/no), and conducted follow-up analyses examining overdose characteristics., Results: In adjusted analyses, history of chronic pain (odds ratio [OR] 2.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.59, 4.27) and illicit drug use (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.07, 3.68) were associated with an increased likelihood of nonfatal alcohol overdose. Opioid misuse (OR 3.11, 95% CI 2.51, 3.86), depression symptoms (OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.14, 1.55), and younger age (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.94, 0.97) were associated with increased likelihood of drug overdose. Those with pain reported a higher number of lifetime alcohol overdoses and were more likely to combine numerous drugs with alcohol before overdose., Conclusions: Pain conditions may play an under-recognized role in the overdose epidemic, particularly alcohol-related overdose. Addiction treatment and overdose prevention interventions should incorporate appropriate assessment and treatment of pain including education about the risks of polysubstance use, particularly combining alcohol with sedatives and prescription pain relievers.

Introduction: Overdose is a leading cause of injury and death in the United States. Emergency Department (ED) patients have an elevated prevalence of substance use. This study describes overdose/adverse drug event experiences among adult ED patients to inform strategies to address overdose risk., Methods: Patients seeking care at a large ED in the city of Flint, Michigan participated in a computerized self-assessment during 2011-2013 (n=4571). Overdose was assessed with a broad definition and included occurrences that could be considered adverse drug events. Among those with this type of experience, additional items assessed symptoms, outcomes, and intent., Results: 12% reported an overdose history. Of participants' most serious overdoses, 74% were without clear intent for self-harm, although this was true of only 61% of overdoses involving opiates or sedatives, and 52% had symptoms present that indicated that it was life-threatening. Binge drinking on a monthly basis (ORs=1.4) was associated with a medically serious overdose compared to never having an overdose. Compared to no drug use in the last year, use of one drug was associated with an OR of 1.8, two drugs was associated with an OR of 5.8, three drugs was associated with an OR of 8.4, and four or more drugs was associated with an OR of 25.1 of having had a medically serious overdose (all p<0.05)., Conclusions: Most overdose experiences among ED patients were without clear intent of self-harm. The ED may be an appropriate setting for efforts to reduce overdose risk, especially among polysubstance users., (Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

At least 2.3 million people in the U.S. have an opioid use disorder, less than 40% of whom receive evidence-based treatment. Buprenorphine used as part of medication-assisted treatment has high potential to address this gap because of its approval for use in non-specialty outpatient settings, effectiveness at promoting abstinence, and cost effectiveness. However, less than 4% of licensed physicians are approved to prescribe buprenorphine for opioid use disorder, and approximately 47% of counties lack a buprenorphine-waivered physician. Existing policies contribute to workforce barriers to buprenorphine provision and access. Providers are reticent to prescribe buprenorphine because of workforce barriers, such as (1) insufficient training and education on opioid use disorder treatment, (2) lack of institutional and clinician peer support, (3) poor care coordination, (4) provider stigma, (5) inadequate reimbursement from private and public insurers, and (6) regulatory hurdles to obtain the waiver needed to prescribe buprenorphine in non-addiction specialty treatment settings. Policy pathways to addressing these provider workforce barriers going forward include providing free and easy-to-access education for providers about opioid use disorders and medication-assisted treatment, eliminating buprenorphine waiver requirements for those licensed to prescribe controlled substances, enforcing insurance parity requirements, requiring coverage of evidence-based medication-assisted treatment as essential health benefits, and providing financial incentives for care coordination across healthcare professional types-including behavioral health counselors and other non-physicians in specialty and non-specialty settings., Supplement Information: This article is part of a supplement entitled The Behavioral Health Workforce: Planning, Practice, and Preparation, which is sponsored by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and the Health Resources and Services Administration of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services., (Copyright © 2018 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Primary care-based models for Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT) have been shown to reduce mortality for Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) and have equivalent efficacy to MAT in specialty substance treatment facilities., Objective: The objective of this study is to systematically analyze current evidence-based, primary care OUD MAT interventions and identify program structures and processes associated with improved patient outcomes in order to guide future policy and implementation in primary care settings., Data Sources: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsychInfo., Methods: We included randomized controlled or quasi experimental trials and observational studies evaluating OUD treatment in primary care settings treating adult patient populations and assessed structural domains using an established systems engineering framework., Results: We included 35 interventions (10 RCTs and 25 quasi-experimental interventions) that all tested MAT, buprenorphine or methadone, in primary care settings across 8 countries. Most included interventions used joint multi-disciplinary (specialty addiction services combined with primary care) and coordinated care by physician and non-physician provider delivery models to provide MAT. Despite large variability in reported patient outcomes, processes, and tasks/tools used, similar key design factors arose among successful programs including integrated clinical teams with support staff who were often advanced practice clinicians (nurses and pharmacists) as clinical care managers, incorporating patient "agreements," and using home inductions to make treatment more convenient for patients and providers., Conclusions: The findings suggest that multidisciplinary and coordinated care delivery models are an effective strategy to implement OUD treatment and increase MAT access in primary care, but research directly comparing specific structures and processes of care models is still needed.

The present clinical case discussion focuses on a patient with comorbid substance use disorder (SUD) and chronic pain, who experienced an overdose of heroin. The case illustrates the complex array of risk factors that contribute to overdose risk, discusses the use of naloxone, and highlights the need for further risk mitigation interventions in patients at risk for overdose.

Background and Aims: Prescription opioid overdose is a significant public health problem. Interventions to prevent overdose risk behaviors among high-risk patients are lacking. This study examined the impact of a motivational intervention to reduce opioid misuse and overdose risk behaviors., Methods: This study was a pilot randomized controlled trial set in a single emergency department (ED) in which, 204 adult, English-speaking patients seeking care who reported prescription opioid misuse during the prior 3 months were recruited. Patients were randomized to either the intervention, a 30-minute motivational interviewing-based session delivered by a therapist plus educational enhanced usual care (EUC), or EUC alone. Participants completed self-reported surveys at baseline and 6 months post-baseline (87% retention rate) to measure the primary outcomes of overdose risk behaviors and the secondary outcome of non-medical opioid use., Findings: Participants in the intervention condition reported significantly lower levels of overdose risk behaviors (incidence rate ratio [IRR]=0.72, 95% CI: 0.59-0.87; 40.5% reduction in mean vs. 14.7%) and lower levels of non-medical opioid use (IRR=0.81, 95% CI: 0.70-0.92; 50.0% reduction in mean vs. 39.5%) at follow-up compared to the EUC condition., Conclusions: This study represents the first clinical trial of a behavioral intervention to reduce overdose risk. Results indicate that this single motivational enhancement session reduced prescription opioid overdose risk behaviors, including opioid misuse, among adult patients in the ED., (Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.)

High rates of substance use (e.g., alcohol, cocaine, heroin) have been documented among individuals who engage in sex work (SW), and adults seeking substance use disorder (SUD) treatment frequently report prior engagement in SW. Non-medical use of prescription opioids (NMUPO) has increased over the last decade, but little is known about the relationship between NMUPO with sex exchange. The purpose of this study was to describe the prevalence of recent SW among patients at a large residential SUD treatment center and examine the association between NMUPO and SW. Approximately 14% of 588 adults reported involvement in SW in the month prior to treatment. NMUPO was more common among those with a history of SW (95% of sex workers vs. 74% of non-sex-workers), and this association remained statistically significant after controlling for demographic factors, other substance use and psychiatric symptom severity (odds ratio=3.38). SW is relatively common among patients in residential SUD treatment, and is associated with greater psychiatric severity and more extensive substance use, including alarming rates of NMUPO. Addiction treatment for individuals involved in SW may benefit from the addition of content related to NMUPO., (Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Chronic pain is associated with increased risk of suicide, and opioids are commonly used to treat moderate to severe pain. However, the association between opioid dose and suicide mortality has not been examined closely. This retrospective data analysis described the risk of suicide associated with differing prescribed opioid doses. Data were from Veterans Affairs health care system treatment records and the National Death Index. Records analyzed were those of Veterans Affairs patients with chronic pain receiving opioids in fiscal years 2004 to 2005 (N = 123,946). Primary predictors were maximum prescribed morphine-equivalent daily opioid dose and opioid fill type. The main outcome measured was suicide death, by any mechanism, and intentional overdose death during 2004 to 2009. Controlling for demographic and clinical characteristics, higher prescribed opioid doses were associated with elevated suicide risk. Compared with those receiving ≤20 milligrams/day (mg/d), hazard ratios were 1.48 (95% confidence intervals [CI], 1.25-1.75) for 20 to <50 mg/d, 1.69 (95% CI, 1.33-2.14) for 50 to <100 mg/d, and 2.15 (95% CI, 1.64-2.81) for 100+ mg/d. The magnitude of association between opioid dose and suicide by intentional overdose was not substantially different from that observed for the overall measure of suicide mortality. Risk of suicide mortality was greater among individuals receiving higher doses of opioids, and treatment providers may want to view high opioid dose as a marker of elevated risk for suicide. Additional research is needed on opioid use, pain treatment, and suicide.

Objective: Disrupted-in-schizophrenia 1 (DISC1) has been linked to vulnerability to a variety of psychiatric disorders and neuropsychiatric phenotypes. However, DISC1 has not been frequently examined as a potential risk factor for substance dependence. An association between opioid dependence and DISC1 rs2738888 polymorphism has been recently reported. In addition, opioid dependence was associated with rs6419156 located close to the protein phosphatase 3 catalytic subunit alpha isoform (PPP3CA) gene. The aim of the present study was to examine the associations between opioid dependence with rs2738888 and rs6419156 in an independent sample., Method: The selected polymorphisms were genotyped in a sample of 392 individuals (69.9% male) diagnosed as alcohol- and/or opioid-dependent. A control group (n = 257; 67.7% male) was derived from the Polish National Health Survey (N = 14,350)., Results: The frequency of rs2738888 C allele was higher in controls than in opioid-dependent cases (OR = 0.65, p = .045). Phenotypic-oriented analyses performed within opioid-dependent individuals revealed the association between lifetime suicide attempt and rs2738888. The C allele of rs2738888 had a protective effect on lifetime suicide attempt in opioid-dependent patients (OR = 0.25, p = .003). Rs6419156 was not associated with substance dependence in the examined sample., Conclusions: The DISC1 may play an important role in vulnerability to opioid dependence. In addition, DISC1 may also be a genetic risk factor for suicide attempt in opioid-dependent individuals.