Search

BACKGROUND: Most states have legalized medical cannabis, yet little is known about how medical cannabis use is documented in patients’ electronic health records (EHRs). We used natural language processing (NLP) to calculate the prevalence of clinician-documented medical cannabis use among adults in an integrated health system in Washington State where medical and recreational use are legal. METHODS: We analyzed EHRs of patients ≥18 years old screened for past-year cannabis use (11/1/2017–10/31/2018), to identify clinician-documented medical cannabis use. We defined medical use as any documentation of cannabis that was recommended by a clinician or described by the clinician or patient as intended to manage health conditions or symptoms. We developed and applied an NLP system that included NLP-assisted manual review to identify such documentation in encounter notes. RESULTS: Medical cannabis use was documented for 16,684 (5.6%) of 299,597 outpatient encounters with routine screening for cannabis use among 203,489 patients seeing 1,274 clinicians. The validated NLP system identified 54% of documentation and NLP-assisted manual review the remainder. Language documenting reasons for cannabis use included 125 terms indicating medical use, 28 terms indicating non-medical use and 41 ambiguous terms. Implicit documentation of medical use (e.g., “edible THC nightly for lumbar pain”) was more common than explicit (e.g., “continues medical cannabis use”). CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians use diverse and often ambiguous language to document patients’ reasons for cannabis use. Automating extraction of documentation about patients’ cannabis use could facilitate clinical decision support and epidemiological investigation but will require large amounts of gold standard training data.

Background Direct-acting antivirals can cure hepatitis C virus (HCV). Persons with HCV/HIV and living with substance use are disadvantaged in benefiting from advances in HCV treatment. Methods In this randomized controlled trial, participants with HCV/HIV were randomized between February 2016 and January 2017 to either care facilitation or control. Twelve-month follow-up assessments were completed in January 2018. Care facilitation group participants received motivation and strengths-based case management addressing retrieval of HCV viral load results, engagement in HCV/HIV care, and medication adherence. Control group participants received referral to HCV evaluation and an offer of assistance in making care appointments. Primary outcome was number of steps achieved along a series of 8 clinical steps (eg, receiving HCV results, initiating treatment, sustained virologic response [SVR]) of the HCV/HIV care continuum over 12 months postrandomization. Results Three hundred eighty-one individuals were screened and 113 randomized. Median age was 51 years; 58.4% of participants were male and 72.6% were Black/African American. Median HIV-1 viral load was 27 209 copies/mL, with 69% having a detectable viral load. Mean number of steps completed was statistically significantly higher in the intervention group vs controls (2.44 vs 1.68 steps; χ 2 [1] = 7.36, P = .0067). Men in the intervention group completed a statistically significantly higher number of steps than controls. Eleven participants achieved SVR with no difference by treatment group. Conclusions The care facilitation intervention increased progress along the HCV/HIV care continuum, as observed for men and not women. Study findings also highlight continued challenges to achieve individual-patient SVR and population-level HCV elimination. Clinical Trials Registration NCT02641158., In this era of direct-acting antivirals that can cure hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in 1–3 months, a short-term care facilitation intervention for persons living with HIV and HCV who use drugs is efficacious in making meaningful advances toward HCV cure.

Aims To compare long-term outcomes among participants randomized to buprenorphine or methadone. Design, Setting and Participants Follow-up was conducted in 2011–14 of 1080 opioid-dependent participants entering seven opioid treatment programs in the United States between 2006 and 2009 and randomized (within each program) to receive open-label buprenorphine/naloxone or methadone for up to 24 weeks; 795 participants completed in-person interviews (~74% follow-up interview rate) covering on average 4.5 years. Measurements Outcomes were indicated by mortality and opioid use. Covariates included demographics, site, cocaine use and treatment experiences. Findings Mortality was not different between the two randomized conditions, with 23 (3.6%) of 630 participants randomized to buprenorphine having died versus 26 (5.8%) of 450 participants randomized to methadone. Opioid use at follow-up was higher among participants randomized to buprenorphine relative to methadone [42.8 versus 31.7% positive opioid urine specimens, P

Recent NIH policy stipulates that multi-site studies must use a single or IRB (Institutional Review Board) in order to streamline the review process while maintaining standards for human subjects protection. The Western States Node of the Clinical Trials Network (CTN) used a single IRB for protocol CTN-0067, a clinical trial testing the use of an opioid antagonist (extended-release naltrexone) versus opioid agonists (buprenorphine or methadone) for opioid use disorders among individuals living with HIV. This case study discusses the processes and challenges associated with use of a single IRB. These lessons are also informed by other single IRB experiences within the CTN. The intention of the NIH single IRB policy is to facilitate efficient IRB processes. Advanced planning and transparent communication, however, are critical to avoid stalling IRB approval and protocol implementation. Research teams need to account for local IRB willingness to cede to a single IRB and understand the variations in interpretations of abbreviated reviews. In order to facilitate the effective use of single IRBs, recommendations include assigning staff at each study site for IRB submission coordination and interaction with the lead site IRB staff, training investigators and key regulatory staff on expectations for working with single IRBs, dedicating a regulatory specialist at the lead site to manage the process, developing a communication plan, and supporting the development of strong working relationships with local regulatory staff and the single IRB. The CTN experiences with single IRBs may provide insights for other investigators. Keywords: Institutional Review Boards, Single IRB, Clinical trial regulations, NIH IRB regulations