Screening for Unhealthy Drug Use: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

Multimodal Acute Pain Management in the Parturient with Opioid Use Disorder: A Review

The opioid epidemic in the United States has led to an increasing number of pregnant patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) presenting to obstetric units. Caring for this complex patient population requires an interdisciplinary approach involving obstetricians, anesthesiologists, addiction medicine physicians, psychiatrists, and social workers. The management of acute pain in the parturient with OUD can be challenging due to several factors, including respiratory depression, opioid tolerance, and opioid-induced hyperalgesia. Patients with a history of OUD can present in one of three categories: 1) those with untreated OUD; 2) those who are currently abstinent from opioids; 3) those being treated with medications to prevent withdrawal. A patient-centered, multimodal approach is essential for optimal peripartum pain relief and prevention of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), previously referred to as medication-assisted therapy (MAT), include opioids like methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone. These are prescribed for pregnant patients with OUD, but appropriate dosing and administration of these medications are critical to avoid withdrawal in the mother. Non-opioid analgesics such as acetaminophen and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) can be used in a stepwise approach, and regional techniques like neuraxial anesthesia and truncal blocks offer opioid-sparing options. Other medications like ketamine, clonidine, dexmedetomidine, nitrous oxide, and gabapentinoids show promise for pain management but require further research. Overall, a comprehensive pain management strategy is essential to ensure the well-being of both the mother and the fetus in pregnant patients with OUD.

Primary care nurse practitioner work environments and emergency department utilization among older adults with substance use disorders in rural areas

INTRODUCTION

The prevalence of substance use disorders (SUDs) is growing among older adults, and older adults in rural areas face disparities in access to SUD care. Rural older adults with SUDs commonly have comorbid chronic conditions that puts them at risk for frequent acute healthcare utilization. In rural areas, primary care for patients with SUDs are increasingly provided by nurse practitioners (NPs), and quality primary care services may decrease ED visits in this population. Yet, NP-delivered primary care for rural older adults with SUDs may be limited by work environment barriers, which include lack of support, autonomy, and visibility. This study assessed the relationship between the NP work environment and ED utilization among rural older adults with SUDs.

METHODS

This was a secondary analysis of cross-sectional data from a large survey of NPs in six U.S. states merged with Medicare claims. The study measured the NP work environment by the four subscales of the Nurse Practitioner Primary Care Organizational Climate Questionnaire (NP-PCOCQ), which measure 1) independent practice and support, 2) NP-physician relations, 3) NP-administration, and 4) professional visibility. Multilevel logistic regression models, adjusted for practice and patient covariates, assess the relationship between the NP work environment and all-cause ED use.

RESULTS

The sample included 1152 older adults with SUDs who received care at 126 rural NP primary care practices. NP independent practice and support at the practice was associated with 49 % lower odds of all-cause ED visits among older adults with SUDs. There were no relationships between the other NP-PCOCQ subscales and all-cause ED visits.

CONCLUSIONS

Organizational support for NP independent practice is associated with lower odds of all-cause ED utilization among rural older adults with SUDs. Practice administrators should ensure that NPs have access to support and resources to enhance their ability to care for rural older adults with SUDs. Ultimately, these practice changes could reduce ED utilization and health disparities in this population.

Comfort Levels of Outpatient Health Care Professionals When Asking About Substance Use-Related Sexual Activity: A Pilot Survey

BACKGROUND

Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) is an evidence-based intervention for substance use. Health care professionals may not receive SBIRT training or know of substance use's intersection with sexual activity. This pilot survey inquired about SBIRT training history, attitudes, and comfort among outpatient health care professionals, including assessing sexual activity-related use.

METHODS

We conducted a snowball cross-sectional survey of outpatient health care professionals at a large southeastern academic medical center in June 2021 with 4-point Likert questions covering demographics, substance use attitudes, SBIRT training history, and comfort implementing SBIRT. Analysis used descriptive statistics and stratification by demographic and practice characteristics.

RESULTS

Seventy-three professionals responded, of whom 82% were White and 66% were female. Forty-seven percent were 30 to 39 years old, 33% were internal medicine professionals, and 59% reported previous SBIRT training. All participants reported believing substance use is a significant health issue. Most reported that they were comfortable or somewhat comfortable assessing patients for substance use (85%), dropping to 60% discussing sexual activity. Advanced practice providers and physicians identified more comfort with rapport building around substance use than other health care respondents. Professionals in infectious diseases and psychiatry reported the greatest comfort assessing substance use with concurrent sexual activity.

CONCLUSIONS

There are gaps in SBIRT training and beliefs among health care professionals. Although health care workers report that assessing substance use is important, some professionals endorsed more comfort discussing substance use with patients than others, especially when inquiring about sexual activity. Future work could replicate the pilot to inform increasing comfort through training in the intersection of substance use and sexuality.

Subthreshold opioid use disorder prevention (STOP) trial: a cluster randomized clinical trial: study design and methods

BACKGROUND

Preventing progression to moderate or severe opioid use disorder (OUD) among people who exhibit risky opioid use behavior that does not meet criteria for treatment with opioid agonists or antagonists (subthreshold OUD) is poorly understood. The Subthreshold Opioid Use Disorder Prevention (STOP) Trial is designed to study the efficacy of a collaborative care intervention to reduce risky opioid use and to prevent progression to moderate or severe OUD in adult primary care patients with subthreshold OUD.

METHODS

The STOP trial is a cluster randomized controlled trial, randomized at the PCP level, conducted in 5 distinct geographic sites. STOP tests the efficacy of the STOP intervention in comparison to enhanced usual care (EUC) in adult primary care patients with risky opioid use that does not meet criteria for moderate-severe OUD. The STOP intervention consists of (1) a practice-embedded nurse care manager (NCM) who provides patient participant education and supports primary care providers (PCPs) in engaging and monitoring patient-participants; (2) brief advice, delivered to patient participants by their PCP and/or prerecorded video message, about health risks of opioid misuse; and (3) up to 6 sessions of telephone health coaching to motivate and support behavior change. EUC consists of primary care treatment as usual, plus printed overdose prevention educational materials and an educational video on cancer screening. The primary outcome measure is self-reported number of days of risky (illicit or nonmedical) opioid use over 180 days, assessed monthly via text message using items from the Addiction Severity Index and the Current Opioid Misuse Measure. Secondary outcomes assess other substance use, mental health, quality of life, and healthcare utilization as well as PCP prescribing and monitoring behaviors. A mixed effects negative binomial model with a log link will be fit to estimate the difference in means between treatment and control groups using an intent-to-treat population.

DISCUSSION

Given a growing interest in interventions for the management of patients with risky opioid use, and the need for primary care-based interventions, this study potentially offers a blueprint for a feasible and effective approach to improving outcomes in this population.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov, identifier NCT04218201, January 6, 2020.

Investigating for Whom Brief Substance Use Interventions Are Most Effective: An Individual Participant Data Meta-analysis

Prior research suggests that brief interventions (BIs) for alcohol and other drug use may vary in effectiveness across patient sociodemographic factors. The objective of this individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis was to explore for whom BIs delivered in general healthcare settings are more or less effective. We examined variability in BI effects by patient age, sex, employment, education, relationship status, and baseline severity of substance use using a two-stage IPD meta-analysis approach. All trials included in a parent aggregate data meta-analysis (k = 116) were invited to contribute IPD, and 29 trials provided patient-level data (12,074 participants). Among females, BIs led to significant reductions in binge alcohol consumption ([Formula: see text] = 0.09, 95% CI [0.03, 0.14]), frequency of alcohol consumption ([Formula: see text] = 0.10, 95% CI [0.03, 0.17]), and alcohol-related consequences ([Formula: see text] = 0.16, 95% CI [0.08, 0.25]), as well as greater substance use treatment utilization ([Formula: see text] = 0.25, 95% CI [0.21, 0.30]). BIs yielded larger reductions in frequency of alcohol consumption at 3-month follow-up for individuals with less than a high school level education ([Formula: see text] = 0.16, 95% CI [0.09, 0.22]). Given evidence demonstrating modest BI effects on alcohol use and mixed or null findings for BI effects on other drug use, BI research should continue to investigate potential drivers of effect magnitude and variation.  PROTOCOL REGISTRATION DETAILS: The protocol for this review was pre-registered in PROSPERO #CRD42018086832 and the analysis plan was pre-registered in OSF: osf.io/m48g6.

Prevalence and impact of recreational drug use in patients with acute cardiovascular events

OBJECTIVE

While recreational drug use is a risk factor for cardiovascular events, its exact prevalence and prognostic impact in patients admitted for these events are not established. We aimed to assess the prevalence of recreational drug use and its association with in-hospital major adverse events (MAEs) in patients admitted to intensive cardiac care units (ICCU).

METHODS

In the Addiction in Intensive Cardiac Care Units (ADDICT-ICCU) study, systematic screening for recreational drugs was performed by prospective urinary testing all patients admitted to ICCU in 39 French centres from 7 to 22 April 2021. The primary outcome was prevalence of recreational drug detection. In-hospital MAEs were defined by death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, or haemodynamic shock.

RESULTS

Of 1499 consecutive patients (63±15 years, 70% male), 161 (11%) had a positive test for recreational drugs (cannabis 9.1%, opioids 2.1%, cocaine 1.7%, amphetamines 0.7%, 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) 0.6%). Only 57% of these patients declared recreational drug use. Patients who used recreational drugs exhibited a higher MAE rate than others (13% vs 3%, respectively, p<0.001). Recreational drugs were associated with a higher rate of in-hospital MAEs after adjustment for comorbidities (OR 8.84, 95% CI 4.68 to 16.7, p<0.001). After adjustment, cannabis, cocaine, and MDMA, assessed separately, were independently associated with in-hospital MAEs. Multiple drug detection was frequent (28% of positive patients) and associated with an even higher incidence of MAEs (OR 12.7, 95% CI 4.80 to 35.6, p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of recreational drug use in patients hospitalised in ICCU was 11%. Recreational drug detection was independently associated with worse in-hospital outcomes.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT05063097.

A Review of Federal and Statewide Guidelines and Their Effects on Orthopedics

In the past three decades, the use of opioids has risen tremendously. Pain was named the "fifth patient vital sign" in the 1990s, and from that point, opioid usage has continued to grow throughout the 2010s leading to its recognition as a crisis. The United States is responsible for 80% of the global opioid usage while only accounting for less than 5% of the global population. Previously opioids were mostly used to treat acute pain, however, opioids have been most recently used to manage chronic pain as well. The opioid crisis has presented new challenges in treating pain while preventing the abuse of these medications in a system that lacks standardization of treatment guidelines across the United States. Therefore, the authors of this review examine the current national recommendations to help manage the ongoing opioid crisis and explore how they may impact orthopedic patient care.

Substance Use Disorders: Basic Overview for the Anesthesiologist

Substance use disorders (SUDs) represent a current major public health concern in the United States and around the world. Social and economic stressors secondary to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have likely led to an increase in SUDs around the world. This chronic, debilitating disease is a prevalent health problem, and yet many clinicians do not have adequate training or clinical experience diagnosing and treating SUDs. Anesthesiologists and other perioperative medical staff frequently encounter patients with co-occurring SUDs. By such, through increased awareness and education, physicians and other health care providers have a unique opportunity to positively impact the lives and improve the perioperative outcomes of patients with SUDs. Understanding commonly used terms, potentially effective perioperative screening tools, diagnostic criteria, basics of treatment, and the perioperative implications of SUDs is essential to providing adequate care to patients experiencing this illness.

Features of Addiction in Binge-Eating Disorder: Considerations for Screening and Treatment

Similarities have been reported between the diagnostic and associated characteristics of binge-eating disorder (BED) and substance-related and non-substance-related disorders. This has resulted in interest in using addiction models to inform clinical care for people with BED. The purpose of this paper was to review features of addiction in BED with a focus on clinical implications. First, we briefly summarize similarities and differences in diagnostic and mechanistic features and symptoms for BED and food addiction, substance-related disorders, and non-substance-related disorders. Then we review aspects of addiction in BED that have clinical implications for screening and treatment of this condition. Similarities in diagnostic criteria between BED and substance-related and non-substance-related disorders include loss of control, greater use than intended, continued use despite adverse consequences, and marked distress. Addiction models may help inform aspects of clinical care of BED, particularly for shared antecedents and mechanisms underlying both disorders and to enhance engagement in treatment. Yet, there are large gaps in evidence regarding the effects of many aspects of addiction models to BED. More research is needed to examine the safety and efficacy of using addiction theories and frameworks for clinical strategies for BED.

ASRA Pain Medicine consensus guidelines on the management of the perioperative patient on cannabis and cannabinoids

BACKGROUND

The past two decades have seen an increase in cannabis use due to both regulatory changes and an interest in potential therapeutic effects of the substance, yet many aspects of the substance and their health implications remain controversial or unclear.

METHODS

In November 2020, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine charged the Cannabis Working Group to develop guidelines for the perioperative use of cannabis. The Perioperative Use of Cannabis and Cannabinoids Guidelines Committee was charged with drafting responses to the nine key questions using a modified Delphi method with the overall goal of producing a document focused on the safe management of surgical patients using cannabinoids. A consensus recommendation required ≥75% agreement.

RESULTS

Nine questions were selected, with 100% consensus achieved on third-round voting. Topics addressed included perioperative screening, postponement of elective surgery, concomitant use of opioid and cannabis perioperatively, implications for parturients, adjustment in anesthetic and analgesics intraoperatively, postoperative monitoring, cannabis use disorder, and postoperative concerns. Surgical patients using cannabinoids are at potential increased risk for negative perioperative outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Specific clinical recommendations for perioperative management of cannabis and cannabinoids were successfully created.

A systematic review of brief, freely accessible, and valid self-report measures for substance use disorders and treatment

BACKGROUND

Self-report measures can improve evidence-based assessment practices in substance use disorder treatment, but many measures are burdensome and costly, limiting their utility in community practice and non-specialty healthcare settings. This systematic review identified and evaluated the psychometric properties of brief, free, and readily accessible self-report measures of substance use and related factors.

METHODS

We searched two electronic databases (PsycINFO and PubMed) in May 2021 for published literature on scales, measures, or instruments related to substance use, substance use treatment, and recovery, and extracted the names of all measures. Measures were included if they were: (1) brief (25 items or fewer), (2) freely accessible in a ready-to-use format, and (3) had published psychometric data.

RESULTS

An initial search returned 411 measures, of which 73 (18%) met criteria for inclusion. Included measures assessed a variety of substances (e.g., alcohol, nicotine, opioids, cannabinoids, cocaine) and measurement domains (e.g., use, severity, expectancies, withdrawal). Among these measures, 14 (19%) were classified as psychometrically "excellent," 27 (37%) were rated as "good," 32 (44%) were "adequate."

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the shift toward evidence-based assessment in substance use disorder treatment in the last twenty years, key areas of public health concern are lacking pragmatic, psychometrically valid measures. Among the brief measures we reviewed, less than a fifth met criteria for psychometric "excellence" and most of these instruments fell into one measurement domain: screening for problematic substance use. Future research should focus both on improving the evidence base for existing brief self-report measures and creating new low-burden measures for specific substances and treatment constructs.

Substance use disorder screening and brief intervention in routine clinical practice in specialist adult mental health services: A systematic review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Substance use disorders co-occurring with other mental health disorders are common and harmful. Clinical guidelines often recommend substance use screening and brief intervention though evidence about screening practice in mental health services is limited. This systematic review of routine clinical practice in adult mental health services aims to identify (a) proportions of screening and brief intervention, (b) how they are practised and (c) their outcomes.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Embase and relevant Cochrane databases for articles until 31 July 2021 reporting on adults in English, regardless of geographical location. Backward snowball methods were used to locate additional articles. Screening, brief intervention and mental health services were defined. Data were extracted and variables compared related to setting, period, patient cohort, substances routine substance use disorder care pathways, and study quality was assessed.

RESULTS

We identified 17 articles reporting routine screening within adult mental health services. Studies in community settings mainly reported on screening for alcohol and other substance use disorders, while studies from inpatient settings reported mainly on tobacco. There was marked variation in methods and screening proportions. Only two studies reported on brief intervention.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review shows marked variation in mental health services routine screening practices with early focus on alcohol but more recently tobacco screening. We suggest approaches to enhancing implementation of screening and brief intervention in routine care, particularly using electronic health records.

Saving time, signaling trust: Using the PROMOTE self-report screening instrument to enhance prenatal care quality and therapeutic relationships

OBJECTIVES

Comprehensive screening of psychosocial vulnerabilities and substance use in prenatal care is critical to promote the health and well-being of pregnant patients. Effective implementation of new screening procedures and instruments should be accompanied by an in-depth investigation to assess their feasibility and impact on care delivery.

METHODS

In 2020, following implementation of the Profile for Maternal and Obstetric Treatment Effectiveness (PROMOTE) an innovative self-report screening instrument developed for outpatient prenatal clinics in the U.S., we conducted individual interviews and focus groups with twenty-two midwives, nurse practitioners, and obstetric residents focused on the PROMOTE and its impacts on care delivery. We used interpretive description for the qualitative analysis of the interviews.

RESULTS

Five themes were identified: Guiding Time Efficiently: "The Time I Don't Have," Preventing Missed Care, Signaling Trustworthiness, Establishing Trauma-Informed Foundations, and Promoting "Honest" Patient Disclosure.

CONCLUSION

Interviews suggest that patient completion of the PROMOTE before the medical encounter helps reduce previously reported barriers, is more time-effective, and makes history-taking easier. It also facilitates the patient-provider relationship.

INNOVATION

Findings offer insight into the breadth and depth of clinical impact resulting from the PROMOTE, and provide guidance for the implementation of such tools to optimize health outcomes.

Cross-sectional online survey of clinicians' knowledge, attitudes and challenges to screening and counselling adolescents and young adults for substance use

OBJECTIVE

To examine adolescent healthcare clinicians' self-reported screening practices as well as their knowledge, attitudes, comfort level and challenges with screening and counselling adolescents and young adults (AYA) for cigarette, e-cigarette, alcohol, marijuana, hookah and blunt use.

DESIGN

A 2016 cross-sectional survey.

SETTING

Academic departments and community-based internal medicine, family medicine and paediatrics practices.

PARTICIPANTS

Adolescent healthcare clinicians (N=771) from 12 US medical schools and respondents to national surveys. Of the participants, 36% indicated male, 64% female, mean age was 44 years (SD=12.3); 12.3% of participants identified as Asian, 73.7% as white, 4.8% as black, 4.2% as Hispanic and 3.8% as other.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Survey items queried clinicians about knowledge, attitudes, comfort level, self-efficacy and challenges with screening and counselling AYA patients about marijuana, blunts, cigarettes, e-cigarettes, hookah and alcohol.

RESULTS

Participants were asked what percentage of their 10-17 years old patients they screened for substance use. The median number of physicians reported screening 100% of their patients for cigarette (1st, 3rd quartiles; 80, 100) and alcohol use (75, 100) and 99.5% for marijuana use (50,100); for e-cigarettes, participants reported screening half of their patients and 0.0% (0, 50), (0, 75)) reported screening for hookah and blunts, respectively. On average (median), clinicians estimated that 15.0% of all 10-17 years old patients smoked cigarettes, 10.0% used e-cigarettes, 20.0% used marijuana, 25.0% drank alcohol and 5.0% used hookah or blunts, respectively; yet they estimated lower than national rates of use of each product for their own patients. Clinicians reported greater comfort discussing cigarettes and alcohol with patients and less comfort discussing e-cigarettes, hookah, marijuana and blunts.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified low rates of screening and counselling AYA patients for use of e-cigarettes, hookahs and blunts by adolescent healthcare clinicians and points to potential missed opportunities to improve prevention efforts.

Payment and Financing for Substance Use Screening and Brief Intervention for Adolescents and Adults in Health, School, and Community Settings

Screening and brief intervention (SBI) is an evidence-based, cost-effective practice to address unhealthy substance use. With SBI services expanding beyond healthcare settings (e.g., schools, community organizations) and reaching younger populations, sustainability efforts must consider payment and financing. This narrative review incorporated rapid scoping review methods and a search of the gray literature to determine payment and financing approaches for SBI with adolescents and to describe related barriers and facilitators for its sustainability. We sought information relevant to adolescents and settings in which they receive SBI, but also reviewed sources with an adult focus. Few peer-reviewed articles met inclusion criteria, and those mostly highlighted healthcare settings. School-based settings were better described in the gray literature; little was found about community settings. SBI is mostly paid through grant funding and public and commercial insurance; school-based settings use a range of approaches including grants, public insurance, and other public funding. We call upon researchers and providers to describe the payment and financing of SBI, to inform how the uptake of SBI may be practicable and sustainable. The increasing activation and use of insurance billing codes, and the expansion of SBI beyond healthcare, is encouraging to address unhealthy substance use by adolescents.

Management of opioid use disorder, opioid withdrawal, and opioid overdose prevention in hospitalized adults: A systematic review of existing guidelines

BACKGROUND

Hospitalizations related to the consequences of opioid use are rising. National guidelines directing in-hospital opioid use disorder (OUD) management do not exist. OUD treatment guidelines intended for other treatment settings could inform in-hospital OUD management.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the quality and content of existing guidelines for OUD treatment and management.

DATA SOURCES

OVID MEDLINE, PubMed, Ovid PsychINFO, EBSCOhost CINHAL, ERCI Guidelines Trust, websites of relevant societies and advocacy organizations, and selected international search engines.

STUDY SELECTION

Guidelines published between January 2010 to June 2020 addressing OUD treatment, opioid withdrawal management, opioid overdose prevention, and care transitions among adults.

DATA EXTRACTION

We assessed quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Nineteen guidelines met the selection criteria. Most recommendations were based on observational studies or expert consensus. Guidelines recommended the use of nonstigmatizing language among patients with OUD; to assess patients with unhealthy opioid use for OUD using the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Diseases-5th Edition criteria; use of methadone or buprenorphine to treat OUD and opioid withdrawal; use of multimodal, nonopioid therapy, and when needed, short-acting opioid analgesics in addition to buprenorphine or methadone, for acute pain management; ensuring linkage to ongoing methadone or buprenorphine treatment; referring patients to psychosocial treatment; and ensuring access to naloxone for opioid overdose reversal.

CONCLUSIONS

Included guidelines were informed by studies with various levels of rigor and quality. Future research should systematically study buprenorphine and methadone initiation and titration among people using fentanyl and people with pain, especially during hospitalization.

Efficacy of Brief Intervention for Unhealthy Drug Use in Outpatient Medical Care: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of brief intervention (BI) for unhealthy drug use in outpatient medical care has not been sufficiently substantiated through meta-analysis despite its ongoing global delivery. This study aims to determine the efficacy of BI for unhealthy drug use and the expected length of effects, and describe subgroup analyses by outpatient setting.

METHODS

Trials comparing BI with usual care controls were retrieved through four databases up to January 13, 2021. Two reviewers independently screened, selected, and extracted data. Primary outcomes included drug use frequency (days used) and severity on validated scales at 4-8 months and were analyzed using random-effects model meta-analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 20 studies with 9182 randomized patients were included. There was insufficient evidence to support the efficacy of BI for unhealthy drug use among all outpatient medical care settings for use frequency (SMD = -0.07, 95% CI = -0.17, 0.02, p = 0.12, I² = 37%, high certainty of evidence) and severity (SMD = -0.27, 95% CI = -0.78, 0.24, p = 0.30, I² = 98%, low certainty of evidence). However, post hoc subgroup analyses uncovered significant effects for use frequency by setting (interaction p = 0.02), with significant small effects only in emergency departments (SMD = -0.15, 95% CI = -0.25, -0.04, p < 0.01). Primary care, student health, women's health, and HIV primary care subgroups were nonsignificant. Primary care BI revealed nonsignificant greater average use in the treatment group compared to usual care.

DISCUSSION

BI for unhealthy drug use lacks evidence of efficacy among all outpatient medical settings. However, small effects found in emergency departments may indicate incremental benefits for some patients. Clinical decisions for SBI or specialty treatment program referrals should be carefully considered accounting for these small effects in emergency departments.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD42020157733).

Gaps in Screening Recommendations Must Be Addressed to Protect Youth and Adults from Substance Use-Related Harm

Background: In June 2020, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued a final recommendation on screening for unhealthy drug use in adults and adolescents. It assigned a "B" rating on a recommendation for screening in primary care for adults when services for accurate diagnosis, effective treatment, and appropriate care can be provided or referred, but declined to recommend the same for adolescents, concluding that current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms. Objectives: To examine and provide recommendations to address gaps in the USP ST recommendation on screening for unhealthy drug use. Results: The lack of recommendation to screen adolescents represents a critical gap and highlights the need for research on adolescent substance use screening. While research is limited, available evidence shows short-term benefits from youth screening and early intervention and no evidence of harm. The lack of recommendation for youth leaves practitioners without guidance and incentive to intervene with youth who use substances, discourages expansion/support of youth screening, and reinforces treatment barriers. The statement also lacks guidance to address barriers to implementing screening in adults. Despite promotion of the practice, implementation in primary care is sporadic. Providers should be made aware of implementation barriers and the clinical guides and training available to facilitate implementation. Conclusions/Importance: Screening and intervention are vital for addressing the addiction crisis, and USPSTF recommendations are critical for making preventive health care services accessible and affordable. These gaps must be addressed for the recommendation statement to reach its full life-saving potential.

Screening for Unhealthy Alcohol and Drug Use in General Medicine Settings

Unhealthy alcohol and drug use are among the top 10 causes of preventable death in the United States, but they are infrequently identified and addressed in medical settings. Guidelines recommend screening adult primary care patients for alcohol and drug use, and routine screening should be a component of high-quality clinical care. Brief, validated screening tools accurately detect unhealthy alcohol and drug use, and their thoughtful implementation can facilitate adoption and optimize the quality of screening results. Recommendations for implementation include patient self-administered screening tools, integration with electronic health records, and screening during routine primary care visits.

Missingness patterns in a comprehensive instrument identifying psychosocial and substance use risk in antenatal care

BACKGROUND

Psychosocial vulnerabilities (e.g. inadequate social support, financial insecurity, stress) and substance use elevate risks for adverse perinatal outcomes and maternal mental health morbidities. However, various barriers, including paucity of validated, simple and usable comprehensive instruments, impede execution of the recommendations to screen for such vulnerabilities in the first antenatal care visit. The current study presents findings from a newly implemented self-report tool created to overcome screening barriers in outpatient antenatal clinics.

METHODS

This was a retrospective chart-review of 904 women who completed the Profile for Maternal & Obstetric Treatment Effectiveness (PROMOTE) during their first antenatal visit between June and December 2019. The PROMOTE includes the 4-item NIDA Quick Screen and 15 additional items that each assess a different psychosocial vulnerability. Statistical analysis included evaluation of missing data, and exploration of missing data patterns using univariate correlations and hierarchical clustering.

RESULTS

Three quarters of women (70.0%) had no missing items. In the entire sample, all but four PROMOTE items (opioid use, planned pregnancy, educational level, and financial state) had < 5% missing values, suggesting good acceptability and feasibility. Several respondent-related characteristics such as lower education, less family support, and greater stress were associated with greater likelihood of missing items. Instrument-related characteristics associated with missing values were completing the PROMOTE in Spanish or question positioning at the end of the instrument.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Conducting a comprehensive screening of theoretically and clinically meaningful vulnerabilities in an outpatient setting is feasible. Study findings will inform modifications of the PROMOTE and subsequent digitisation.

Agreement between DSM-5 and DSM-IV measures of substance use disorders in a sample of adult substance users

BACKGROUND

In DSM-5, definitions of substance use disorders (SUD) were changed considerably from DSM-IV, yet little is known about how well DSM-IV and DSM-5 SUD diagnoses agree among substance users. Because data from many studies are based on DSM-IV diagnostic criteria, understanding the agreement between DSM-5 and DSM-IV SUD diagnoses and reasons for discordance between these diagnoses is crucial for comparing results across studies.

MEASUREMENTS

Prevalences and chance-corrected agreement of DSM-5 SUD and DSM-IV substance dependence were evaluated in 588 substance users in a suburban inpatient addiction program and an urban medical center, using a semi-structured interview (PRISM-5). Alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, cocaine, heroin, opioid, sedative, and stimulant use disorders were examined. Cohen's kappa was used to assess agreement between DSM-5 and DSM-IV SUD (abuse or dependence), DSM-5 SUD and DSM-IV dependence, and DSM-5 moderate/severe SUD and DSM-IV dependence.

RESULTS

Agreement between DSM-5 and DSM-IV SUD was excellent for all substances (κ = 0.84-0.99), except for cannabis and tobacco (κ = 0.75; 0.80, respectively). The most common reason for diagnostic discrepancies was a positive DSM-5 SUD diagnosis but no DSM-IV diagnosis, due to the lowered DSM-5 SUD threshold. Agreement between DSM-5 SUD and DSM-IV dependence was excellent for all substances (κ = 0.88-0.94), except for alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis (κ = 0.63-0.75). Agreement between moderate/severe DSM-5 SUD and DSM-IV dependence was excellent across all substances.

CONCLUSION

While care should be used in interpreting results of studies using different methods, studies relying on DSM-IV or DSM-5 SUD diagnostic criteria offer similar information and thus can be compared when accumulating a body of evidence.

Prevalence of substance use and substance-related disorders among US Veterans Health Administration patients

BACKGROUND

Substance use and related disorders are common among US Veterans, but the population burden of has never been directly assessed among Veterans Health Administration (VA) patients. We surveyed VA patients to measure substance use and related disorders in the largest US integrated healthcare system.

METHODS

We surveyed N = 6000 outpatients from 30 geographically-representative VA healthcare systems. We assessed substance use (lifetime, past 12-month, daily in past 3 months) and past 12-month disorders following DSM-5 criteria and estimated the association with Veteran characteristics (age, gender, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, VA utilization).

RESULTS

Alcohol was the most commonly-reported substance (24% used past 12 months, 11% daily in past 3 months, 10% met criteria for alcohol use disorder), followed by cannabis (42% lifetime use, 12% use in past 12 months, 5% daily use in past 3 months, 3% met criteria for cannabis use disorder). Overall, 5% met criteria for non-alcohol drug use disorder (13% for substance use disorder (SUD)). SUD prevalence was highest for young Veterans and those who were unemployed or otherwise not employed for wages. Past 12-month cannabis use was common, even among older adults (65-74 years: 10%; 75 and older: 2%).

CONCLUSIONS

Prevalence data are important inputs into decisions around population health monitoring, treatment capacity, and quality measurement strategies. Substance use and SUD are more prevalent than previously reported, and VA may need to screen for non-alcohol drugs to identify patients who need care. More tailored assessment may be needed for cannabis use, high-prevalence subgroups, and older adults.

Treatment of opioid use disorder in primary care

Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a common, treatable chronic disease that can be effectively managed in primary care settings. Untreated OUD is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality-notably, overdose, infectious complications of injecting drug use, and profoundly diminished quality of life. Withdrawal management and medication tapers are ineffective and are associated with increased rates of relapse and death. Pharmacotherapy is the evidence based mainstay of OUD treatment, and many studies support its integration into primary care settings. Evidence is strongest for the opioid agonists buprenorphine and methadone, which randomized controlled trials have shown to decrease illicit opioid use and mortality. Discontinuation of opioid agonist therapy is associated with increased rates of relapse and mortality. Less evidence is available for the opioid antagonist extended release naltrexone, with a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials showing decreased illicit opioid use but no effect on mortality. Treating OUD in primary care settings is cost effective, improves outcomes for both OUD and other medical comorbidities, and is highly acceptable to patients. Evidence on whether behavioral interventions improve outcomes for patients receiving pharmacotherapy is mixed, with guidelines promoting voluntary engagement in psychosocial supports, including counseling. Further work is needed to promote the integration of OUD treatment into primary care and to overcome regulatory barriers to integrating methadone into primary care treatment in the US.

External validation of an opioid misuse machine learning classifier in hospitalized adult patients

BACKGROUND

Opioid misuse screening in hospitals is resource-intensive and rarely done. Many hospitalized patients are never offered opioid treatment. An automated approach leveraging routinely captured electronic health record (EHR) data may be easier for hospitals to institute. We previously derived and internally validated an opioid classifier in a separate hospital setting. The aim is to externally validate our previously published and open-source machine-learning classifier at a different hospital for identifying cases of opioid misuse.

METHODS

An observational cohort of 56,227 adult hospitalizations was examined between October 2017 and December 2019 during a hospital-wide substance use screening program with manual screening. Manually completed Drug Abuse Screening Test served as the reference standard to validate a convolutional neural network (CNN) classifier with coded word embedding features from the clinical notes of the EHR. The opioid classifier utilized all notes in the EHR and sensitivity analysis was also performed on the first 24 h of notes. Calibration was performed to account for the lower prevalence than in the original cohort.

RESULTS

Manual screening for substance misuse was completed in 67.8% (n = 56,227) with 1.1% (n = 628) identified with opioid misuse. The data for external validation included 2,482,900 notes with 67,969 unique clinical concept features. The opioid classifier had an AUC of 0.99 (95% CI 0.99-0.99) across the encounter and 0.98 (95% CI 0.98-0.99) using only the first 24 h of notes. In the calibrated classifier, the sensitivity and positive predictive value were 0.81 (95% CI 0.77-0.84) and 0.72 (95% CI 0.68-0.75). For the first 24 h, they were 0.75 (95% CI 0.71-0.78) and 0.61 (95% CI 0.57-0.64).

CONCLUSIONS

Our opioid misuse classifier had good discrimination during external validation. Our model may provide a comprehensive and automated approach to opioid misuse identification that augments current workflows and overcomes manual screening barriers.

Computer- vs. nurse practitioner-delivered brief intervention for adolescent marijuana, alcohol, and sex risk behaviors in school-based health centers

BACKGROUND

This study examined approaches to delivering brief interventions (BI) for risky substance use and sexual behaviors in school-based health centers (SBHCs).

METHODS

300 Adolescents (ages 14-18; 54 % female) with risky marijuana and/or alcohol use identified via CRAFFT screening (scores >1) were recruited from two SBHCs and randomized to computer-delivered BI (CBI) or nurse practitioner-delivered BI (NBI). Both BIs included motivational and didactic content targeting marijuana, alcohol, and risky sexual behaviors. Assessments at baseline, 3-month, and 6-month follow-up included past 30-day frequency of marijuana use, alcohol use, binge drinking, unprotected sex, and sex while intoxicated; marijuana and alcohol problems; and health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL). A focused cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted. An historical 'assessment-only' cohort (N=50) formed a supplementary quasi-experimental comparison group.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between NBI and CBI on any outcomes considered (e.g., days of marijuana use; p=.26). From a cost-effectiveness perspective, CBI was 'dominant' for HRQoL and marijuana use. Participants' satisfaction with BI was significantly higher for NBI than CBI. Compared to the assessment-only cohort, participants who received a BI had lower frequency of marijuana (3-months: Incidence Rate Ratio [IRR] = .74 [.57, .97], p=.03), alcohol (3-months: IRR = .43 [.29, .64], p<.001; 6-months: IRR = .58 [.34, .98], p = .04), alcohol-specific problems (3-months: IRR = .63 [.45, .89], p=.008; 6-months: IRR = .63 [.41, .97], p = .04), and sex while intoxicated (6-months: IRR = .42 [.21, .83], p = .013).

CONCLUSIONS

CBI and NBI did not yield different risk behavior outcomes in this randomized trial. Supplementary quasi-experimental comparisons suggested potential superiority over assessment-only. Both NBI and CBI could be useful in SBHCs.

Early implementation of screening for substance use in rural primary care: A rapid analytic qualitative study

Background: Few primary care patients are screened for substance use. As part of a phased feasibility study examining the implementation of electronic health record-integrated screening with the Tobacco, Alcohol, and Prescription Medication Screening (TAPS) Tool and clinical decision support (CDS) in rural primary care clinics, focus groups were conducted to identify early indicators of success and challenges to screening implementation. Method: Focus groups (n = 6) were conducted with medical assistants (MAs: n = 3: 19 participants) and primary care providers (PCPs: n = 3: 13 participants) approximately one month following screening implementation in three Federally Qualified Health Centers in Maine. Rapid analysis and matrix analysis using Proctor's Taxonomy of Implementation Outcomes were used to explore implementation outcomes. Results: There was consensus that screening is being used, but use of the CDS was lower, in part due to limited positive screens. Fidelity was high among MAs, though discomfort with the CDS surfaced among PCPs, impacting adoption and fidelity. The TAPS Tool's content, credibility and ease of workflow integration were favorably assessed. Challenges include screening solely at annual visits and self-administered screening for certain patients. Conclusions: Results reveal indicators of implementation success and strategies to address challenges to screening for substance use in primary care.