Effect of a Care Management Intervention on 12-Month Drinking Outcomes Among Patients With and Without DSM-IV Alcohol Dependence at Baseline

A patient-centered nurse-supported primary care-based collaborative care program to treat opioid use disorder and depression: Design and protocol for the MI-CARE randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Opioid use disorder (OUD) contributes to rising morbidity and mortality. Life-saving OUD treatments can be provided in primary care but most patients with OUD don't receive treatment. Comorbid depression and other conditions complicate OUD management, especially in primary care. The MI-CARE trial is a pragmatic randomized encouragement (Zelen) trial testing whether offering collaborative care (CC) to patients with OUD and clinically-significant depressive symptoms increases OUD medication treatment with buprenorphine and improves depression outcomes compared to usual care.

METHODS

Adult primary care patients with OUD and depressive symptoms (n ≥ 800) from two statewide health systems: Kaiser Permanente Washington and Indiana University Health are identified with computer algorithms from electronic Health record (EHR) data and automatically enrolled. A random sub-sample (50%) of eligible patients is offered the MI-CARE intervention: a 12-month nurse-driven CC intervention that includes motivational interviewing and behavioral activation. The remaining 50% of the study cohort comprise the usual care comparison group and is never contacted. The primary outcome is days of buprenorphine treatment provided during the intervention period. The powered secondary outcome is change in Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-9 depression scores. Both outcomes are obtained from secondary electronic healthcare sources and compared in "intent-to-treat" analyses.

CONCLUSION

MI-CARE addresses the need for rigorous encouragement trials to evaluate benefits of offering CC to generalizable samples of patients with OUD and mental health conditions identified from EHRs, as they would be in practice, and comparing outcomes to usual primary care. We describe the design and implementation of the trial, currently underway.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05122676. Clinical trial registration date: November 17, 2021.

Integration of pharmacotherapy for alcohol use disorder treatment in primary care settings: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Alcohol use disorder (AUD) represents the most prevalent addiction in the United States. Integration of AUD treatment in primary care settings would expand care access. The objective of this scoping review is to examine models of AUD treatment in primary care that include pharmacotherapy (acamprosate, disulfiram, naltrexone).

METHODS

The team undertook a search across MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science on May 21, 2021. Eligibility criteria included: patient population ≥ 18 years old, primary care-based setting, US-based study, presence of an intervention to promote AUD treatment, and prescription of FDA-approved AUD pharmacotherapy. Study design was limited to controlled trials and observational studies. We assessed study bias using a modified Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine Rating Framework quality rating scheme.

RESULTS

The qualitative synthesis included forty-seven papers, representing 25 primary studies. Primary study sample sizes ranged from 24 to 830,825 participants and many (44 %) were randomized controlled trials. Most studies (80 %) included a nonpharmacologic intervention for AUD: 56 % with brief intervention, 40 % with motivational interviewing, and 12 % with motivational enhancement therapy. A plurality of studies (48 %) included mixed pharmacologic interventions, with administration of any combination of naltrexone, acamprosate, and/or disulfiram. Of the 47 total studies included, 68 % assessed care initiation and engagement. Fewer studies (15 %) explored practices surrounding screening for or diagnosing AUD. Outcome measures included receipt of pharmacotherapy and alcohol consumption, which about half of studies included (53 % and 51 %, respectively). Many of these outcomes showed significant findings in favor of integrated care models for AUD.

CONCLUSIONS

The integration of AUD pharmacotherapy in primary care settings may be associated with improved process and outcome measures of care. Future research should seek to understand the varied experiences across care integration models.

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.