Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Evidence maps are emerging data visualization of a systematic review. There are no published evidence maps summarizing opioid use disorder (OUD) interventions. AIM/OBJECTIVE:Our aim was to publish an interactive summary of all peer-reviewed interventional and observational trials assessing the treatment of OUD and common clinical outcomes. METHODS:PubMed, Embase, PsycInfo, Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials, and Web of Science were queried using multiple OUD-related MESH terms, without date limitations, for English-language publications. Inclusions were human subjects, treatment of OUD, OUD patient or community-level outcomes, and systematic reviews of OUD interventions. Exclusions were laboratory studies, reviews, and case reports. Two reviewers independently scanned abstracts for inclusion before coding eligible full-text articles by pre-specified filters: research design, study population, study setting, intervention, outcomes, sample size, study duration, geographical region, and funding sources. RESULTS:The OUD Evidence Map (https://med.nyu.edu/research/lee-lab/research/opioid-use-disorder-treatment-evidence-map) identified and assessed 12,933 relevant abstracts through 2020. We excluded 9455 abstracts and full text reviewed 2839 manuscripts; 888 were excluded, 1591 were included in the final evidence map. The most studied OUD interventions were methadone (n = 754 studies), buprenorphine (n = 499), and naltrexone (n = 134). The most common outcomes were heroin/opioid use (n = 708), treatment retention (n = 557), and non-opioid drug use (n = 368). Clear gaps included a wider array of opioid agonists for treatment, digital behavioral interventions, studies of OUD treatments in criminal justice settings, and overdose as a clinical outcome. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:This OUD Evidence Map highlights the importance of pharmacologic interventions for OUD and reductions in opioid use. Future iterations will update results annually and scan policy-level interventions.

The United States is experiencing an unprecedented opioid crisis, with a record of about 93,000 opioid-involved overdose deaths in 2020, which requires rapid and substantial scaling up of access to effective treatment for opioid use disorder. Only 18% of individuals with opioid use disorder receive evidence-based treatment, and strategies to increase access are hindered by a lack of treatment providers. Using a case study from the largest municipal hospital system in the United States, the authors describe the effects of a workforce shortage on health system responses to the opioid crisis. This national problem demands a multipronged approach, including federal programs to grow and diversify the pipeline of addiction providers, medical education initiatives, and enhanced training and mentorship to increase the capacity of allied clinicians to treat patients who have an opioid use disorder. Workforce development should be combined with structural reforms for integrating addiction treatment into mainstream medical care and with new treatment models, including telehealth, which can lower patient barriers to accessing treatment.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility and clinical impact of telemedicine-based opioid treatment with buprenorphine-naloxone following the Coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. METHODS:Participants included in this retrospective analysis consisted of adult New York City residents with opioid use disorder eligible for enrollment in the NYC Health+Hospitals Virtual Buprenorphine Clinic between March and May 2020 (n = 78). Follow-up data were comprised of rates of retention in treatment at 2 months, referrals to community treatment, and induction-related events. RESULTS:During the initial 9 weeks of clinic operations, the clinic inducted 78 patients on to buprenorphine-naloxone and completed 252 visits. Patient referrals included non-NYC Health + Hospitals (n = 22, 28.2%) and NYC Health + Hospitals healthcare providers (n = 17, 21.8%), homeless shelter staff (n = 13, 16.7%), and the NYC Health + Hospitals jail reentry program in Rikers Island (n = 11, 14.1%). At 8 weeks, 42 patients remained in care (53.8%), 21 were referred to a community treatment program (26.9%), and 15 were lost to follow-up (19.2%). No patients were terminated from care due to disruptive behavior or suspicions of diversion or misuse of Buprenorphine. Adverse clinical outcomes were uncommon and included persistent withdrawal symptoms (n = 8, 4.3%) and one nonfatal opioid overdose (0.5%). CONCLUSIONS:Telemedicine-based opioid treatment and unobserved home induction on buprenorphine-naloxone offers a safe and feasible approach to expand the reach of opioid use disorder treatment, primary care, and behavioral health for a highly vulnerable urban population during an unprecedented natural disaster.

Criminal justice involved individuals have a high rate of opioid overdose death following release. In March 2020, New York City jails released over 1000 inmates due to concern of COVID-19 outbreaks in county jails. The closure of addiction treatment clinics further complicated efforts to expand access to medications for opioid use disorder among criminal justice involved adults. The New York City Health + Hospitals Virtual Buprenorphine Clinic established in March 2020 offered low-threshold telemedicine-based opioid treatment with buprenorphine-naloxone, specifically for criminal justice involved adults post-release. We describe a case report of the novel role of tele-conferencing for the provision of buprenorphine-naloxone for jail-released adults with opioid use disorder experiencing homelessness during the COVID-19 pandemic. The patient is a 49-year-old male with severe opioid use disorder released from New York City jail as part of its early release program. He then started using diverted buprenorphine-naloxone, and 1 month later a harm-reduction specialist at his temporary housing at a hotel referred him to an affiliated buprenorphine provider and then eventually to the New York City Health + Hospitals Virtual Buprenorphine Clinic, where he was continued on buprenorphine-naloxone, and was followed biweekly thereafter until being referred to an office-based opioid treatment program. For this patient, telemedicine-based opioid treatment offered a safe and feasible approach to accessing medication for opioid use disorder during the COVID-19 pandemic and following incarceration.

CONTEXT/BACKGROUND:Use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) has rapidly increased despite unclear longitudinal health effects. Once thought to be a safer alternative to tobacco smoke, it is possible that e-cigarettes expose the user to similar carcinogenic byproducts during the vaping process. These toxicants are metabolized and excreted in the urine, and may have oncogenic implications for bladder urothelium. OBJECTIVE:To characterize and summarize known urinary carcinogenic biomarkers in e-cigarette users as they relate to the risk of developing bladder cancer. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION/METHODS:A systematic literature search was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and included PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). Relevant articles published in peer-reviewed journals, through January 2019, that reported on urinary biomarkers in e-cigarettes users were included. Parent compounds and urinary biomarkers were classified according to the International Agency for Research on Cancer Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans and cross referenced using the Collaborative on Health and the Environment, Toxicant and Disease Database to determine a link to bladder cancer, grouped by strength of evidence. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS/RESULTS:Our initial search identified 1385 articles, 22 of which met final inclusion criteria and were included for analysis. In summation, these studies described 40 different parent compounds and four metals found in the urine of e-cigarette users. Since each parent compound can be metabolized several different ways, 63 unique toxicant or carcinogenic metabolite biomarkers were identified. Compared with nonuser controls, e-cigarette users had higher concentrations of urinary biomarkers of several carcinogenic compounds linked to bladder cancer. The majority of studies were limited by heterogeneous reporting and a dearth of control individuals who had never smoked. CONCLUSIONS:Biomarkers of carcinogens, several with a strong link to bladder cancer, are present in the urine of e-cigarette users. Long-term implications of urothelial exposure to these toxicants are unknown but concerning, given the similarities to tobacco smoke and its established relationship with bladder cancer. Further study on the urological safety of e-cigarettes is necessary. PATIENT SUMMARY/UNASSIGNED:Our review shows that several carcinogens that have a known link to bladder cancer are present in the urine of electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) users. Further study on the urological safety of e-cigarettes is necessary.

BACKGROUND:The growth in e-cigarette use may be driven by the perception that they are a safer, healthier alternative to conventional cigarettes. However, their long-term health implications are not well known and use is discouraged by most cancer societies. It is currently unclear how cancer survivors perceive the risks associated with e-cigarette and how this may influence use in this population. METHODS:A cross-sectional analysis was conducted using the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) (Years 2017-2019). Our primary study outcome was the perception of harm associated with e-cigarettes compared to traditional cigarettes among adults with and without a self-reported history of cancer. We used logistic regression analyses assessing the association of a cancer history with the perception that e-cigarettes are as much or more harmful than cigarettes. RESULTS:A total of 11,846 respondents (weighted population estimate 243,728,483) were included. Of these, 26.6% reported a history of cancer. The proportion of cancer survivors who perceived e-cigarettes to be as much or more harmful than conventional cigarettes was similar to non-cancer respondents (70.6% vs 68.3%, P = 0.35). There was no difference in perception of harm among cancer and non-cancer respondents, adjusted for sociodemographic factors (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.6-1.1). Past (OR 9.06, 95% Cl 5.06-16.20) and never e-cigarette use (OR 23.40, 95% Cl 13.56-40.38) as well as having a history of cardiopulmonary disease (OR 1.28, 95% Cl 1.05-1.56) was associated with higher odds of perceiving e-cigarettes to be as much or more harmful. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Cancer survivors commonly perceive e-cigarettes to be as much or more harmful than traditional cigarettes though these findings are similar to perceptions among adults without a history of cancer. There is a strong association with avoidance of e-cigarette products among those who perceive them to be harmful.

Background/UNASSIGNED:We explored characteristics and beliefs associated with e-cigarette use patterns among cigarette smokers requiring inpatient detoxification for opioid and/or alcohol use disorder(s). Methods/UNASSIGNED:-test statistics, and logistic regression models were used. Results/UNASSIGNED: Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:E-cigarette use seems to be appealing to a small proportion of cigarette smokers with SUD. Although, dual smokers seem to use e-cigarettes for its cessation premise, they don't appear to be actively seeking to quit. E-cigarettes may offer a more effective method for harm reduction, further evaluation of incorporating it within smoking cessation protocols among patients in addiction treatment is needed.

BACKGROUND:Tobacco-use among cancer survivors leads to preventable morbidity, mortality, and increased healthcare costs. We sought to explore the prevalence of smoking and e-cigarette use among survivors of tobacco and non-tobacco related cancers. METHODS:A cross-sectional analysis was conducted using the 2015-2018 National Health Interview Survey. Our primary outcome was the prevalence of current cigarette smoking or e-cigarette use among adults with self-reported history of tobacco related or non-tobacco related cancer. Logistic regression analysis was to assess the association of reported cancer type with cigarette smoking or e-cigarette use. Secondary outcomes included yearly trends and dual use. RESULTS:A total of 12,984 respondents reported a history of cancer, representing a weighted estimate of 5,060,059 individuals with a history of tobacco-related malignancy and 17,583,788 with a history of a tobacco and non-tobacco related cancer, respectively. Survivors of tobacco-related cancers had a significantly higher prevalence of current cigarette use (18.2 % vs 9.7 %, P < 0.0001), e-cigarette use (2.7 % vs 1.6 %, P < 0.0001) and similar rates of dual use. The prevalence of cigarette smoking among all survivors increased as time increased from the year of diagnosis up to 2 years post-diagnosis (P = 0.047). Odds of reporting current cigarette smoking use was higher for survivors of tobacco-related cancers, adjusted for sociodemographic factors (OR1.69, 95 % CI 1.44-1.99). CONCLUSIONS:Survivors of tobacco-related cancers have a higher prevalence of current cigarette smoking and e-cigarette use compared to survivors of non-tobacco related cancers. There was a sequential increase in the prevalence of cigarette use during each subsequent year from the time of a new cancer diagnosis, underscoring the need for long term tobacco cessation support among newly diagnosed adults with cancer.