Faculty Bibliography

Addiction Psychiatry and Addiction Medicine are two physician subspecialities recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) that focus on providing care for patients with substance use disorders. Their shared and distinct historical roots are reviewed, and their respective ABMS board examination content areas and Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) fellowship training program requirements are compared. Addiction Psychiatry, a subspecialty under the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, began certifying diplomates in 1993, currently has 1202 active diplomates, and certifies around 150 diplomates every 2 years through 50 ACGME-accredited fellowships. Addiction Medicine, a subspecialty under the American Board of Preventive Medicine, began certifying diplomates in 2018, has 2604 diplomates with more expected before the practice pathway closes (anticipated in 2021), after which a fellowship training becomes required. Currently there are 78 accredited Addiction Medicine fellowships and more under development. The fields display substantial overlap between their respective examination content areas and fellowship training requirements, covering similar knowledge and skills for evaluation and treatment of substance use disorders and psychiatric and medical comorbidities across the full range of clinical settings, from general medical to addiction specialty settings. Key differences include that Addiction Psychiatry is open only to Board-certified psychiatrists and places extra emphasis on psychotherapeutic and psychopharmacological management strategies. Addiction Medicine is open to any ABMS primary specialty, including psychiatry. Opportunities for collaboration are discussed as both fields pursue the common goal of providing a well-trained workforce of physicians to meet the public health challenge presented by addiction. (Am J Addict 2020;00:00-00).

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:We examined age differences across genders in clinical characteristics in emerging adult (≤25 years) vs older adult patients (26+ years) with opioid use disorder (OUD). METHODS:Participants (N = 570; 30% female) entering a comparative effectiveness medication trial of buprenorphine vs extended-release naltrexone. RESULTS:Differences in clinical characteristics in emerging adult vs older participants were similar across genders. However, women 26+ years reported more mental health problems compared with women ≤25, while men ≤25 years reported more mental health problems compared with men 26+ years. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Different strategies for emerging adult and older patients seeking OUD treatment may be necessary to address psychiatric comorbidities that differ across genders in this population. SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE/CONCLUSIONS:Comprehensive psychiatric assessment should be systematically included in OUD treatment for all genders. Treatment should focus on the emerging adult developmental phase when appropriate, with psychiatric treatment tailored for women and men, separately, across the lifespan. (Am J Addict 2020;00:00-00).

BACKGROUND:Treatment with opioid agonists is effective for opioid use disorder, but early discontinuation of treatment is a major obstacle to success. Intensive longitudinal methods - which take many repeated measurements over time, usually in the field- have provided unique insight into the effects of stress, mood and craving on drug use while people are being treated; these methods might also be useful for studying the processes that lead people to drop out of treatment. METHODS:Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) was conducted for up to 17 weeks by obtaining multiple electronic diary entries per day from 238 participants being treated with methadone or buprenorphine-naloxone. Survival analysis was used to study two outcomes: dropping out of treatment and noncompliance with EMA self-report requirements. Self-reports of stress, craving, and mood were used as time-varying predictors. Demographic and psychosocial variables measured with the Addiction Severity Index at the start of treatment were used as time-invariant predictors. RESULTS:Dropping out of treatment was more likely in participants with more reported hassles (a measure of stress), higher levels of cocaine craving, lower levels of positive mood, a recent history of emotional abuse, a recent history of being bothered frequently by psychological problems, and with buprenorphine rather than methadone as their medication. In contrast, study noncompliance was not significantly associated with any of the variables analyzed. CONCLUSIONS:Assessment of stress, craving and mood during treatment might identify people who are at greater risk of dropping out, and therapeutic interventions targeting these processes might increase retention.

Amid worsening opioid overdose death rates, the nation continues to face a persistent addiction treatment gap limiting access to quality care for opioid use disorder (OUD). Three FDA-approved medications (methadone, buprenorphine, and extended-release naltrexone) have high quality evidence demonstrating reductions in drug use and overdose events, but most individuals with OUD do not receive them. The development of a unified public health framework, such as a Cascade of Care, could improve system level practice and treatment outcomes. In response to feedback from many stakeholders over the past year, we have expanded upon the OUD treatment cascade, first published in 2017, with additional attention to prevention stages and both individual-level and population-based services to better inform efforts at the state and federal level. The proposed cascade framework has attracted considerable interest from federal agencies including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) along with policy-makers nationwide. We have reviewed recent literature and evidence-based interventions related to prevention, identification, and treatment of individuals with OUD and modeled updated figures from the 2016 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Many currently employed interventions (prescriber guidelines, prescription monitoring programs, naloxone rescue) address prevention of OUD or downstream complications but not treatment of the underlying disorder itself. An OUD Cascade of Care framework could help structure local and national efforts to combat the opioid epidemic by identifying key targets, interventions, and quality indicators across populations and settings to achieve these ends. Improved data collection and reporting methodology will be imperative.

BACKGROUND:The community reinforcement approach (CRA) is an evidence-based practice for the treatment of substance use disorders and achieving and maintaining abstinence, but few studies have systematically explored the effect of CRA on secondary, yet also important outcomes, such as social functioning. OBJECTIVES:The purpose of this study was to examine whether an internet-based version of the CRA plus contingency management is associated with improved social functioning of individuals seeking substance use disorder treatment in a multi-site clinical effectiveness trial. METHODS:Social functioning was measured using the 54-item Social Adjustment Scale assessing role performance in six domains (work, social and leisure activities, extended family relationships, marital relationship, parenting, and immediate family). Generalized linear mixed models tested the effects of treatment, time, sex, baseline abstinence, baseline social functioning and baseline psychological distress on overall social functioning and across social functioning subscales at the end of the 12-week treatment phase and 3 and 6 months post treatment. RESULTS:Results showed no significant association between treatment and total social functioning score or any subscale scores. Being male was significantly associated with better social functioning overall at the end of treatment (p = .024). Higher levels of psychological distress at baseline predicted significantly worse social functioning at the end of treatment overall (p = .037). CONCLUSIONS:The addition of an internet-based version of the CRA was not associated with greater improvements in social functioning compared to standard outpatient care after 12 weeks of treatment. Implications for internet-delivered CRA are discussed.

Opioid use disorder affects over 26 million individuals worldwide. There are currently three World Health Organization-recommended and US Food and Drug Administration-approved medication treatments for opioid use disorder: the full opioid agonist methadone, the opioid partial agonist buprenorphine, and the opioid receptor antagonist naltrexone. We provide a review of the use of buprenorphine for the treatment of opioid use disorder and discuss the barriers, challenges, risks, and efficacy of buprenorphine treatment vs. other treatments. Although evidence from numerous studies has shown buprenorphine to be effective for the treatment of opioid use disorder, a majority of patients with opioid use disorder do not receive buprenorphine, or any other medical treatment. We review the different formulations of buprenorphine, including newer long-acting injectable formulations that may decrease the risk of diversion and improve adherence.

BACKGROUND:Significant fixed effects of site (main effects of site and/or site by treatment interactions) on primary outcome have been identified in the majority of studies performed by NIDA's National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network. While rarely explored, identifying patient- and site-level variables that are associated with site effects can provide information about the context in which outcome is optimized. METHODS:In a 10-site clinical trial that evaluated the effectiveness of a web-based psychosocial intervention compared to usual treatment of patients (N = 507) with substance use disorders, the primary outcome analysis revealed significant main effect of site, modeled as a fixed effect, on the outcome of abstinence (Campbell et al., 2014). In the current analysis, we use a two-level, hierarchical generalized linear model (HGLM) to identify patient- and site-level variables associated with abstinence outcome, while modeling site as a random factor. RESULTS:The site-specific percentage of patients abstinent in the last 4 weeks of the study varied from 6.1% to 40%. However, only 6.7% (p = 0.08) of variability in end-of-study abstinence was accounted for by site, indicating a small-moderate effect. Among patient-level predictors, older age (OR = 1.40; 95% CI = 1.15, 1.71; p = 0.0009), abstinence at baseline (OR = 2.77; 95% CI = 1.73, 4.45; p < 0.0001), and among site-level predictors, higher annual clinic admissions (OR = 1.28; 95% CI = 1.03, 1.59; p = 0.0251) were significantly associated with increased likelihood of abstinence. When controlling for these three variables in a HGLM, only patient age and abstinence at baseline remained significant, and random factor site explained only 1.4% of variability in end-of-study abstinence, a 79% reduction in magnitude. CONCLUSIONS:The findings suggest that only some amount of variability in abstinence outcomes among sites can be explained by a combination of patient- and site-level variables. Our findings support the case that variability between sites is a natural phenomenon, and our methodological recommendation is that site be modeled as a random factor when analyzing multi-site clinical trials.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:In a multisite, randomized study (CTN-0029), a 3-month course of Osmotic-Release Oral System Methylphenidate (OROS-MPH) improved smoking cessation in a group of patients with higher baseline severity in Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). This treatment, however, worsened smoking cessation outcome in the group with lower baseline ADHD severity. We want to examine whether this differential treatment effect persisted after OROS-MPH was discontinued. METHODS:We conducted a secondary analysis of the 1-month follow-up data from CTN-0029 after the discontinuation of OROS-MPH (N = 134). Nicotine patch was tapered during this month. We tested whether OROS-MPH had an effect on self-reported 7-day abstinence by week, as well as possible treatment by baseline ADHD severity interactions. RESULTS:Abstinence diminished overall in time after the end of the treatment. In the high baseline severity group, patients who received OROS-MPH had an advantage in 7-day abstinence at week 15 (40% for OROS-MPH vs 20% for placebo, odds ratio = 2.63, P = .028). In the lower severity group (n = 121), no difference was detected (29% for OROS-MPH vs 32% for placebo, P = 1.00) between the two treatment groups. There was also a significant treatment by baseline ADHD severity interaction (P = .03). CONCLUSIONS AND SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE:OROS-MPH promotes abstinence beyond the course of treatment for patients with more severe ADHD, while the paradoxical effects in the lower baseline severity group is not persistent after medication discontinuation. Targeting ADHD in smoking cessation as a comorbidity therefore can have broader impact with more precise patient selection. (Am J Addict).

BACKGROUND:Increasing access to buprenorphine is an important strategy for curtailing the opioid epidemic. Research is needed to understand what facilitates prescribing among waivered physicians and how to increase the willingness and capacity to prescribe. This study describes prescribing patterns in a sample of buprenorphine-waivered physicians in New York (NY) in 2016 and examines factors influencing prescribing capacity among waivered providers. METHODS:values, respectively, to examine differences in individual predictors among physicians that were actively prescribing buprenorphine and those that were not. RESULTS:91 physicians responded to the survey, and 65% indicated they were currently prescribing buprenorphine. The mean patient census among physicians waivered to prescribe to 30 patients was 9.6 (SD = 9.7, median = 5), and to 100 patients, it was 60.5 (SD = 38.9, median = 72.5). Common facilitators included access to psychosocial referrals and better reimbursement, while inadequate resources, lack of time, and prior authorizations were the most common barriers. CONCLUSIONS:In addition to increasing the number of waivered physicians, policy-makers should provide enhanced training and implementation support for waivered physicians to start prescribing and facilitate continued and expanded prescribing among those already doing so.