Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Between 2022 and 2023, overdose mortality decreased among non-Hispanic (NH) white people but stayed the same or increased among people of colour in the USA. County racialised economic segregation may contribute to overdose mortality. METHODS:measures, one for higher-income NH white and lower-income black residents and another for higher-income NH white and lower-income Hispanic residents. Models included random effects for county, year and county-year interaction, and fixed effects for proportion male, proportion aged 25-44, land area, state and year. We estimated relative risk (RR) by quintile (least vs most privileged) and the difference in overdose mortality per 100 000 (RD) had all counties shifted to the risk of the most advantaged counties (Q5). RESULTS:Counties with the highest proportion of lower-income racially minoritised residents (Q1) had an increased RR of overdose deaths compared with Q5 counties, both overall (aRRs 1.64 (1.51-1.78); 1.40 (1.29-1.52)), and among subgroups. Had all counties experienced the risk of Q5 counties, we estimated an average reduction in overdose deaths overall (RDs per 100 000: -7.20 (-8.25 to -6.10); -6.37 (-7.38 to -5.25)) and among subgroups. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:County racialised economic segregation was associated with overdose mortality risk in 2018-2022. Investment in evidence-based strategies to reduce overdose risk in places experiencing harms related to racialised economic segregation is critical.

IMPORTANCE/UNASSIGNED:There has been a national increase in fatal and nonfatal overdoses involving stimulants, and 4.5 million US individuals meet criteria for stimulant use disorder (UD), with the highest prevalence in young adults. However, limited information exists on trends in diagnosed stimulant UD. OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:To estimate trends in the proportion of adolescent and young adult Medicaid enrollees diagnosed with a stimulant UD from 2001 to 2020. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS/UNASSIGNED:A repeated cross-sectional study (2001-2020) was conducted using administrative health care claims data from Medicaid (public insurance program in US). Publicly insured adolescents (aged 13-17 years) and young adults (aged 18-24 or 25-29 years) from 42 US states were included. Data were analyzed from January 2025 to July 2025. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES/UNASSIGNED:Stimulant UD was defined as an inpatient or outpatient International Classification of Diseases diagnosis code in the year, with cocaine UD and noncocaine psychostimulant UD evaluated separately. The annual proportion with stimulant UD diagnoses was stratified by age group, sex, race and ethnicity, and presence of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) diagnosis or stimulant prescription in the year. Differences comparing 2001 with 2020 were summarized. Characteristics of those diagnosed with stimulant UD in 2020 were described. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:The sample included 5.7 million (2001) to 16.1 million Medicaid enrollees (2020) per year; in 2020, 54.2% were female, and 7.1 million were adolescents. From 2001 to 2020, the proportion diagnosed with noncocaine psychostimulant UD increased from 0.09% to 0.49% (prevalence ratio [PR], 5.47 [95% CI, 5.20-5.75]) in those aged 18 to 24 years, from 0.13% to 1.63% (PR, 12.55 [95% CI, 11.83-13.31]) for ages 25 to 29 years, and from 0.10% to 0.91% among young adults aged 18 to 29 years. Among adolescents, the proportion diagnosed with noncocaine psychostimulant UD varied between 0.03% and 0.07%. The proportion diagnosed with cocaine UD was stable in young adults (range, 0.17%-0.34% [18-24 years] and 0.53%-0.79% [25-29 years]) and declined in adolescents (from 0.04% to 0.01%). Cocaine and noncocaine psychostimulant UD diagnoses were 2 to 4 times more common in patients with an ADHD diagnosis or stimulant prescription. Most patients diagnosed with a stimulant UD in 2020 were also diagnosed with a mental health disorder (68%-82%) or other substance UD (72%-78%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE/UNASSIGNED:The prevalence of noncocaine psychostimulant UD diagnoses in young adult Medicaid patients increased over the last 2 decades, potentially associated with an increasing use of prescription and illicit stimulants along with increased clinical detection. These trends raise concerns given recent rises in stimulant-involved overdose fatalities and stress the need for evidence-based stimulant UD treatments for young people.

OBJECTIVE:The CDC recommends initiating opioids for pain treatment at the lowest effective dose and duration. We examine how interactions between dose, duration, and other medication factors (e.g., drug type) influence opioid use disorder (OUD) risk-a gap not considered by CDC guidelines. SUBJECTS/METHODS:Using Medicaid claims data (2016-2019) from 25 states, we analyzed opioid-naïve adults, newly diagnosed with musculoskeletal pain who initiated opioids within three months of diagnosis. A 6-month washout confirmed no prior opioid exposure or musculoskeletal diagnosis. METHODS:Initial opioids were categorized by "dose-days supplied" (low [>0-20 mg MME] to very high [>90 mg MME] dose, and short [1-7 days] to moderate [>7-30 days] supply), and by opioid type; physical therapy (PT) sessions were also recorded. Using Poisson regression models, we estimated the OUD risk associated with dose-days categories, adjusting for baseline demographics, clinical characteristics, and medications. We separately examined opioid dose-days and PT, and assessed PT's moderating effect on dose-days' impact. RESULTS:Among 30,536 patients, half initiated opioids at 20-50 MME for 1-7 days, and 20% received PT. OUD risk was 2-3 times higher for opioids initiated for >7-30 days compared to 1-7 days across doses, and 5.5 times higher for opioids initiated for >7-30 days at > 90 MME versus 1-7 days at < 20 MME. PT alone, neither affected OUD risk nor mitigated the increased risk from longer or higher-dose opioids. CONCLUSIONS:Our findings support the need for careful opioid prescribing and alternative pain management strategies, as the observed associations between initial prescription characteristics and OUD were not mitigated by adjunctive PT. PERSPECTIVE/CONCLUSIONS:This study demonstrated that initial opioid prescriptions of 7-30 days, especially above 90 MME/day, increased OUD risk in opioid-naïve patients with musculoskeletal pain; physical therapy did not mitigate the risk. Different opioids posed varied risks, even at the same dose and duration. Careful prescribing and alternative pain management are essential.

We estimated the extent to which different pain management practices, considered together as well as individually, mediated the relationship between chronic pain or physical disability and new-onset opioid use disorder (OUD) in a large cohort of adult Medicaid patients. Considering the plausibility of the assumptions required to identify different mediational estimands, we estimated natural indirect effects when considering mediation through the group of mediators together and estimated interventional indirect effects when considering mediation through each pain management practice individually. We estimated each effect using a nonparametric one-step estimator. The pain management variables we examined mediated all of the total effect of chronic pain on OUD risk and nearly half of the total effect of physical disability on OUD risk. High-dose, long-duration opioid prescribing and co-prescription of opioids with benzodiazepines, gabapentinoids, and muscle relaxants each contributed substantially to the increased risk of OUD due to chronic pain (contributing to 10-37% of the overall effect) and more moderately to the increased risk of OUD due to physical disability (contributing to 3-19% of the overall effect). Antidepressant or anti-inflammatory prescribing and physical therapy generally did not contribute to increased OUD risk, and, in some cases, even contributed to small reductions in risk.

OBJECTIVE:To examine nationwide trends in the prescribing of controlled medications to early adolescents, adolescents, and young adults enrolled in public insurance (Medicaid) from 2001 to 2019. METHODS:The study utilized US Medicaid data covering publicly insured enrollees from 43 states (2001-2019). Early adolescents (10-12y), adolescents (13-17y), and young adults (18-24y, 25-29y) with ≥ 10 months enrollment in each calendar year were included. Filled prescription for opioids, stimulants, benzodiazepines, Z-hypnotics, barbiturates, and gabapentin were identified. In each calendar year, annual proportions with 1 +  controlled medication, 2 +  classes of controlled medications, and each controlled medication were estimated. RESULTS:In 2019, the sample included 17.9 million enrollees (53 % female). The annual proportion prescribed any controlled medication peaked at 17.5 % in early adolescents (2003), 20.6 % in adolescents (2009), and 34.1 % (18-24y) and 47.0 % (25-29y) in young adults (2010). By 2019, the proportions declined to 11.7 % (early adolescents), 12.6 % (adolescents), 16.2 % (18-24y), and 23.9 % (25-29y). Trends varied by medication and age. The largest absolute decline was in the proportion with an opioid filled (2010 =29.8 %, 2019 =11.2 %, young adults 18-24y; 2003 =14.3 %, 2019 =4.4 %, adolescents). In contrast, the proportion with a stimulant fill increased, with eight-fold increases in young adults 25-29y (2001 =0.3 %, 2019 =2.6 %). Benzodiazepine and Z-hypnotic use peaked in 2010 and declined through 2019. CONCLUSIONS:In the past two decades, there were increases in stimulant prescriptions among young Medicaid enrollees. The declines in opioid, benzodiazepines, barbiturate and Z-hypnotic prescribing are encouraging and may indicate more cautious prescribing related to greater awareness of harms such as misuse and overdose, along with policy initiatives.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:In Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) the response to substance use has primarily been abstinence-based, acute-care-oriented treatments. While harm reduction services (HRS) and interventions have expanded in LAC over the last decade, the research evidence on such programs has been sparse and disjointed. OBJECTIVE:This scoping review will map peer-reviewed literature on HRS and interventions in LAC, and synthesize gaps and opportunities for policy, practice, and research. INCLUSION CRITERIA/METHODS:Studies conducted in LAC. The HRS that will be included in the search are opioid agonist therapy, syringe services programs, drug consumption facilities, safer consumption kits, managed alcohol programs, and drug-checking services. The scoping review will consider peer-reviewed original research, including qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods designs. We will exclude studies addressing harms associated with nicotine or tobacco use. We included original research written in English, Spanish, Portuguese, or French published between January 2013 and December 2024. METHODS:We will conduct literature searches in English (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science), Spanish, Portuguese (SciELO and BIREME), and French (BIREME). Two reviewers will independently screen the literature. Extraction of characteristics of the studies using a template in Covidence. Data on the HRS and interventions studied and implemented in LAC will be summarized and presented in tables, graphs, and a narrative summary. We will use a narrative synthesis approach to summarize implications for policy, research, and practice identified in the literature. The review was registered in Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/qya7c/). DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:The proposed scoping review will provide valuable information regarding the current state of HRS and interventions for PWUD in LAC. This in return can help guide future research for evaluating services that are already being implemented or unveil services needed in the region. To our knowledge, this is the first scoping review to map HRS in LAC using a systematic approach. Furthermore, among the strengths of this review are: the broad number of services, countries, and time, as well as the consultation with experts and knowledge users.

BACKGROUND:Neighborhood-level overdose risk may vary over time. In Rhode Island, we developed and validated a machine learning model to identify the 20 percent of census block groups (CBGs) at the highest predicted risk of future overdose death. We updated this model periodically between November 2021 and August 2024 to generate six sets of predictions. This study aims to characterize the trajectory of each CBG's predicted overdose risk over time across these six periods. METHODS:In each prediction period, CBGs were designated as "high risk" or not designated as "high risk" based on our model's 20 percent predicted overdose risk threshold. We implemented sequence analysis to describe unique trajectories in each CBG's risk designation over each prediction period. We then calculated optimal matching distances to estimate dissimilarity between each pair of trajectories and applied agglomerative hierarchical clustering to group similar trajectories. RESULTS:The 809 CBGs included in this study followed 60 unique trajectories in predicted overdose risk designation over the six prediction periods. Clustering of trajectories favored a solution with five trajectory groups. Most CBGs (73.4 %) were rarely or never designated as "high risk", 7.9 % of CBGs were always designated as "high risk", and the remaining 18.7 % were designated as "high risk" in multiple prediction periods, represented by trajectory groups with different patterning over time. CONCLUSIONS:Given the substantial variability in which CBGs were at highest overdose risk over time, dynamic machine learning predictions may inform harm reduction resource allocation by identifying neighborhoods with emerging needs.

IMPORTANCE/UNASSIGNED:Since the start of the 21st century, more than 800 000 firearm deaths and more than 2 million firearm injuries have occurred in the US. All categories of firearm violence-homicide, suicide, unintentional-result in reverberating harms to individuals, families, communities, and society. The collective responsibility of society is to safeguard the health and safety of its members, including from firearm harms. The JAMA Summit on Firearm Violence convened 60 thought leaders from a wide array of disciplines to chart an innovations roadmap that will lead to substantial reductions in firearm harms by 2040. OBSERVATIONS/UNASSIGNED:The vision for 2040 is a country where firearm violence is substantially reduced and where all people and communities report feeling safe from firearm harms. The vision centers on practical solutions with an understanding of the country's constitutional protections for firearm ownership. Achieving the 2040 vision will require expansion of proven evidence-based strategies and the development of new, innovative approaches rooted in equity, accountability, and collective responsibility. Discussions centered on projecting a safer world, community violence interventions, technologic innovations, federal and state-level oversight of firearms, ethical considerations, and primordial prevention of firearm violence. The Summit charted a roadmap of 5 essential actions in the next 5 years to achieve this vision: (1) focus on communities and change fundamental structures that lead to firearm harms, (2) harness technological strengths responsibly, (3) change the narrative around firearm harms, (4) take a whole-government and whole-society approach, and (5) spark a research revolution on preventing firearm harms. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE/UNASSIGNED:A safer world will require investing in the discovery, implementation, and scaling of solutions that reduce firearm harms and center on the people and communities most affected by firearm violence.

Amid the ongoing overdose crisis, U.S. lawmakers are considering policy reforms that could significantly change availability and accessibility of methadone treatment (MT) for opioid use disorder (OUD). However, uncertainty remains about which potential changes will lead to the greatest health benefits while minimizing unintended harms. In this protocol, we describe a planned NIH-funded study (R21DA061660) to simulate alternative MT delivery scenarios currently being considered in U.S. policy discussions, and estimate their impact on population-level rates of treatment initiation and retention and opioid overdose across different sociodemographic groups. We will use an agent-based model focused on 16 counties in NY State to simulate two alternative policy scenarios compared to the current status quo of opioid-treatment program (OTP) delivered MT: 1) office-based prescribing by addiction-certified providers with pharmacy and OTP dispensing; and 2) office-based prescribing by general practitioners with pharmacy and OTP dispensing. Agents will represent individuals with OUD and we will simulate access to MT based on alternative policy scenarios (e.g., locations of existing OTPs vs. provider offices and pharmacies). Probabilities of treatment initiation, retention, and opioid overdose will be informed by estimates from the scientific literature and administrative datasets from NY State. Multiple implementation scenarios will be considered to account for potential variation in adoption of office-based methadone by patients, providers, and pharmacies. To ensure relevance to directly impacted communities and policy makers, the study involves a collaboration between academic researchers and NY State government partners and relies on input from an Expert Advisory Board of people with lived and living experience with methadone, addiction medicine, and policy experts. Findings will be disseminated via a public dashboard. This study will inform ongoing policy discussions and shed light on the potential of researcher-policy partnerships to promote evidence-based policies that can reduce overdose and improve population health.

With the overdose crisis continuing to pose significant challenges in North America, harm reduction strategies are critical for public health systems to reduce mortality and morbidity. Despite the considerable strides in harm reduction research, high-quality evidence for decision-making is limited. This is compounded by a variation in reported outcomes, drug supply, administration changes, and policy and social impacts, which further challenge researchers and practitioners in their efforts to implement effective, nimble harm reduction interventions. Adoption of common data elements (CDEs) and common outcome measures (COMs) helps researchers standardize and enhance data collection and outcome reporting, ultimately improving the comparability and generalizability of research findings. To accelerate the pace and use of CDEs, members of the NIDA HEAL Research on Interventions for Stability and Engagement (RISE) engaged in prospective semantic harmonization and consensus on CDEs and COMs using a rigorous pragmatic Delphi community informed approach. This process resulted in a set of CDEs and COMs that standardized data collection and reporting across 10 harm reduction research projects. This paper describes this process and presents the derived CDEs and COMs, along with key considerations, challenges encountered, and lessons learned.