Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND AND AIMS/OBJECTIVE:The opioid crisis continues to exert a tremendous toll in North America, with existing interventions often falling short of addressing ongoing needs. Psychedelics are emerging as a possible alternative therapy for mental health and substance use disorders. This study aimed to gather insights on how people use or are considering using psychedelics to manage opioid use disorder (OUD), how these experiences are perceived to impact opioid use and what these lessons imply for future research and practice. METHODS:We conducted a qualitative study using the Reddit online community platform. We extracted posts that contained key psychedelic terms from the two most subscribed-to subreddits dedicated to discussions of OUD treatment (r/OpiatesRecovery and r/Methadone) from 2018 to 2021. We thematically analyzed content from 151 relevant posts and their respective comments. RESULTS:Two prominent themes identified in discussions were perspectives on the effectiveness of psychedelics in treating OUD, and mechanisms through which psychedelics were thought to impact use and desire to use opioids. For many, psychedelics were deemed to have a strong impact on opioid use via multiple mechanisms, including alleviating physical symptoms of dependence, shifting motivations around desire to use opioids and addressing underlying mental health problems and reasons for use. Others saw the potential promise around psychedelics as exaggerated, acknowledging many people eventually return to use, or even considered psychedelics dangerous. CONCLUSIONS:There appear to be diverse perspectives on the effects of using psychedelics to treat opioid use disorder and an urgent need for controlled studies to better understand the impact of different psychedelics on opioid use, how they may be used in the context of existing treatments and what strategies they must be combined with to ensure safety and effectiveness. Integrating the experiences of people who use drugs will help guide psychedelics research toward effective person-centered interventions to enhance health and wellness.

BACKGROUND:Medicaid expansion via the Affordable Care Act, more recent legislation and Medicaid 1115 waivers offer opportunity to increase health care access among individuals involved in the carceral system. Effective enrollment of new beneficiaries and temporary suspension and reactivation of existing Medicaid benefits upon release is key to the success of these efforts. This study aims to characterize how jails, prisons and Medicaid agencies are implementing Medicaid suspension and enrollment programs and identifies barriers and facilitators to implementation. METHODS:We conducted 19 semi-structured interviews with 36 multi-state leaders in carceral facilities, Medicaid agencies, local health departments and national policy experts from 2020 to 2021. Interviews covered 4 domains: (1) the role of policy in influencing carceral and reentry Medicaid practices, (2) implementation strategies to suspend and enroll incarcerated individuals into Medicaid, (3) barriers and facilitators to successful implementation, and (4) variation in implementation between jails and prisons. RESULTS:Participants identified logistical challenges with suspension and enrollment, including limited infrastructure for data sharing between carceral facilities and Medicaid agencies, burdensome bureaucratic requirements, and challenges with Medicaid renewal, particularly in the jail environment. They offered opportunities to overcome barriers, such as the creation of specialized incarcerated Medicaid benefit categories and provision of in-reach services via managed care organizations. Participants also called for improvements to Medicaid reactivation processes, as even when facilities successfully suspended benefits, individuals faced significant challenges and delays reactivating benefits upon release. Participants also called for further loosening of the Medicaid Inmate Exclusion Policy. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:Findings highlight the need to update data sharing infrastructure, which will be critical to the implementation of the 1115 waivers, as carceral facilities will be subject to Medicaid billing and reporting requirements. In addition to investing in the ability to newly enroll and suspend Medicaid benefits, attention towards improving timely reactivation practices is needed, particularly given the highly elevated risk of mortality immediately after release. Participants calls for further reforms to the Medicaid Inmate Exclusion Policy are consistent with proposed legislation. CONCLUSIONS:Findings can critically inform the successful implementation of Medicaid-based reforms to improve the health of incarcerated and formerly incarcerated people.

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.

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.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:The United States is facing an opioid use disorder (OUD) epidemic, marked by unprecedented overdose death rates. In New York State, synthetic opioids significantly contribute to the increasing overdose deaths, disproportionately impacting Black and Latinx communities. There is an urgent need to address issues related to equitable access to and the quality of care provided by substance use disorder (SUD) treatment programs. In light of this, the Quality Measurement and Management Research Center (QM2-RC) brought together an academic-government partnership to develop a person-centered quality measurement system and to assess its impact on a statewide treatment system that serves approximately 180,000 individuals per year. METHODS AND ANALYSIS/METHODS:The QM2-RC encompasses three interconnected projects (Project 1, 2, and 3) aimed at developing a quality management strategy and evaluating its impact on system performance across New York State. This report specifically focuses on Project 3, which involves a stepped-wedge trial with 35 clinics receiving a quality management intervention that includes performance coaching. This intervention will be compared to a treatment-as-usual (TAU) condition for clinics not participating in the trial. Administrative data will be utilized to monitor outcomes over four years. The coaching intervention, guided by the Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) model, emphasizes interpreting quality measures and applying insights to enhance care. Coaches will provide support on data utilization, patient-centered care, harm reduction strategies, and the use of patient monitoring tools. The trial aims to evaluate clinic staff and leadership attitudes, experiences, and behaviors through surveys, semi-structured interviews, and external facilitator notes. Primary clinic outcomes will be assessed through adverse events, decreased clinic rates of substance use related emergency department visits and hospitalizations as well as mortality among patients within the first 12 months after admission to treatment after adjusting for individual and community level characteristics. This study is being developed over a multi-year period and will be informed by a mixed-methods approach incorporating multiple data sources, qualitative interviews, patient and clinic surveys. The study is being conducted in partnership with New York State Office of Addiction Services and Supports (OASAS) and will be informed by input from patient, providers, health insurers, family members and local governing units. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:Project 3 of the QM2 study specifically targets key barriers in measuring the quality of SUD treatment, including technological limitations, unvalidated measures, workforce data literacy, and concerns about fairness in assessing clinical complexity. Through the implementation of a stepped-wedge trial involving 35 clinics, the project aims to develop new quality measures, offer performance feedback, and engage clinic leadership and staff in efforts to improve practices. The ultimate goal of Project 3 is to overcome these barriers, promote person-centered care, and improve SUD treatment practices across New York State.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS/OBJECTIVE:Extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX) and sublingual buprenorphine (SL-BUP) are both approved for opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment in any medical setting. We aimed to compare the real-world effectiveness of XR-NTX and SL-BUP. DESIGN AND SETTING/METHODS:This was an observational active comparator, new user cohort study of Medicaid claims records for patients in New Jersey and California, USA, 2016-19. PARTICIPANTS/CASES/METHODS:The participants were adult Medicaid patients aged 18-64 years who initiated XR-NTX or SL-BUP for maintenance treatment of OUD and did not use medications for OUD in the 90 days before initiation. Our cohort included 1755 XR-NTX and 9886 SL-BUP patients. MEASUREMENTS/METHODS:We examined two outcomes up to 180 days after medication initiation: (1) composite of medication discontinuation and death and (2) composite of overdose and death. FINDINGS/RESULTS:In adjusted analyses, treatment with XR-NTX was more likely to result in discontinuation or death by the end of follow-up than treatment with SL-BUP: cumulative risk 75.9% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 73.9%, 77.9%] versus 62.2% (95% CI = 61.2%, 63.2%), respectively (risk difference = 13.7 percentage points, 95% CI = 11.4, 16.0). There was minimal difference in the cumulative risk of overdose or death by the end of follow-up: XR-NTX 3.9% (95% CI = 3.0%, 4.8%) versus SL-BUP 3.3% (95% CI = 2.9%, 3.7%); risk difference = 0.5 percentage points, 95% CI = -0.4, 1.5. Results were consistent across sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS:Medicaid patients in California and New Jersey, USA, receiving treatment for opioid use disorder stayed in treatment longer on sublingual buprenorphine than on extended-release naltrexone, but the risk of overdose was similar. Most patients in this study discontinued medication within 6 months, regardless of which medication was initiated.

BACKGROUND:Most patients in specialty drug treatment programs that are not federally licensed Opioid Treatment Programs (OTPs) programs do not receive medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD). METHODS:We linked results from a survey of non-OTP treatment program directors in New Jersey (n = 81) to statewide administrative records of admissions for opioid use to those programs between July 2021-June 2022. Using multi-level regression, we examined the association of three types of factors with planned MOUD use: program survey responses, client-level factors, and program-level client characteristic mix. RESULTS:Of 9583 opioid treatment admissions in non-OTP settings, 41 % included treatment plans involving MOUD. Programs where directors reported staff concerns about buprenorphine's efficacy or diversion had a lower proportion of clients with planned MOUD, as did programs reporting too little physical space to prescribe. Being self-referred to treatment, unemployed and not looking for work, aged 30-49, heroin use (vs. prescription opioid use), and stimulant use in addition to opioids, were positively associated with planned MOUD; while non-Medicaid insurance, and Black and Hispanic race/ethnicity, were negatively associated with planned MOUD. Clients were more likely to have planned MOUD if their programs had a higher proportion of clients aged 30 or older, heroin as primary "drug of abuse," stimulant use, and not working but actively looking for work. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Findings suggest addressing program staff attitudes toward buprenorphine could help increase planned MOUD. There is also a need to improve access for clients with non-Medicaid insurance, address within-program race and ethnic disparities, and address employment-related barriers to medication.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Methadone and buprenorphine are effective treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD), yet they are vastly under-utilized across US hospitals. To inform a national trial assessing the effectiveness of implementation strategies to increase adoption of an inpatient hospital-based opioid treatment (HBOT) model (NCT04921787), we explored barriers and facilitators to expanding medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) within community hospitals across the United States. METHODS:From November 2021 to March 2022, we used purposeful and snowball sampling to identify and interview participants involved in inpatient care of patients with OUD from twelve community hospitals. We conducted semi-structured interviews on providers' experiences and perspectives on current treatment approaches as well as potential influences on MOUD expansion in their hospitals. We used thematic analysis to identify key barriers and facilitators that could impact implementation of an HBOT model, and organized these findings based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). RESULTS:From qualitative interviews with 57 participants (30 physicians, 7 pharmacists, 6 nurses, and 14 professionals involved in the care of patients with OUD), we identified key barriers and facilitators mapped to CFIR's internal and outer settings. The most salient inner setting domains included tension for change and relative priority, compatibility, available resources, organizational culture, access to knowledge and information, relational connections and communications, and information technology infrastructure. Outer setting domains included policies and laws, financing, and partnerships and connections. CONCLUSIONS:Identifying potential barriers and facilitators can inform hospital-specific strategies to support implementation of HBOT. Implementation strategies that address barriers such as staff availability, knowledge, and attitudes may support increased HBOT adoption. On a broader scale, national policy changes such as increased financing and public reporting of quality metrics would address other barriers we identified and may also encourage hospitals to adopt HBOT models.

BACKGROUND:Offering medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) in carceral settings significantly reduces overdose. However, it is unknown to what extent individuals in jails continue MOUD once they leave incarceration. We aimed to assess the relationship between in-jail MOUD and MOUD continuity in the month following release. METHODS:We conducted a retrospective cohort study of linked NYC jail-based electronic health records and community Medicaid OUD treatment claims for individuals with OUD discharged from jail between 2011 and 2017. We compared receipt of MOUD within 30 days of release, among those with and without MOUD at release from jail. We tested for effect modification based on MOUD receipt prior to incarceration and assessed factors associated with treatment discontinuation. RESULTS:Of 28,298 eligible incarcerations, 52.8 % received MOUD at release. 30 % of incarcerations with MOUD at release received community-based MOUD within 30 days, compared to 7 % of incarcerations without MOUD (Risk Ratio: 2.62 (2.44-2.82)). Most (69 %) with MOUD claims prior to incarceration who received in-jail MOUD continued treatment in the community, compared to 9 % of those without prior MOUD. Those who received methadone (vs. buprenorphine), were younger, Non-Hispanic Black and with no history of MOUD were less likely to continue MOUD following release. CONCLUSIONS:MOUD maintenance in jail is strongly associated with MOUD continuity upon release. Still, findings highlight a gap in treatment continuity upon-reentry, especially among those who initiate MOUD in jail. In the wake of worsening overdose deaths and troubling disparities, improving MOUD continuity among this population remains an urgent priority.