Faculty Bibliography

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.

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: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.

BACKGROUND:Non-fatal overdose is a leading predictor of subsequent fatal overdose. For individuals who are incarcerated, the risk of experiencing an overdose is highest when transitioning from a correctional setting to the community. We assessed if enrollment in jail-based medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) is associated with lower risk of non-fatal opioid overdoses after jail release among individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD). METHODS:This was a retrospective, observational cohort study of adults with OUD who were incarcerated in New York City jails and received MOUD or did not receive any MOUD (out-of-treatment) within the last three days before release to the community in 2011-2017. The outcome was the first non-fatal opioid overdose emergency department (ED) visit within 1 year of jail release during 2011-2017. Covariates included demographic, clinical, incarceration-related, and other characteristics. We performed multivariable cause-specific Cox proportional hazards regression analysis to compare the risk of non-fatal opioid overdose ED visits within 1 year after jail release between groups. RESULTS:MOUD group included 8660 individuals with 17,119 incarcerations; out-of-treatment group included 10,163 individuals with 14,263 incarcerations. Controlling for covariates and accounting for competing risks, in-jail MOUD was associated with lower non-fatal opioid overdose risk within 14 days after jail release (adjusted HR=0.49, 95% confidence interval=0.33-0.74). We found no significant differences 15-28, 29-56, or 57-365 days post-release. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:MOUD group had lower risk of non-fatal opioid overdose immediately after jail release. Wider implementation of MOUD in US jails could potentially reduce post-release overdoses, ED utilization, and associated healthcare costs.

BACKGROUND:The United States is in the midst of an opioid overdose epidemic; 28.3 per 100,000 people died of opioid overdose in 2020. Simulation models can help understand and address this complex, dynamic, nonlinear social phenomenon. Using the HEALing Communities Study, aimed at reducing opioid overdoses, and an agent-based model, SiCLOPS (Simulation of Community-Level Overdose Prevention Strategy), we simulated increases in buprenorphine initiation and retention and naloxone distribution aimed at reducing overdose deaths by 40% in New York Counties. METHODS:Our simulations covered 2020-2022. The eight counties contrasted urban or rural and high and low baseline rates of opioid use disorder treatment. The model calibrated agent characteristics for opioid use and use disorder, treatments and treatment access, and fatal and non-fatal overdose. Modeled interventions included increased buprenorphine initiation and retention, and naloxone distribution. We predicted decrease in the rate of fatal opioid overdose 1 year after intervention, given various modeled intervention scenarios. RESULTS:Counties required unique combinations of modeled interventions to achieve 40% reduction in overdose deaths. Assuming a 200% increase in naloxone from current levels, high baseline treatment counties achieved 40% reduction in overdose deaths with a simultaneous 150% increase in buprenorphine initiation. In comparison, low baseline treatment counties required 250-300% increases in buprenorphine initiation coupled with 200-1,000% increases in naloxone, depending on the county. CONCLUSIONS:Results demonstrate the need for tailored county-level interventions to increase service utilization and reduce overdose deaths, as the modeled impact of interventions depended on the county's experience with past and current interventions.