Faculty Bibliography

During the initial COVID-19 surge, one public hospital in NYC updated their post-discharge outreach approach for patients with substance use disorder, as part of the CATCH (Consult for Addiction Treatment and Care in Hospitals) program. Beginning April 1, 2020, three peers and two addiction counselors attempted telephonic outreach to patients who received a CATCH consultation during hospitalization from program launch (October 7, 2019) through March 31, 2020 (n = 329). Outreach calls could include counseling, in-depth peer support, and referrals to substance use services (SUS)-a significant expansion of the services offered via outreach pre-pandemic. CATCH staff successfully reached 29.5% of patients and provided 77.6% of them with supportive counseling and referrals. Thirty percent of unsuccessful calls were due to inactive numbers, and only 8% of patients without housing were reached. Telephonic outreach established a low-barrier connection between patients and SUS that may be valuable during any period, including non-COVID times. Future interventions that address social determinants such as housing and cell phone access concomitantly with substance use should be considered by addiction consultation services to potentially reduce acute care utilization and improve health outcomes.

BACKGROUND:Patients presenting to emergency departments (EDs) after a nonfatal opioid-involved overdose are at high risk for future overdose and death. Responding to this risk, the New York City (NYC) Department of Health and Mental Hygiene operates the Relay initiative, which dispatches trained peer "Wellness Advocates" to meet patients in the ED after a suspected opioid-involved overdose and follow them for up to 90 days to provide support, education, referrals to treatment, and other resources using a harm reduction framework. METHODS:In this article, we describe the protocol for a multisite randomized controlled trial of Relay. Study participants are recruited from four NYC EDs and are randomized to receive the Relay intervention or site-directed care (the control arm). Outcomes are assessed through survey questionnaires conducted at 1-, 3-, and 6-months after the baseline visit, as well as through administrative health data. The primary outcome is the number of opioid-related adverse events, including any opioid-involved overdose or any other substance use-related ED visit, in the 12 months post-baseline. Secondary and exploratory outcomes will also be analyzed, as well as hypothesized mediators and moderators of Relay program effectiveness. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:We present the protocol for a multisite randomized controlled trial of a peer-delivered OD prevention intervention in EDs. We describe how the study was designed to minimize disruption to routine ED operations, and how the study was implemented and adapted during the COVID-19 pandemic. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov [NCT04317053].

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.

OBJECTIVE:Polysubstance use may complicate treatment outcomes for individuals who use opioids. This research aimed to examine the prevalence of polysubstance use in an opioid use disorder treatment trial population and polysubstance use's association with opioid relapse and craving. METHODS:This study is a secondary data analysis of individuals with opioid use disorder who received at least one dose of medication (n = 474) as part of a 24-week, multi-site, open label, randomized Clinical Trials Network study (CTN0051, X:BOT) comparing the effectiveness of extended-release naltrexone versus buprenorphine. Models examined pretreatment polysubstance use and polysubstance use during the initial 4 weeks of treatment on outcomes of relapse by week 24 of the treatment trial and opioid craving. RESULTS:Polysubstance use was generally not associated with treatment outcomes of opioid relapse and craving. Proportion of days of pretreatment sedative use was associated with increased likelihood of opioid relapse (OR: 1.01, 95 % CI: 1.00-1.02). Proportion of days of cocaine use during the initial 4 weeks of treatment was associated with increased likelihood of opioid relapse (OR: 1.05, 95 % CI: 1.01-1.09) but this effect was no longer significant once the potential of confounding by opioid use was considered. Sedative use during initial 4 weeks of treatment was associated with increased opioid craving (b: 0.77, 95 % CI: 0.01-1.52). The study found no other significant relationships. CONCLUSIONS:In the current study population, polysubstance use was only marginally associated with 24-week treatment outcomes.

BACKGROUND:There is pressing need to improve hospital-based addiction care. Various models for integrating substance use disorder care into hospital settings exist, but there is no framework for describing, selecting, or comparing models. We sought to fill that gap by constructing a taxonomy of hospital-based addiction care models based on scoping literature review and key informant interviews. METHODS:Methods included a scoping review of the literature on US hospital-based addiction care models and interventions for adults, published between January 2000 and July 2021. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 15 key informants experienced in leading, implementing, evaluating, andpracticing hospital-based addiction care to explore model characteristics, including their perceived strengths, limitations, and implementation considerations. We synthesized findings from the literature review and interviews to construct a taxonomy of model types. RESULTS:Searches identified 2,849 unique abstracts. Of these, we reviewed 280 full text articles, of which 76 were included in the final review. We added 8 references from reference lists and informant interviews, and 4 gray literature sources. We identified six distinct hospital-based addiction care models. Those classified as addiction consult models include (1) interprofessional addiction consult services, (2) psychiatry consult liaison services, and (3) individual consultant models. Those classified as practice-based models, wherein general hospital staff integrate addiction care into usual practice, include (4) hospital-based opioid treatment and (5) hospital-based alcohol treatment. The final type was (6) community-based in-reach, wherein community providers deliver care. Models vary in their target patient population, staffing, and core clinical and systems change activities. Limitations include that some models have overlapping characteristics and variable ways of delivering core components. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:A taxonomy provides hospital clinicians and administrators, researchers, and policy-makers with a framework to describe, compare, and select models for implementing hospital-based addiction care and measure outcomes.

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.

BACKGROUND:Substance use disorders, depression and anxiety disproportionately affect people with HIV (PWH) and lead to increased morbidity and mortality. Routine screening can help address these problems but is underutilized. This study sought to describe patient and provider perspectives on the acceptability and usefulness of systematic electronic, self-administered screening for tobacco, alcohol, other substance use, and mental health symptoms among patients in HIV primary care. METHODS:Screening used validated instruments delivered pre-appointment by both secure messaging and clinic-based tablets, with results integrated into the electronic health record (EHR). Qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews with 9 HIV primary care providers and 12 patients in the 3 largest HIV primary care clinics in the Kaiser Permanente Northern California health system who participated in a clinical trial evaluating computerized screening and behavioral interventions was conducted. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. A thematic approach was utilized for coding and analysis of interview data using a combination of deductive and inductive methods. RESULTS:Four key themes were identified: (1) perceived clinical benefit of systematic, electronic screening and EHR integration for providers and patients; (2) usefulness of having multiple methods of questionnaire completion; (3) importance of the patient-provider relationship to facilitate completion and accurate reporting; and (4) barriers, include privacy and confidentiality concerns about reporting sensitive information, particularly about substance use, and potential burden from repeated screenings. CONCLUSIONS:Findings suggest that electronic, self-administered substance use and mental health screening is acceptable to patients and may have clinical utility to providers. While offering different methods of screening completion can capture a wider range of patients, a strong patient-provider relationship is a key factor in overcoming barriers and ensuring accurate patient responses. Further investigation into facilitators, barriers, and utility of electronic screening for PWH and other high-priority patient populations is indicated. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03217058. Registered 13 July 2017, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03217058.

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.

Unhealthy alcohol and drug use are among the top 10 causes of preventable death in the United States, but they are infrequently identified and addressed in medical settings. Guidelines recommend screening adult primary care patients for alcohol and drug use, and routine screening should be a component of high-quality clinical care. Brief, validated screening tools accurately detect unhealthy alcohol and drug use, and their thoughtful implementation can facilitate adoption and optimize the quality of screening results. Recommendations for implementation include patient self-administered screening tools, integration with electronic health records, and screening during routine primary care visits.