Faculty Bibliography

Unintentional overdose deaths, most involving opioids, have eclipsed all other causes of US deaths for individuals less than 50 years of age. An estimated 2.4 to 5 million individuals have opioid use disorder (OUD) yet a minority receive treatment in a given year. Medications for OUD (MOUD) are the gold standard treatment for OUD however early dropout remains a major challenge for improving clinical outcomes. A Cascade of Care (CoC) framework, first popularized as a public health accountability strategy to stem the spread of HIV, has been adapted specifically for OUD. The CoC framework has been promoted by the NIH and several states and jurisdictions for organizing quality improvement efforts through clinical, policy, and administrative levers to improve OUD treatment initiation and retention. This roadmap details CoC design domains based on available data and potential linkages as individual state agencies and health systems typically rely on limited datasets subject to diverse legal and regulatory requirements constraining options for evaluations. Both graphical decision trees and catalogued studies are provided to help guide efforts by state agencies and health systems to improve data collection and monitoring efforts under the OUD CoC framework.

BACKGROUND:The United States overdose crisis continues unabated. Despite efforts to increase capacity for treating opioid use disorder (OUD) in the U.S., how actual treatment receipt compares to need remains unclear. In this cross-sectional study, we estimate progress in addressing the gap between OUD prevalence and OUD treatment receipt at the national and state levels from 2010 to 2019. METHODS:We estimated past-year OUD prevalence rates based on the U.S. National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), using adjustment methods that attempt to account for OUD underestimation in national household surveys. We used data from specialty substance use treatment records and outpatient pharmacy claims to estimate the gap between OUD prevalence and number of persons receiving medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) during the past decade. RESULTS:Adjusted estimates suggest past-year OUD affected 7,631,804 individuals in the U.S. in (2,773 per 100,000 adults 12+), relative to only 1,023,959 individuals who received MOUD (365 per 100,000 adults 12+). This implies approximately 86.6% of individuals with OUD nationwide who may benefit from MOUD treatment do not receive it. MOUD receipt increased across states over the past decade, but most regions still experience wide gaps between OUD prevalence and MOUD receipt. CONCLUSIONS:Despite some progress in expanding access to MOUD, a substantial gap between OUD prevalence and treatment receipt highlights the critical need to increase access to evidence-based services.

BACKGROUND:Until recently, few carceral facilities offered medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD). Although more facilities are adopting MOUD, much remains to be learned about addressing implementation challenges related to expansion of MOUD in carceral settings and linkage to care upon re-entry. This is particularly important in jails, where individuals cycle rapidly in and out of these facilities, especially in jurisdictions beginning to implement bail reform laws (i.e., laws that remove the requirement to pay bail for most individuals). Increasing access to MOUD in these settings is a key unexplored challenge. METHODS:In this qualitative study, we interviewed staff from county jails across New Jersey, a state that has implemented state-wide efforts to increase capacity for MOUD treatment in jails. We analyzed themes related to current practices used to engage individuals in MOUD while in jail and upon re-entry; major challenges to delivering MOUD and re-entry services, particularly under bail reform conditions; and innovative strategies to facilitate delivery of these services. RESULTS:Jail staff from 11 New Jersey county jails participated in a baseline survey and an in-depth qualitative interview from January-September 2020. Responses revealed that practices for delivering MOUD varied substantially across jails. Primary challenges included jails' limited resources and highly regulated operations, the chaotic nature of short jail stays, and concerns regarding limited MOUD and resources in the community. Still, jail staff identified multiple facilitators and creative solutions for delivering MOUD in the face of these obstacles, including opportunities brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS:Despite challenges to the delivery of MOUD, states can make concerted and sustained efforts to support opioid addiction treatment in jails. Increased use of evidence-based clinical guidelines, greater investment in resources, and increased partnerships with health and social service providers can greatly improve reach of treatment and save lives.

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.

BACKGROUND:Opioid treatment programs (OTPs) serve as daily essential services for people with opioid use disorder. This study seeks to identify modifications to operations and adoption of safety measures at Pennsylvania OTPs during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS:A 25-min online survey to clinical and administrative directors at all 103 state-licensed OTPs in Pennsylvania was fielded from September to November 2020. Survey domains included: 1) changes to services, client volume, hours and staffing during the COVID-19 pandemic 2) types of services modifications 3) safety protocols to reduce COVID-19 transmission 4) challenges to operations during the pandemic. RESULTS:Forty-seven directors responded, for a response rate of 45%. Almost all respondents reported making some service modification (96%, n = 43). Almost half (47%, n = 21) of respondents reported reductions in the number of clients served. OTPs were more likely to adopt safety protocols that did not require significant funding, such as limiting the number of people entering the site (100%, n = 44), posting COVID-safety information (100%, n = 44), enforcing social distancing (98%, n = 43), and increasing sanitation (100%, n = 44). Only 34% (n = 14) of OTPS provided N95 masks to most or all staff. Respondents reported that staff's stress and negative mental health (86%, n = 38) and staff caregiving responsibilities (84%, n = 37) during the pandemic were challenges to maintaining OTP operations. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:OTPs faced numerous challenges to operations and adoption of safety measures during the COVID-19 pandemic. Funding mechanisms and interventions to improve adoption of safety protocols, staff mental health as well as research on patient experiences and preferences can inform further OTP adaptation to the COVID-19 pandemic and future emergency planning.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:We sought to understand how opioid treatment programs (OTPs) adapted OTP operations to the COVID-19 pandemic and new federal regulations around methadone and buprenorphine. METHODS:In fall 2020, we conducted an online survey of all 103 OTPs licensed by the Pennsylvania Department of Drug and Alcohol Programs, including clinical directors. Survey domains included changes to methadone take-home and telehealth practices; overdose and diversion prevention tactics; perceptions regarding how such changes influence patient well-being; and financial/operational concerns related to the new policies and practices. We calculated descriptive statistics and conducted Chi-square test to test for differences between not-for-profit versus for-profit and large versus small OTPs. RESULTS:Forty-seven percent (46%) OTPs responded to the survey. 10% and 25%, respectively, endorsed offering telephone and video-based telemedicine buprenorphine induction. Sixty-six percent endorsed extending take-home supplies of methadone, but most indicated that these extensions applied to a minority of their patients. Most respondents agreed that provision of buprenorphine via telehealth and extended take-home methadone reduced patient burden in accessing medications and prevented exposure to COVID-19, while not significantly increasing risk of overdose. We did not find major differences in COVID-19 practice modifications by nonprofit status or size of OTP. CONCLUSIONS:In Pennsylvania, the COVID-19 pandemic led to rapid changes in provision of opioid treatment services. Findings on relatively low uptake of longer methadone take-home regimens and virtual buprenorphine initiation despite general support for these practices imply a need to further develop guidelines for best clinical practices and understand/address barriers to their implementation.