Faculty Bibliography

ISSUES: Mobile phone use has increased dramatically and concurrent with rapid developments in mobile phone-based health interventions. The integration of text messaging interventions promises to optimise the delivery of care for persons with substance dependence with minimal disruption to clinical workflows. We conducted a systematic review to assess the acceptability, feasibility and clinical impact of text messaging interventions for persons with illicit drug and alcohol dependence. APPROACH: Studies were required to evaluate the use of text messaging as an intervention for persons who met Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition criterion for a diagnosis of illicit drug and/or alcohol dependence. Authors searched for articles published to date in MEDLINE (pubmed.gov), the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CINAHL, Google Scholar and PsychINFO. KEY FINDINGS: Eleven articles met the search criteria for this review and support the acceptability and feasibility of text messaging interventions for addressing illicit drug and alcohol dependence. Most studies demonstrated improved clinical outcomes, medication adherence and engagement with peer support groups. Text messaging interventions also intervened on multiple therapeutic targets such as appointment attendance, motivation, self-efficacy, relapse prevention and social support. IMPLICATIONS: Suggestions for future research are described, including intervention design features, clinician contact, privacy measures and integration of behaviour change theories. CONCLUSION: Text messaging interventions offer a feasible platform to address a range of substances (i.e. alcohol, methamphetamine, heroin and alcohol), and there is increasing evidence supporting further larger-scale studies. [Tofighi B, Nicholson JM, McNeely J, Muench F, Lee JD. Mobile phone messaging for illicit drug and alcohol dependence: A systematic review of the literature. Drug Alcohol Rev 2017;00:000-000].

BACKGROUND: Technology-delivered interventions are useful tools for addressing unhealthy alcohol use. Smartphones in particular offer opportunities to deliver interventions at the user's convenience. We developed a smartphone application with 5 modules (personal feedback, self-monitoring of drinking, designated driver tool, blood alcohol content calculator, information). We assessed its acceptability and associations between use and drinking outcomes. METHODS: 130 adults with unhealthy alcohol use (>14 (men)/ >7 (women) drinks/week or > = 1 episode/month with 6 or more drinks) recruited in Switzerland (n = 70) and Canada (n = 60) were offered to use the application. Follow-up occurred after 3 months. We assessed appreciation, usefulness and self-reported frequency of use of the modules, and drinking outcomes (drinks/week, binge drinking). Associations between application use and drinking at 3 months were evaluated with negative binomial and logistic regression models, adjusted for baseline values and gender. RESULTS: 48% of participants were women, mean (SD) age: 32.8(10.0). Follow-up rate: 86.2%. There were changes from baseline (BL) to follow-up (FU) in number of drinks/week, BL: 15.0(16.5); FU: 10.9(10.5), p = 0.01, and binge drinking, BL: 95.4%; FU: 64.3%, p<0.0001. All modules had median ratings between 6 and 8 (scale of 1-10). 77% of participants used the application; 76% used the personal feedback module, 41% the self-monitoring of drinking, 22% the designated driver tool, 53% the BAC calculator, and 31% the information module. Participants using the application more than once reported significantly fewer drinks/week at follow up: IRR (number of drinks per week) 0.70 (0.51; 0.96). CONCLUSIONS: A smartphone application for unhealthy alcohol use appears acceptable and useful (although there is room for improvement). Without prompting, its use is infrequent. Those who used the application more than once reported less weekly drinking than those who did not. Efficacy of the application should be tested in a randomized trial with strategies to increase frequency of its use.

BACKGROUND: There is a need for screening and brief assessment instruments to identify primary care patients with substance use problems. This study's aim was to examine the performance of a two-step screening and brief assessment instrument, the TAPS Tool, compared to the WHO ASSIST. METHODS: Two thousand adult primary care patients recruited from five primary care clinics in four Eastern US states completed the TAPS Tool followed by the ASSIST. The ability of the TAPS Tool to identify moderate- and high-risk use scores on the ASSIST was examined using sensitivity and specificity analyses. RESULTS: The interviewer and self-administered computer tablet versions of the TAPS Tool generated similar results. The interviewer-administered version (at cut-off of 2), had acceptable sensitivity and specificity for high-risk tobacco (0.90 and 0.77) and alcohol (0.87 and 0.80) use. For illicit drugs, sensitivities were >0.82 and specificities >0.92. The TAPS (at a cut-off of 1) had good sensitivity and specificity for moderate-risk tobacco use (0.83 and 0.97) and alcohol (0.83 and 0.74). Among illicit drugs, sensitivity was acceptable for moderate-risk of marijuana (0.71), while it was low for all other illicit drugs and non-medical use of prescription medications. Specificities were 0.97 or higher for all illicit drugs and prescription medications. CONCLUSIONS: The TAPS Tool identified adult primary care patients with high-risk ASSIST scores for all substances as well moderate-risk users of tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana, although it did not perform well in identifying patients with moderate-risk use of other drugs or non-medical use of prescription medications. The advantages of the TAPS Tool over the ASSIST are its more limited number of items and focus solely on substance use in the past 3months.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol and drug use is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality that frequently goes unidentified in medical settings. As part of a multi-phase study to implement the NIDA Common Data Elements for collecting substance use screening information in electronic health records (EHRs), we interviewed key clinical stakeholders with a goal of identifying barriers and facilitators affecting the implementation of substance use screening in primary care clinics. METHODS: Focus groups and individual qualitative interviews were conducted with 67 stakeholders, including primary care patients, medical providers (faculty and resident physicians, nurses), and medical assistants, in two urban academic health systems. Themes were identified, discussed, and revised through an iterative process, and mapped to the Knowledge to Action (KTA) framework (Graham, 2006), which guides the selection and implementation of new clinical practices. RESULTS: Factors affecting implementation based on KTA elements were identified from participant narratives. Identifying the problem: Participants unanimously agreed that having knowledge of a patient's substance use is important because of its impacts on health andmedical care, that substance use is not properly identified in medical settings, and that universal screening is the best approach. Adapting knowledge: The majority of patients and providers stated that the primary care provider should play a key role in substance use screening and interventions. There was discrepancy of opinion regarding the optimal approach to delivering screening. Some felt that patients should self-administer questionnaires, while others thought that patients would be more comfortable having face-to-face discussions with their primary care provider - though not with other members of the care team. Many providers reported that being able to take effective action once unhealthy substance use is identified is crucial. Assessing barriers: Patients expressed concerns about confidentiality, 'denial', and providers' lack of empathy. Barriers identified by providers included individual-level factors such as lack of knowledge and training, and systems-level factors including lack of time, resources, and space, disjointed communication between members of the medical team, and difficulty accessing addiction treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these findings, we designed and are testing an implementation strategy utilizing universal screening, patient self-administered questionnaires, and EHR-integrated clinical decision support to assist providers in conducting brief motivational counseling and linking patients to behavioral health services, to address unhealthy substance use in primary care clinics

BACKGROUND: There is a need for a rapid substance use screening instrument to detect unhealthy tobacco, alcohol, and other drug use among primary care patients. The Tobacco, Alcohol, Prescription Medications, and other Substances Tool (TAPS Tool) is a combined 2-part screening and brief assessment developed for adult primary care patients. Its screening component (TAPS-1) consists of 4 items asking about past 12-month use of four substance categories (any tobacco, 5 or more drinks/day for men [4 for women] of alcohol, any illicit drug use, and any non-medical use of prescription drugs. Categorical response options are: never, less than monthly, monthly, weekly, and daily or almost daily. The objective of this preplanned secondary analysis was to validate the TAPS-1 against the DSM-5 substance use disorder (SUD) criteria. METHODS: This was a multi-site study evaluating the concurrent validity of the TAPS-1 compared to SUD criteria conducted among 2,000 adult primary care patients in 5 clinics located in 4 Eastern US states. Participants completed the TAPS Tool in a self- administered version on a tablet computer and in an interviewer-administered format, in random order. They were then administered a modified version of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) to determine DSM-5 criteria. Optimal cut points for identifying SUDs were obtained using receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis to obtain sensitivity (sens), specificity (spec), positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and area under the curve (AUC). RESULTS: The optimal cut-point on the interviewer-administered TAPS-1 for identifying SUDs was '> monthly use' for tobacco (sens = .95, spec = .80, PPV= .62, NPV = .98, AUC = .88) and for alcohol (sens = .68, spec = .87, PPV = .45, NPV = .94, AUC = .77). In contrast, 'any use' was the optimal cut-point for illicit drugs (sens = .93, spec = .86, PPV = .50, NPV = .99, AUC = .89) and for nonmedical use of prescription drugs (sens = .90, spec = .95, PPV = .41, NPV = 1.0, AUC= .93). The self-administered format had similar performance. CONCLUSIONS: The TAPS-1 was able to rapidly screen adult primary care patients for SUDs. Thus, the TAPS-1 could assist health care providers in determining which patients might need a focused, in-depth substance use assessment

Buprenorphine office-based opioid maintenance is an increasingly common form of treatment for opioid use disorders. However, total prescribing has not kept pace with the current opioid and overdose epidemic and access remains scarce among the underserved. This study sought to assess current provider attitudes and clinical practices among a targeted sample of primarily New York City public sector buprenorphine prescribers. A cross-sectional online survey purposefully sampled buprenorphine prescribers in NYC with a focus on those serving Medicaid and uninsured patient populations. Expert review of local provider networks, snowball referrals, and in-person networking generated an email list, which received a survey link. A brief 25-question instrument queried provider and practice demographics, prescribing practices including induction approaches and attitudes regarding common hot topics (e.g., buprenorphine diversion, prescriber patient limits, insurance issues, ancillary treatments). Of 132 email invitations, N=72 respondents completed (n=64) or partially completed (n=8) the survey between January and April 2016. Most (79%) were Medicaid providers in non-psychiatric specialties (72%), working in a hospital-based or community general practice (51%), and board-certified in addiction medicine or psychiatry (58%). Practice sizes were generally 100 patients or fewer (71%); many providers (64%) individually prescribed buprenorphine <25% of total practice time to a median 23 patients (mean 31, range 0-102). Unobserved (home) induction for new patients was a common practice: 49% predominantly prescribed unobserved induction; 16% mixed unobserved and observed inductions. Adjunctive psychosocial counseling was routinely recommended (46%) or considered on a case-by-case basis (17%) versus mandated (37%). Medication prior authorization requirements were the highest rated barriers to practice, followed by inadequate clinic space, limited clinic time and/or support staff, and inadequate psychiatric services for dual diagnoses. Buprenorphine diversion was not rated as an important practice barrier. In conclusion, this targeted survey of buprenorphine prescribers in NYC treating primarily underserved populations showed a consistent pattern of part-time prescribing to modest volumes of patients, routine use of unobserved buprenorphine induction, and primarily elective referrals to psychosocial counseling. Barriers to prescribing included prior authorization requirements, lack of clinical resources (space, staff) and psychiatric services. Federal and local efforts to reduce such barriers may improve buprenorphine access among the underserved.

BACKGROUND: Buprenorphine maintenance for opioid dependence remains of limited availability among underserved populations, despite increases in US opioid misuse and overdose deaths. Low threshold primary care treatment models including the use of unobserved, "home," buprenorphine induction may simplify initiation of care and improve access. Unobserved induction and long-term treatment outcomes have not been reported recently among large, naturalistic cohorts treated in low threshold safety net primary care settings. METHODS: This prospective clinical registry cohort design estimated rates of induction-related adverse events, treatment retention, and urine opioid results for opioid dependent adults offered buprenorphine maintenance in a New York City public hospital primary care office-based practice from 2006 to 2013. This clinic relied on typical ambulatory care individual provider-patient visits, prescribed unobserved induction exclusively, saw patients no more than weekly, and did not require additional psychosocial treatment. Unobserved induction consisted of an in-person screening and diagnostic visit followed by a 1-week buprenorphine written prescription, with pamphlet, and telephone support. Primary outcomes analyzed were rates of induction-related adverse events (AE), week 1 drop-out, and long-term treatment retention. Factors associated with treatment retention were examined using a Cox proportional hazard model among inductions and all patients. Secondary outcomes included overall clinic retention, buprenorphine dosages, and urine sample results. RESULTS: Of the 485 total patients in our registry, 306 were inducted, and 179 were transfers already on buprenorphine. Post-induction (n = 306), week 1 drop-out was 17%. Rates of any induction-related AE were 12%; serious adverse events, 0%; precipitated withdrawal, 3%; prolonged withdrawal, 4%. Treatment retention was a median 38 weeks (range 0-320) for inductions, compared to 110 (0-354) weeks for transfers and 57 for the entire clinic population. Older age, later years of first clinic visit (vs. 2006-2007), and baseline heroin abstinence were associated with increased treatment retention overall. CONCLUSIONS: Unobserved "home" buprenorphine induction in a public sector primary care setting appeared a feasible and safe clinical practice. Post-induction treatment retention of a median 38 weeks was in line with previous naturalistic studies of real-world office-based opioid treatment. Low threshold treatment protocols, as compared to national guidelines, may compliment recently increased prescriber patient limits and expand access to buprenorphine among public sector opioid use disorder patients.

Background: Substance use, a leading cause of illness and death, is underidentified in medical practice. Objective: The Tobacco, Alcohol, Prescription medication, and other Substance use (TAPS) tool was developed to address the need for a brief screening and assessment instrument that includes all commonly used substances and fits into clinical workflows. The goal of this study was to assess the performance of the TAPS tool in primary care patients. Design: Multisite study, conducted within the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network, comparing the TAPS tool with a reference standard measure. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02110693). Setting: 5 adult primary care clinics. Participants: 2000 adult patients consecutively recruited from clinic waiting areas. Measurements: Interviewer- and self-administered versions of the TAPS tool were compared with a reference standard, the modified World Mental Health Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI), which measures problem use and substance use disorder (SUD). Results: Interviewer- and self-administered versions of the TAPS tool had similar diagnostic characteristics. For identifying problem use (at a cutoff of 1+), the TAPS tool had a sensitivity of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.90 to 0.95) and specificity of 0.87 (CI, 0.85 to 0.89) for tobacco and a sensitivity of 0.74 (CI, 0.70 to 0.78) and specificity of 0.79 (CI, 0.76 to 0.81) for alcohol. For problem use of illicit and prescription drugs, sensitivity ranged from 0.82 (CI, 0.76 to 0.87) for marijuana to 0.63 (CI, 0.47 to 0.78) for sedatives; specificity was 0.93 or higher. For identifying any SUD (at a cutoff of 2+), sensitivity was lower. Limitations: The low prevalence of some drug classes led to poor precision in some estimates. Research assistants were not blinded to participants' TAPS tool responses when they administered the CIDI. Conclusion: In a diverse population of adult primary care patients, the TAPS tool detected clinically relevant problem substance use. Although it also may detect tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana use disorders, further refinement is needed before it can be recommended broadly for SUD screening. Primary Funding Source: National Institute on Drug Abuse.