Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Methadone is a highly effective, strictly regulated medication to treat opioid use disorder. COVID-19 flexibilities allowed for up to 28 days of take-homes versus daily travel to clinics for observed dosing, but receiving take-homes differed widely across clinics and individuals. We examined the relationship between state take-home policies and social vulnerability on take-home methadone receipt and days' supply. METHODS:Data were from the VOICES study, a telephone survey conducted between 1/2023-8/2024 of people who use drugs from Wisconsin, Michigan, New Mexico, and New Jersey. We estimated average marginal effects of state methadone policy (flexibility-adoption vs non-adoption) on methadone take-home receipt and days' supply. Models were fully adjusted for individual sociodemographic characteristics. RESULTS:Most participants were recruited from flexibility-adoption states (n = 285/428, 67%). Over half received take-home methadone (65%; average 3.1 days' supply, SD 6.2); 19% of take-home recipients (n = 54) received ≥3 days' supply. Take-home receipt was higher for participants in flexibility-adoption states (AME 0.52, p < 0.0001). Receiving ≥3 days' supply was lower in people reporting unemployment (vs. employment, AME -0.23, p = 0.0032) and past 30-day drug use (vs. no drug use, AME -0.23, p = 0.0014). CONCLUSIONS:State take-home policy was most strongly associated with take-home methadone receipt. Receiving longer days of take-home supplies remains rare. Take-home eligibility guidelines should be established and consider potential social vulnerability factors to daily on-site dosing.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Hazardous working conditions fuel inequities in accidental-poisoning, suicide, and chronic-liver-disease mortality. Relational theories suggest such hazards flow from power imbalances between workers, managers, and employers - social classes demarcated by power over property and labor. However, to our knowledge, no US studies using relational measures have analyzed class inequities in the cause-specific mortality. METHODS:We used the Mortality Disparities in American Communities dataset, which links the 2008 American Community Survey to the National Death Index through December 31, 2019. We classified respondents as incorporated business owners, unincorporated business owners, managers, workers, or not in the labor force based on their employment, occupational, and business-ownership status. Then, using an inverse-probability-weighted Aalen-Johansen estimator, we estimated risk differences in the cause-specific mortality across classes at the end of follow-up, including by sex, race/ethnicity, and education. RESULTS:Our sample included 2,304,500 respondents and 10,870 accidental-poisoning, suicide, and chronic-liver-disease deaths. Compared to incorporated business owners, those not in the labor force, workers, and unincorporated business owners had, respectively, 8.9 (95 % CI: 8.0, 9.7), 0.9 (95 % CI: 0.4, 1.5), and 1.1 (95 % CI: 0.3, 1.9) greater 12-year age- and sex-adjusted risks of the cause-specific mortality per 1000. Managers' risks resembled incorporated business owners'. Inequities largely persisted after thorough sociodemographic adjustment. Among workers, risks were elevated among the unemployed and those with blue-collar or service occupations. Finally, inequities were greater among men and less-educated respondents than among women and more-educated respondents. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:We estimated considerable class inequities in the cause-specific mortality, adding to research connecting class relations to mortality inequities and worsening population health.

OBJECTIVE:The CDC recommends initiating opioids for pain treatment at the lowest effective dose and duration. We examine how interactions between dose, duration, and other medication factors (e.g., drug type) influence opioid use disorder (OUD) risk-a gap not considered by CDC guidelines. SUBJECTS/METHODS:Using Medicaid claims data (2016-2019) from 25 states, we analyzed opioid-naïve adults, newly diagnosed with musculoskeletal pain who initiated opioids within three months of diagnosis. A 6-month washout confirmed no prior opioid exposure or musculoskeletal diagnosis. METHODS:Initial opioids were categorized by "dose-days supplied" (low [>0-20 mg MME] to very high [>90 mg MME] dose, and short [1-7 days] to moderate [>7-30 days] supply), and by opioid type; physical therapy (PT) sessions were also recorded. Using Poisson regression models, we estimated the OUD risk associated with dose-days categories, adjusting for baseline demographics, clinical characteristics, and medications. We separately examined opioid dose-days and PT, and assessed PT's moderating effect on dose-days' impact. RESULTS:Among 30,536 patients, half initiated opioids at 20-50 MME for 1-7 days, and 20% received PT. OUD risk was 2-3 times higher for opioids initiated for >7-30 days compared to 1-7 days across doses, and 5.5 times higher for opioids initiated for >7-30 days at > 90 MME versus 1-7 days at < 20 MME. PT alone, neither affected OUD risk nor mitigated the increased risk from longer or higher-dose opioids. CONCLUSIONS:Our findings support the need for careful opioid prescribing and alternative pain management strategies, as the observed associations between initial prescription characteristics and OUD were not mitigated by adjunctive PT. PERSPECTIVE/CONCLUSIONS:This study demonstrated that initial opioid prescriptions of 7-30 days, especially above 90 MME/day, increased OUD risk in opioid-naïve patients with musculoskeletal pain; physical therapy did not mitigate the risk. Different opioids posed varied risks, even at the same dose and duration. Careful prescribing and alternative pain management are essential.

INTRODUCTION/UNASSIGNED:The COVID-19 pandemic had a devastating impact on people who use drugs (PWUD). Reductions in access to harm reduction tools and treatment services elevated rates of fatal overdose for many. We explore the mechanism through which these factors influenced the rise in overdose mortality during COVID-19 from the perspective of people with overdose encounters. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:We conducted in-depth, semi-structured, 60-minute telephone-based interviews with 43 overdose survivors and witnesses between January and May 2022. Participants were from nine states (ME, MI, MD, NJ, NY, NM, PA, TN, WV) and Washington, DC. Data were analyzed thematically following the Continuum of Overdose Risk. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Most reported worsening mental health and increasing substance use during COVID-19. Isolation due to quarantining measures, coping behaviors, despair, and traumatic grief contributed to resumptions in drug use and risky behaviors. Some discussed how these stressors, combined with the rapid availability of financial resources led to increased use. Participants also attributed increased overdose risk to the increasingly toxic drug supply and stifled harm reduction access. Accounts of methadone treatment varied, however several expressed inconsistent access to take-home methadone, potentially contributing to resumed use. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Numerous micro- and macro-social factors, as well as the drug supply and treatment disruptions contributed to the acceleration in overdose risk. Increased funding and policy reform are needed to reduce overdose mortality in future public health emergencies, including improving harm reduction and treatment service adaptations to fit the needs of clients, as well as upholding and expanding novel methadone treatment delivery models.

IMPORTANCE/UNASSIGNED:Since the start of the 21st century, more than 800 000 firearm deaths and more than 2 million firearm injuries have occurred in the US. All categories of firearm violence-homicide, suicide, unintentional-result in reverberating harms to individuals, families, communities, and society. The collective responsibility of society is to safeguard the health and safety of its members, including from firearm harms. The JAMA Summit on Firearm Violence convened 60 thought leaders from a wide array of disciplines to chart an innovations roadmap that will lead to substantial reductions in firearm harms by 2040. OBSERVATIONS/UNASSIGNED:The vision for 2040 is a country where firearm violence is substantially reduced and where all people and communities report feeling safe from firearm harms. The vision centers on practical solutions with an understanding of the country's constitutional protections for firearm ownership. Achieving the 2040 vision will require expansion of proven evidence-based strategies and the development of new, innovative approaches rooted in equity, accountability, and collective responsibility. Discussions centered on projecting a safer world, community violence interventions, technologic innovations, federal and state-level oversight of firearms, ethical considerations, and primordial prevention of firearm violence. The Summit charted a roadmap of 5 essential actions in the next 5 years to achieve this vision: (1) focus on communities and change fundamental structures that lead to firearm harms, (2) harness technological strengths responsibly, (3) change the narrative around firearm harms, (4) take a whole-government and whole-society approach, and (5) spark a research revolution on preventing firearm harms. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE/UNASSIGNED:A safer world will require investing in the discovery, implementation, and scaling of solutions that reduce firearm harms and center on the people and communities most affected by firearm violence.

OBJECTIVE:To examine nationwide trends in the prescribing of controlled medications to early adolescents, adolescents, and young adults enrolled in public insurance (Medicaid) from 2001 to 2019. METHODS:The study utilized US Medicaid data covering publicly insured enrollees from 43 states (2001-2019). Early adolescents (10-12y), adolescents (13-17y), and young adults (18-24y, 25-29y) with ≥ 10 months enrollment in each calendar year were included. Filled prescription for opioids, stimulants, benzodiazepines, Z-hypnotics, barbiturates, and gabapentin were identified. In each calendar year, annual proportions with 1 +  controlled medication, 2 +  classes of controlled medications, and each controlled medication were estimated. RESULTS:In 2019, the sample included 17.9 million enrollees (53 % female). The annual proportion prescribed any controlled medication peaked at 17.5 % in early adolescents (2003), 20.6 % in adolescents (2009), and 34.1 % (18-24y) and 47.0 % (25-29y) in young adults (2010). By 2019, the proportions declined to 11.7 % (early adolescents), 12.6 % (adolescents), 16.2 % (18-24y), and 23.9 % (25-29y). Trends varied by medication and age. The largest absolute decline was in the proportion with an opioid filled (2010 =29.8 %, 2019 =11.2 %, young adults 18-24y; 2003 =14.3 %, 2019 =4.4 %, adolescents). In contrast, the proportion with a stimulant fill increased, with eight-fold increases in young adults 25-29y (2001 =0.3 %, 2019 =2.6 %). Benzodiazepine and Z-hypnotic use peaked in 2010 and declined through 2019. CONCLUSIONS:In the past two decades, there were increases in stimulant prescriptions among young Medicaid enrollees. The declines in opioid, benzodiazepines, barbiturate and Z-hypnotic prescribing are encouraging and may indicate more cautious prescribing related to greater awareness of harms such as misuse and overdose, along with policy initiatives.