Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND AND AIMS/OBJECTIVE:The opioid crisis is still a public health emergency in the United States, despite recent declines in opioid overdose deaths (OODs) and increased availability of evidence-based practices (EBPs) for opioid use disorder (OUD). The geographic variability in OODs drives the need for localized decision-making, where interventions are tailored to the unique needs of communities. This study aimed to develop and calibrate a simulation model that evaluates the impact of enhanced implementation of EBP on OODs at the community-level. DESIGN/METHODS:We developed OPSiM (Opioid Policy Simulation Model), a community-level microsimulation model that simulates the course of opioid use, OUD, treatment, recovery and overdose-related events. The model was parameterized with data from the HEALing Communities Study and looked at six scenarios of EBPs implemented in 2025 with sustainment through 2030: (1) maintain 2024 EBP levels (status quo); (2) increase initiation of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD); (3) increase MOUD retention; (4) increase MOUD initiation and retention; (5) increase distribution of naloxone; and (6) both scenarios 4 and 5. SETTING/METHODS:Twenty-nine communities in Massachusetts, New York, and Ohio, USA. PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:Simulated community residents with non-prescribed opioid use or OUD. MEASUREMENTS/METHODS:Estimated number of OODs per 100 000 individuals between 2025 and 2030 in each community, averaged across the 26 communities. FINDINGS/RESULTS:Under the status quo, the model projected 158 OODs (range across communities: 39-468) per 100 000 individuals between 2025 and 2030. Increasing medications for the treatment of OUD (MOUD) retention alone reduced OODs by 6% (range: 3-15%), while increasing MOUD initiation alone reduced OODs by 9% (range: 8-12%). Increasing both MOUD initiation and retention had a synergistic effect, reducing OODs by 21% (range: 15-31%). Reduction in OODs in response to increased MOUD initiation and/or retention was similar across urban and rural communities. The effect of increasing naloxone distribution varied substantially across communities due to differing saturation levels; in some communities, additional naloxone kits provided only marginal benefits. Rural communities were further from saturation whereas most urban communities were at or close to saturation. CONCLUSIONS:A tailored, multi-pronged approach that scales up medications for opioid use disorder alongside widespread naloxone distribution, and that addresses community-specific needs and capacities, will be most effective at reducing opioid overdose deaths in the United States.

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.

IMPORTANCE/UNASSIGNED:Overdose prevention centers (OPCs) are interventions to reduce overdose mortality and support health care engagement. In the US, concerns have been raised that OPCs may be associated with reduced economic activity in their surrounding neighborhoods. OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:To evaluate changes in the local economic activity in New York City (NYC), measured by neighborhood-level foot traffic and consumer spending, following the opening of the first 2 publicly recognized OPCs in the US. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS/UNASSIGNED:This cohort study used anonymized mobility and spending data from June 1, 2021, to June 13, 2022, for the areas surrounding the East Harlem and Washington Heights OPCs in NYC. These neighborhoods were defined using 5-minute and 10-minute walking buffers and Business Improvement Districts (BIDs). Synthetic control donors included walking buffers and BIDs around syringe service programs without OPCs and opioid treatment programs that were operational as of OPCs' opening. Analyses were conducted from February to July 2025. EXPOSURES/UNASSIGNED:Opening of the 2 NYC OPCs on November 30, 2021. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES/UNASSIGNED:Primary outcomes were foot traffic and in-person consumer spending within 10-minute walking buffers. Secondary analyses considered 5-minute walking buffers and BIDs. Augmented synthetic control models were adjusted for neighborhood-level demographic and socioeconomic features, with fit assessed using root mean squared error before OPC opening. Permutation tests and conformal inference were used to assess significance. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:A total of 27 biweekly observations (13 in pre-OPC and 14 in post-OPC periods) were analyzed. The 10-minute walking buffer analyses captured 1259 consumer spending sites and 7816 foot traffic sites across 2 treated buffers and 56 donor buffers. In East Harlem, the average treatment effect on the treated (ATT) estimate (SE) was -$21.96 ($40.53) for consumer spending (P = .16) and 1.28 (5.40) visits for foot traffic (P = .19). In Washington Heights, ATT (SE) estimates were $14.94 ($37.38) for consumer spending (P = .13) and 0.44 (3.54) visits for foot traffic (P = .97). Secondary analyses produced consistent results. No statistically significant results were observed at any post-OPC time point. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE/UNASSIGNED:This cohort study found that OPC opening was not associated with significant changes in local economic activity. Given the absence of observed economic harms, policy debates should instead focus on the public health implications of OPCs.

Given substantial reporting delays in overdose deaths, state health departments increasingly use non-fatal overdose data to inform geographically targeted rapid overdose response efforts. We sought to evaluate the extent to which non-fatal overdose events were associated with concurrent and future overdose deaths in Rhode Island. We aggregated non-fatal overdose data from emergency medical services records (2019-2023) and fatal overdose data from the State Unintentional Drug Overdose Reporting System (2020-2023) in 1-, 3-, and 6-month intervals at census block group and census tract levels. Rates of fatal overdose were estimated, relative to non-fatal overdose lagged by 0-12 months, using negative binomial regression, and relative to monthly spikes in non-fatal overdose burden, using zero-inflated Poisson regression. Estimation was implemented using integrated nested Laplace approximation. Each additional non-fatal overdose event per census block group was associated with fatal overdose rates that were 48% higher (95% credible interval: 1.37-1.59) than expected in concurrent months, with smaller associations at the census tract level, in wider time intervals, and when non-fatal overdose data were lagged. Spikes in non-fatal overdose activity were associated with elevated overdose mortality in concurrent periods with fine temporal and geographic granularity, but not in larger time frames and geographic areas.

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.