Faculty Bibliography

In the midst of an unprecedented social movement against racism in America and call to action for all organizational sectors, medicine, both academia and practice, has become a salient focus during this time given the impact of racism on our nation"™s health. Academic departments of psychiatry, in particular, should be at the forefront of these efforts and have high potential to enact change and lead interventions across their wider institutions. We begin this article by describing the role of race and the impact of structural racism on Black patients and faculty. We go on to discuss the many complex challenges presented by the task of dismantling racist structures in order to build just organizational norms. Finally, we offer initial strategies toward racial equity modeled after those we are implementing and evaluating in our own department.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:We examined age differences across genders in clinical characteristics in emerging adult (≤25 years) vs older adult patients (26+ years) with opioid use disorder (OUD). METHODS:Participants (N = 570; 30% female) entering a comparative effectiveness medication trial of buprenorphine vs extended-release naltrexone. RESULTS:Differences in clinical characteristics in emerging adult vs older participants were similar across genders. However, women 26+ years reported more mental health problems compared with women ≤25, while men ≤25 years reported more mental health problems compared with men 26+ years. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Different strategies for emerging adult and older patients seeking OUD treatment may be necessary to address psychiatric comorbidities that differ across genders in this population. SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE/CONCLUSIONS:Comprehensive psychiatric assessment should be systematically included in OUD treatment for all genders. Treatment should focus on the emerging adult developmental phase when appropriate, with psychiatric treatment tailored for women and men, separately, across the lifespan. (Am J Addict 2020;00:00-00).

BACKGROUND:The National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (CTN) multisite comparative-effectiveness study ("X:BOT") by Lee et al. (2018) found that, once initiated, extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX) is as similarly safe and effective as sublingual buprenorphine-naloxone (BUP-NX) for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD). However, the detoxification hurdle makes XR-NTX much more difficult to initiate than BUP-NX. This hurdle highlights the need to better understand how patients transition from active opioid use to XR-NTX treatment. OBJECTIVE:To explore patient-identified barriers and facilitators to initiating antagonist treatment (XR-NTX) within the context of an inpatient hospital setting and to reflect postdischarge experiences of those who did and did not initiate XR-NTX treatment. METHOD/METHODS:We used a convenience sampling strategy to identify study candidates, with the intention of recruiting approximately an equal number of medication-initiated and noninitiated patients. Study participants (N = 14) included 13 males and 1 female with OUD randomized to the XR-NTX arm of the X:BOT study at 1 of the 8 study sites. Seven participants in this sample initiated XR-NTX treatment, and seven did not. Each participant completed one semistructured qualitative interview. We analyzed transcripts using deductive and inductive approaches to conventional content analysis. RESULTS:Although the majority of participants viewed opioid blockade, once-monthly dosing, and no dependence or withdrawal as favorable attributes of XR-NTX, participant ambivalence and lack of familiarity with antagonist treatment were barriers to treatment initiation. The long duration of action and the perceived "commitment" to the medication (e.g., "At the time, a month sounded like a year") compounded the patients' concerns and ambivalence. The majority of those who initiated XR-NTX described it as an effective treatment for OUD, with treatment satisfaction and sustained abstinence emerging as central themes among this population. Some participants who did not successfully initiate XR-NTX expressed regret and a willingness to try XR-NTX in the future. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Achieving full opioid detoxification is one, but not the only, barrier to initiating treatment with XR-NTX. Additional participant-identified barriers to XR-NTX initiation include fears and ambivalence regarding antagonist treatment. Once initiated, participants perceive XR-NTX to be an effective treatment for maintaining abstinence from opioids. XR-NTX appealed to participants due to the autonomy it affords with once-monthly dosing and no physical dependence.

BACKGROUND:As the USA grapples with an opioid epidemic, medical emergency departments (EDs) have become a critical setting for intervening with opioid-dependent patients. Brief interventions designed to bridge the gap from acute ED care to longer-term treatment have shown limited efficacy for this population. Strength-based case management (SBCM) has shown strong effects on treatment linkage among patients with substance use disorders in other healthcare settings. This study aimed to investigate whether SBCM is an effective model for linking opioid-dependent ED patients with addiction treatment and pharmacotherapy. Here, we describe the implementation and challenges of adapting SBCM for the ED (SBCM-ED). Study rationale, design, and baseline characteristics are also described. METHODS:This study compared the effects of SBCM-ED to screening, assessment, and referral alone (SAR) on treatment linkage, substance use, and functioning. We recruited participants from a public hospital in NYC. Working alliance between case managers and participants and the feasibility of SBCM implementation were evaluated. Baseline data from the randomized sample were analyzed for group equivalency. Outcomes analyses are forthcoming. RESULTS:Three hundred adult participants meeting DSM-IV criteria for opioid dependence were randomly assigned to either SBCM, in which they received a maximum of six case management sessions within 90 days of enrollment, or SAR, in which they received a comprehensive referral list and pamphlet outlining drug use consequences. No significant differences were found between groups at baseline on demographic or substance use characteristics. All SAR participants and 92.6% of SBCM-ED participants initiated their assigned intervention. Over half of SBCM-ED first sessions occurred in the ED on the day of enrollment. Case managers developed a strong working alliance with SBCM-ED participants after just one session. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Interventions that exceed SBIRT were accepted by an opioid-dependent patient population seen in an urban medical ED. At the time of study funding, this trial was one of the first to focus specifically on this population in this challenging setting. The successful implementation of SBCM demonstrates its adaptability to the ED and may serve as a potential model for EDs seeking to adopt an intervention that overcomes the barrier between the ED encounter and more intensive treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02586896 . Registered on 27 October 2015.

This paper traces the unspoken, implicit white racial logic of the brain disease model of addiction, which is based on seemingly universal, disembodied brains devoid of social or environmental influences. In the United States, this implicit white logic led to "context-free" neuroscience that made the social hierarchies of addiction and its consequences invisible to, and thus exacerbated by, national policies on opioids. The brain disease model of addiction was selectively deployed among the white middle-class population that had long accessed narcotics and pharmaceutical treatments for narcotics disorders from biomedical clinics, as opposed to from illegal sources subject to law enforcement. In turn, new treatments for opioid addiction were racially marketed to the same white clientele to which newly patented opioid analgesics were marketed, tapping into a circumscribed but highly lucrative consumer base that has long benefited from a legally protected, racially segregated safe space for white narcotics consumption. The connecting thread for the contemporary white opioid "crisis," therefore, is white race as a ghost variable in addiction neuroscience and in its pharmaceutical and biotechnological translation.

BACKGROUND:We reanalyzed a multisite 26-week randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial of 600 mg twice-a-day Gabapentin Enacarbil Extended-Release (GE-XR), a gabapentin prodrug, designed to evaluate safety and efficacy for treating alcohol use disorder. In the original analysis (n = 338), published in 2019, GE-XR did not differ from placebo. Our aim is to advance precision medicine by identifying likely responders to GE-XR from the trial data and to determine for likely responders if GE-XR is causally superior to placebo. METHODS:The primary outcome measure in the reanalysis is the reduction from baseline of the number of heavy drinking days (ΔHDD). Baseline features including measures of alcohol use, anxiety, depression, mood states, sleep, and impulsivity were used in a random forest (RF) model to predict ΔHDD to treatment with GE-XR based on those assigned to GE-XR. The resulting RF model was used to obtain predicted outcomes for those randomized to GE-XR and counterfactually to those randomized to placebo. Likely responders to GE-XR were defined as those predicted to have a reduction of 14 days or more. Tests of causal superiority of GE-XR to placebo were obtained for likely responders and for the whole sample. RESULTS:For likely responders, GE-XR was causally superior to placebo (p < 0.0033), while for the whole sample, there was no difference. Likely responders exhibited improved outcomes for the related outcomes of percent HDD and drinks per week. Compared with unlikely responders, at baseline likely responders had higher HDDs; lower levels of anxiety, depression, and general mood disturbances; and higher levels of cognitive and motor impulsivity. CONCLUSIONS:There are substantial causal benefits of treatment with GE-XR for a subset of patients predicted to be likely responders. The likely responder statistical paradigm is a promising approach for analyzing randomized clinical trials to advance personalized treatment.

BACKGROUND:Sublingual buprenorphine-naloxone (BUP-NX), an FDA-approved treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD), combines buprenorphine (a partial mu/kappa agonist) with naloxone (a mu/ kappa antagonist). Extended-release injection naltrexone (XR-NTX; a mu receptor antagonist and kappa receptor partial agonist) is also an FDA-approved treatment for OUD. However, while some patients respond well to these medications, many others leave treatment and relapse. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Determine whether gene variants in the opioid gene system are associated with better or worse treatment response. METHODS:= 334), two outcomes measures were assessed: received first dose (yes/no) and received last dose (yes/no). Separate logistic regressions were used to each model outcome measure as a function of treatment (XR-NTX vs BUP-NX), each gene variant, and their interaction. RESULTS:There were no significant main effects of gene variant on receiving first dose or last dose. There were also no significant gene variant by treatment interactions. CONCLUSIONS:The outcome of treatment of OUD with medications is likely a complex function of multiple factors, including environmental, psychosocial, and possibly genetic, such that major effects of genetic variants may be unlikely.

OBJECTIVE:To examine the health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) of persons with opioid use disorder (OUD) seeking treatment in an inpatient detoxification or short-term residential setting; continuing treatment as outpatients. METHODS:We conducted a secondary analysis of data from a clinical trial (N = 508) where participants were randomized to extended-release naltrexone or buprenorphine-naloxone for the prevention of opioid relapse. We used a generalized structural equation regression mixture model to identify associations of HRQoL (EQ-5D) trajectories, including latent characteristics, over the 24-week trial and 36-week follow-up period, among participants who reported HRQoL beyond baseline. This novel framework accounted for baseline and time-varying characteristics, while simultaneously identifying latent classes. RESULTS:We identified two subpopulations: HRQoL "pharmacotherapy responsive" (82.3 %) and HRQoL "characteristic sensitive" (17.7 %). The pharmacotherapy responsive subpopulation was characterized by a shortterm HRQoL improvement and then stable HRQoL over time, and by a positive association between HRQoL and receiving pharmacotherapy in the past 30 days. The characteristic sensitive subpopulation was characterized by an initial improvement in HRQoL with a gradual decline over time, and no significant HRQoL response to pharmacotherapy. HRQoL changes over time in this subpopulation were more influenced by baseline demographic, socioeconomic, and psychosocial characteristics. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Our findings suggest that while HRQoL may be improved and sustained through targeted efforts to promote use of pharmacotherapy for many persons with OUD, an identifiable subpopulation may require additional services that address socioeconomic and psychosocial issues to achieve HRQoL benefits. Our analysis provides insight for improving individualized care for persons with opioid use disorder seeking treatment.

Biomedical HIV prevention uptake has not taken hold among Black and Latinx populations who use street-marketed drugs. A pilot intervention providing a PEP informational video and direct pharmacy access to a PEP starter dose was conducted among this population. Four study pharmacies were selected to help facilitate syringe customer recruitment (2012-2016). Baseline, post-video, and 3-month ACASI captured demographic, risk behavior, and psychosocial factors associated with PEP willingness, and willingness to access PEP in a pharmacy. A non-experimental study design revealed baseline PEP willingness to be associated with PEP awareness, health insurance, being female, and having a high-risk partner (n = 454). Three-month PEP willingness was associated with lower HIV stigma (APR = 0.95). Using a pre-post approach, PEP knowledge (p < 0.001) and willingness (p < 0.001) increased overtime; however, only three participants requested PEP during the study. In-depth interviews (n = 15) identified lack of a deeper understanding of PEP, and contextualized perceptions of HIV risk as PEP access barriers. Pharmacy PEP access shows promise but further research on perceived risk and HIV stigma is warranted.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol and drug use are often under-identified in primary care settings. While prior research indicates that patients are generally supportive of alcohol screening, less is known about attitudes toward drug screening or the collection of this information in electronic health records (EHRs). As a part of an implementation study of EHRintegrated substance use screening in primary care, conducted in the NIDA Clinical Trials Network, patients were surveyed on their attitudes toward screening for substance use during medical visits.
METHOD(S): Surveys were administered to patients in four urban academic primary care clinics on a quarterly basis, for one year following the introduction of a screening program. English-speaking adult patients presenting for a primary care visit were eligible. Participants were recruited from the waiting room and self-administered an 18-item survey exploring attitudes toward screening and discussing substance use with healthcare providers.
RESULT(S): A total of 479 patients completed the survey (mean age 54.1; 58% female; 58% white, 23% black; 19% Hispanic/Latino). Participants overwhelmingly felt that they should be asked about their substance use (91%), and deemed it appropriate for their doctor to recommend reducing use if it could adversely affect their health (92%). Most (87%) were equally comfortable discussing alcohol or drug use. A majority (63%) preferred discussing substance use with their doctor over other medical staff. Responses weremixed regarding screening modality: 55%preferred face-to-face, 22% had no preference, 14% preferred self- administration. Participants reported that they would be honest with their provider (94%), but 32% were concerned about medical record confidentiality.
CONCLUSION(S): Primary care patients strongly supported being screened for drug and alcohol use, and would be comfortable discussing it with their doctor. However, patients' concerns about having their substance use documented in their medical record could pose a barrier to achieving accurate responses. These findings suggest a need to educate patients on the confidentiality of medical records and the value of disclosing substance use for their medical care