Faculty Bibliography

IMPORTANCE:Cannabis use disorder (CUD) is increasing among US adults. Few national studies have addressed the role of medical cannabis laws (MCLs) and recreational cannabis laws (RCLs) in these increases, particularly in patient populations with high rates of CUD risk factors. OBJECTIVE:To quantify the role of MCL and RCL enactment in the increases in diagnosed CUD prevalence among Veterans Health Administration (VHA) patients from 2005 to 2019. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:Staggered-adoption difference-in-difference analyses were used to estimate the role of MCL and RCL in the increases in prevalence of CUD diagnoses, fitting a linear binomial regression model with fixed effects for state, categorical year, time-varying cannabis law status, state-level sociodemographic covariates, and patient age group, sex, and race and ethnicity. Patients aged 18 to 75 years with 1 or more VHA primary care, emergency department, or mental health visit and no hospice/palliative care within a given calendar year were included. Time-varying yearly state control covariates were state/year rates from American Community Survey data: percentage male, Black, Hispanic, White, 18 years or older, unemployed, income below poverty threshold, and yearly median household income. Analysis took place between February to December 2022. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:As preplanned, International Classification of Diseases, Clinical Modification, ninth and tenth revisions, CUD diagnoses from electronic health records were analyzed. RESULTS:The number of individuals analyzed ranged from 3 234 382 in 2005 to 4 579 994 in 2019. Patients were largely male (94.1% in 2005 and 89.0% in 2019) and White (75.0% in 2005 and 66.6% in 2019), with a mean (SD) age of 57.0 [14.4] years. From 2005 to 2019, adjusted CUD prevalences increased from 1.38% to 2.25% in states with no cannabis laws (no CLs), 1.38% to 2.54% in MCL-only enacting states, and 1.39% to 2.56% in RCL-enacting states. Difference-in-difference results indicated that MCL-only enactment was associated with a 0.05% (0.05-0.06) absolute increase in CUD prevalence, ie, that 4.7% of the total increase in CUD prevalence in MCL-only enacting states could be attributed to MCLs, while RCL enactment was associated with a 1.12% (95% CI, 0.10-0.13) absolute increase in CUD prevalence, ie, that 9.8% of the total increase in CUD prevalence in RCL-enacting states could be attributed to RCLs. The role of RCL in the increases in CUD prevalence was greatest in patients aged 65 to 75 years, with an absolute increase of 0.15% (95% CI, 0.13-0.17) in CUD prevalence associated with RCLs, ie, 18.6% of the total increase in CUD prevalence in that age group. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:In this study of VHA patients, MCL and RCL enactment played a significant role in the overall increases in CUD prevalence, particularly in older patients. However, consistent with general population studies, effect sizes were relatively small, suggesting that cumulatively, laws affected cannabis attitudes diffusely across the country or that other factors played a larger role in the overall increases in adult CUD. Results underscore the need to screen for cannabis use and CUD and to treat CUD when it is present.

Prior applications of machine learning to population health have relied on conventional model assessment criteria, limiting the utility of models as decision supports for public health practitioners. To facilitate practitioner use of machine learning as decision support for area-level intervention, this study developed and applied four practice-based predictive model evaluation criteria (implementation capacity, preventive potential, health equity, and jurisdictional practicalities). We used a case study of overdose prevention in Rhode Island to illustrate how these criteria could inform public health practice and health equity promotion. We used Rhode Island overdose mortality records from January 2016 to June 2020 (N=1,408) and neighborhood-level Census data. We learned two disparate machine learning models, Gaussian process and random forest, to illustrate the comparative utility of our criteria to guide interventions. Our models predicted 7.5-36.4% of overdose deaths during the test period, illustrating the preventive potential of overdose interventions assuming 5-20% statewide implementation capacities for neighborhood-level resource deployment. We described the health equity implications of predictive modeling to guide interventions along urbanicity, racial/ethnic composition, and poverty. In sum, our study discussed considerations to complement predictive model evaluation criteria and inform the prevention and mitigation of spatially dynamic public health problems across the breadth of practice.

Substance use disorders (SUD) are associated with increased risk of worse COVID-19 outcomes. Likewise, racial/ethnic minority patients experience greater risk of severe COVID-19 disease compared to white patients. Providers should understand the role of race and ethnicity as an effect modifier on COVID-19 severity among individuals with SUD. This retrospective cohort study assessed patient race/ethnicity as an effect modifier of the risk of severe COVID-19 disease among patients with histories of SUD and overdose. We used merged electronic health record data from 116,471 adult patients with a COVID-19 encounter between March 2020 and February 2021 across five healthcare systems in New York City. Exposures were patient histories of SUD and overdose. Outcomes were risk of COVID-19 hospitalization and subsequent COVID-19-related ventilation, acute kidney failure, sepsis, and mortality. Risk factors included patient age, sex, and race/ethnicity, as well as medical comorbidities associated with COVID-19 severity. We tested for interaction between SUD and patient race/ethnicity on COVID-19 outcomes. Findings showed that Non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic/Latino, and Asian/Pacific Islander patients experienced a higher prevalence of all adverse COVID-19 outcomes compared to non-Hispanic white patients. Past-year alcohol (OR 1.24 [1.01-1.53]) and opioid use disorders (OR 1.91 [1.46-2.49]), as well as overdose history (OR 4.45 [3.62-5.46]), were predictive of COVID-19 mortality, as well as other adverse COVID-19 outcomes. Among patients with SUD, significant differences in outcome risk were detected between patients of different race/ethnicity groups. Findings indicate that providers should consider multiple dimensions of vulnerability to adequately manage COVID-19 disease among populations with SUDs.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:The overdose crisis continues to be a major public health emergency in the United States. While effective medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), such as buprenorphine, have ample scientific evidence to their effectiveness, they are underutilized in the United States and particularly in criminal justice settings. One rationale against the expansion of MOUD in carceral settings cited by jail, prison, and even Drug Enforcement Administration leaders is the potential for diversion of these medications. However, currently little data exist to support this claim. Instead, successful examples from early expansion states could help to change attitudes and calm misconceptions around diversion fears. RESULTS:In this commentary, we discuss the experience of one county jail that successfully expanded buprenorphine treatment and did not suffer significant impacts related to diversion. Instead, the jail found that their holistic and compassionate approach to buprenorphine treatment improved conditions both for incarcerated individuals and jail staff. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Amid a changing policy landscape and a federal commitment to increase access to effective treatments in criminal justice settings, lessons can be learned from jails and prisons that have already or are working toward expansion of MOUD in their facilities. Ideally, these anecdotal examples, in addition to data, will help to encourage more facilities to incorporate buprenorphine into their opioid use disorder treatment strategies.

The association between recent release from incarceration and dramatically increased risk of fatal overdose is well-established at the individual level. Fatal overdose and. arrest/release are spatially clustered, suggesting that this association may persist at the neighborhood level. We analyzed multicomponent data from Rhode Island, 2016-2020, and observed a modest association at the census tract level between rates of release per 1000 population and fatal overdose per 100,000 person-years, adjusting for spatial autocorrelation in both the exposure and outcome. Our results suggest that for each additional person released to a given census tract per 1000 population, there is a corresponding increase in the rate of fatal overdose by 2 per 100,000 person years. This association is more pronounced in suburban tracts, where each additional release awaiting trial is associated with an increase in the rate of fatal overdose of 4 per 100,000 person-years and 6 per 100,000 person-years for each additional release following sentence expiration. This association is not modified by the presence or absence of a licensed medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) treatment provider in the same or surrounding tracts. Our results suggest that neighborhood-level release rates are moderately informative as to tract-level rates of fatal overdose and underscore the importance of expanding pre-release MOUD access in correctional settings. Future research should explore risk and resource environments particularly in suburban and rural areas and their impacts on overdose risk among individuals returning to the community.

Pre-existing mental disorders are linked to COVID-19-related outcomes. However, the findings are inconsistent and a thorough analysis of a broader spectrum of outcomes such as COVID-19 infection severity, morbidity, and mortality is required. We investigated whether the presence of psychiatric diagnoses and/or the use of antidepressants influenced the severity of the outcome of COVID-19. This retrospective cohort study evaluated electronic health records from the INSIGHT Clinical Research Network in 116,498 individuals who were diagnosed with COVID-19 between March 1, 2020, and February 23, 2021. We examined hospitalization, intubation/mechanical ventilation, acute kidney failure, severe sepsis, and death as COVID-19-related outcomes. After using propensity score matching to control for demographics and medical comorbidities, we used contingency tables to assess whether patients with (1) a history of psychiatric disorders were at higher risk of more severe COVID-19-related outcomes and (2) if use of antidepressants decreased the risk of more severe COVID-19 infection. Pre-existing psychiatric disorders were associated with an increased risk for hospitalization, and subsequent outcomes such as acute kidney failure and severe sepsis, including an increased risk of death in patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders or bipolar disorders. The use of antidepressants was associated with significantly reduced risk of sepsis (p = 0.033), death (p = 0.026). Psychiatric disorder diagnosis prior to a COVID-19-related healthcare encounter increased the risk of more severe COVID-19-related outcomes as well as subsequent health complications. However, there are indications that the use of antidepressants might decrease this risk. This may have significant implications for the treatment and prognosis of patients with COVID-19.

Policy Points People are dying at record numbers from overdose in the United States. Concerted action has led to a number of successes, including reduced inappropriate opioid prescribing and increased availability of opioid use disorder treatment and harm-reduction efforts, yet ongoing challenges include criminalization of drug use and regulatory and stigma barriers to expansion of treatment and harm-reduction services. Priorities for action include investing in evidence-based and compassionate policies and programs that address sources of opioid demand, decriminalizing drug use and drug paraphernalia, enacting policies to make medication for opioid use disorder more accessible, and promoting drug checking and safe drug supply.

BACKGROUND:Naloxone distribution is central to ongoing efforts to address the opioid overdose crisis. Some critics contend that naloxone expansion may inadvertently promote high-risk substance use behaviors among adolescents, but this question has not been directly investigated. METHODS:We examined relationships between naloxone access laws and pharmacy naloxone distribution with lifetime heroin and injection drug use (IDU), 2007-2019. Models generating adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) included year and state fixed effects, controlled for demographics and sources of variation in opioid environments (e.g., fentanyl penetration), as well as additional policies expected to impact substance use (e.g., prescription drug monitoring). Exploratory and sensitivity analyses further examined naloxone law provisions (e.g., third-party prescribing) and applied e-value testing to assess vulnerability to unmeasured confounding. RESULTS:Adoption of any naloxone law was not associated with changes in adolescent lifetime heroin or IDU. For pharmacy dispensing, we observed a small decrease in heroin use (aOR: 0.95 [CI: 0.92, 0.99]) and a small increase in IDU (aOR: 1.07 [CI: 1.02, 1.11]). Exploratory analyses of law provisions suggested that third-party prescribing (aOR: 0.80, [CI: 0.66, 0.96]) and non-patient-specific dispensing models (aOR: 0.78, [CI: 0.61, 0.99]) were associated with decreased heroin use but not decreased IDU. Small e-values associated with the pharmacy dispensing and provision estimates indicate that unmeasured confounding may explain observed findings. CONCLUSION:Naloxone access laws and pharmacy naloxone distribution were more consistently associated with decreases rather than increases in lifetime heroin and IDU among adolescents. Our findings therefore do not support concerns that naloxone access promotes high-risk adolescent substance use behaviors. As of 2019, all US states have adopted legislation to improve naloxone access and facilitate use. However, further removal of adolescent naloxone access barriers is an important priority given that the opioid epidemic continues to affect people of all ages.

As the USA faces a worsening overdose crisis, improving access to evidence-based treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) remains a policy priority. Federal regulatory changes in response to the COVID-19 pandemic substantially expanded flexibilities on take-home doses for methadone treatment for OUD. These changes have fuelled questions about the effect of new regulations on OUD outcomes and the potential effect on health of permanently integrating these flexibilities into treatment policy going forward. To aide US policy makers as they consider implementing permanent methadone regulatory changes, we conducted a review synthesising peer-reviewed research on the effect of the flexibilities of methadone take-home policies introduced during COVID-19 on methadone programme operations, OUD patient and provider experiences, and patient health outcomes. We interpret the findings in the context of the federal rule-making process and discuss avenues by which these findings can be incorporated and implemented into US policies on substance use treatment going forward.