Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND AND AIMS/OBJECTIVE:Opioid overdose is a leading cause of death during the immediate time after release from jail or prison. Most jails in the United States do not provide methadone and buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder (MOUD), and research in estimating its impact in jail settings is limited. We aimed to test the hypothesis that in-jail MOUD is associated with lower overdose mortality risk post-release. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:Retrospective, observational cohort study of 15 797 adults with opioid use disorder who were released from New York City jails to the community in 2011-17. They experienced 31 382 incarcerations and were followed up to 1 year. MEASUREMENTS/METHODS:The primary outcomes were death caused by accidental drug poisoning and all-cause death. The exposure was receipt of MOUD (17 119 events) versus out-of-treatment (14 263 events) during the last 3 days before community reentry. Covariates included demographic, clinical, behavioral, housing, healthcare utilization, and legal characteristics variables. We performed multivariable, mixed-effect Cox regression analysis to test association between in-jail MOUD and deaths. FINDINGS/RESULTS:A majority were male (82%) and their average age was 42 years. Receiving MOUD was associated with misdemeanor charges, being female, injection drug use, and homelessness. During 1 year post-release, 111 overdose deaths occurred, and crude death rates were 0.49 and 0.83 per 100 person-years for in-jail MOUD and out-of-treatment groups, respectively. Accounting for confounding and random effects, in-jail MOUD was associated with lower overdose mortality risk (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.20, 95% CI = 0.08-0.46), and all-cause mortality risk (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.22, 95% CI = 0.11-0.42) for the first month post-release. CONCLUSIONS:Methadone and buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder during incarceration was associated with an 80% reduction in overdose mortality risk for the first month post-release.

BACKGROUND:Firearm violence remains a persistent public health threat. Comparing the impact of targeted high-risk versus population-based approaches to prevention may point to efficient and efficacious interventions. We used agent-based modeling to conduct a hypothetical experiment contrasting the impact of high-risk (disqualification) and population-based (price increase) approaches on firearm homicide in New York City (NYC). METHODS:We simulated 800,000 agents reflecting a 15% sample of the adult population of NYC. Three groups were considered and disqualified from all firearm ownership for five years, grouped based on prevalence: low prevalence (psychiatric hospitalization, alcohol-related misdemeanor and felony convictions, 0.23%); moderate prevalence (drug misdemeanor convictions, domestic violence restraining orders, 1.03%); and high prevalence (all other felony/misdemeanor convictions, 2.30%). Population-level firearm ownership was impacted by increasing the price of firearms, assuming 1% price elasticity. RESULTS:In this hypothetical scenario, to reduce firearm homicide by 5% in NYC, 25% of the moderate prevalence group, or 12% of the high prevalence group needed to be effectively disqualified; even when all of the low prevalence group was disqualified, homicide did not decrease by 5%. An 18% increase in price similarly reduced firearm homicide by 5.37% (95% CI 4.43-6.31%). Firearm homicide declined monotonically as the proportion of disqualified individuals increased and/or price increased. A combined intervention that both increased price and effectively disqualified "high-risk" groups achieved approximately double the reduction in homicide as any one intervention alone. Increasing illegal firearm ownership by 20%, a hypothetical response to price increases, did not meaningfully change results. CONCLUSION:A key takeaway of our study is that adopting high-risk versus population-based approaches should not be an "either-or" question. When individual risk is variable and diffuse in the population, "high-risk approaches" to firearm violence need to focus on relatively prevalent groups and be highly efficacious in disarming people at elevated risk to achieve meaningful reductions in firearm homicide, though countering issues of social justice and stigma should be carefully considered. Similar reductions can be achieved with population-based approaches, such as price increases, albeit with fewer such countering issues.

Opioid-related overdose deaths have increased since 2010 in the U.S., but information on trends in opioid use disorder (OUD) prevalence is limited due to unreliable data. Multiplier methods are a classical epidemiological technique to estimate prevalence when direct estimation is infeasible or unreliable. We used two different multiplier approaches to estimate OUD prevalence from 2010 to 2019. First, we estimated OUD in National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), and based on existing capture-recapture studies, multiplied prevalence by 4.5x. Second, we estimated the probability of drug poisoning death among people with OUD (Meta-analysis indicates 0.52/100,000), and divided the number of drug poisoning deaths in the US by this probability. Estimates were weighted to account for increase in drug-related mortality in recent years due to fentanyl. Estimated OUD prevalence was lowest when estimated in NSDUH with no multiplier, and highest when estimated from vital statistics data without adjustment. Consistent findings emerged with two methods: NSDUH data with multiplier correction, and vital statistics data with multiplier and adjustment. From these two methods, OUD prevalence increased from 2010 to 2014; then stabilized and slightly declined annually (survey data with multiplier, highest prevalence of 4.0% in 2015; death data with a multiplier and correction, highest prevalence of 2.35% in 2016). The number of US adolescent and adult individuals with OUD in 2019 was estimated between 6.7-7.6 million. When multipliers and corrections are used, OUD may have stabilized or slightly declined after 2015. Nevertheless, it remains highly prevalent, affecting 6-7 million US adolescents and adults.

BACKGROUND:Substance-related interactions with the criminal justice system are a potential touchpoint to identify people at risk for firearm violence. We used an agent-based model to simulate the change in firearm violence after disqualifying people from owning a firearm given prior alcohol- and drug-related misdemeanors. METHODS:We created a population of 800,000 agents reflecting a 15% sample of the adult New York City population. RESULTS:Disqualification from purchasing firearms for 5 years after an alcohol-related misdemeanor conviction reduced population-level rates of firearm homicide by 1.0% [95% CI 0.4-1.6%] and suicide by 3.0% [95% CI 1.9-4.0%]. Disqualification based on a drug-related misdemeanor conviction reduced homicide by 1.6% [95% CI 1.1-2.2%] and suicide by 4.6% [95% CI 3.4-5.8%]. Reductions were generally 2 to 8 times larger for agents meeting the disqualification criteria. CONCLUSIONS:Denying firearm access based on a history of drug and alcohol misdemeanors may reduce firearm violence among the high-risk group. Enactment of substance use-related firearms denial criteria needs to be balanced against concerns about introducing new sources of disenfranchisement among already vulnerable populations.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Nicotine vaping among U.S. adolescents has risen rapidly over the past decade, particularly for youth in grade 12. While previous studies examined the relationship between nicotine vaping and combustible cigarette use, less is known about the co-occurrence between vaping and other tobacco products. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:Using Monitoring the Future grade 12 data (2017-2019), we investigated associations between past 30-day nicotine vaping and non-vaping, non-cigarette tobacco use (smokeless tobacco, large cigars, cigarillos, hookah). Population prevalences of four categories were assessed: neither, vaping only, non-vaping of non-cigarette tobacco only, or both. We further investigated these relationships with logistic regressions accounting for the complex survey design (unadjusted, demographic-adjusted, and further adjusted for other substance use). Finally, analyses were stratified by combustible cigarette use. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Depending on the non-cigarette tobacco product, 2.5% to 5.4% of grade 12 students vaped nicotine and used a non-cigarette tobacco product. Controlling for demographics, cigarillo use was associated with nicotine vaping (adjusted RR = 3.44, 95% CI: 3.08, 3.84), as was hookah use (aRR = 3.51, 95% CI: 2.92, 4.23), smokeless tobacco (aRR = 2.97, 95% CI: 2.51, 3.52), and cigar use (aRR = 2.90, 95% CI: 2.49, 3.37). Controlling for cannabis and all non-cigarette tobacco products simultaneously attenuated associations. Associations were stronger among students who did not use cigarettes. DISCUSSION/UNASSIGNED:Nicotine vaping is associated with use of many non-cigarette tobacco products, including smokeless tobacco, cigarillos, cigars, and hookah. As prevalence of nicotine vaping remains high among adolescents, we should monitor co-use of vaping and other tobacco products.