Faculty Bibliography

Aim: Naltrexone is first-line pharmacotherapy for alcohol use disorders (AUD). Oral naltrexone (ONTX) is under-prescribed in primary care and possibly limited by poor adherence. Monthly injectable extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX) may improve rates of medication adherence, retention, good clinical outcomes (Aim 1), and cost savings (Aim 2). Methods: This is an on-going randomized, open-label, comparative effectiveness trial of 24 weeks of XR-NTX vs. O-NTX as AUD treatment in primary care at a public hospital in New York City. Adults (>18 yo) with a DSM-V diagnosis of AUD randomized to XR-NTX (380 mg/month) vs. O-NTX (50-100 mg/day).Medical Management visits occur biweekly (weeks 1-8), then monthly.Major research assessments occur at baseline, weeks 13, 25, 48. The primary outcome is a Good Clinical Outcome (GCO) across weeks 5-24: abstinence or moderate drinking and 0-2 days of heavy drinking per month. This preliminary, descriptive analysis presentsWeek 0-5 results among all participants. Results: N = 237 participants were randomized from 6/14-9/17: mean age 48.5 (SD = 10.6); 71% male; 54% AA, 21%Hispanic; 41% employed, 81%reported other lifetime substance use. Mean AUDIT scores (instrument range 0-40) at baseline: 24.2 (SD = 8.0); mean OCDS (range 0-40) scores 17.1 (SD = 8.1); mean drinks/day 9.6 (SD = 11.6) with 29%abstinent vs. 61% heavy drinking days. Medication induction was robust, 115 of 117 (98.2%) initiating XR-NTX and 120 (100%) filled or received an initial O-NTX prescription. The GCO was reported by 41%XR-NTX and 47%ONTX atWeek 5. DuringWeek 1-5, mean drinks/day were 3.1 (SD = 6.1), 63% abstinent/22%heavy drinking days for XR-NTX; 2.4 (SD = 4.03), 61%abstinent/22%heavy drinking days for O-NTX. 62%received XR-NTX injection #2 and 67%received O-NTXmonthly refill #2. Adherence self-report for O-NTX at Week 5 indicated moderate average daily adherence,MMAS-8 mean (range <6 low, 6 to <8 moderate, =8 high) score 6.13 (SD = 3.02). Conclusion: This on-going XR vs. oral naltrexone alcohol primary care treatment trial recruited a primarily male, unemployed, ethnic minority adult population. Initial acceptance of both XR and ONTX was high. Primary outcomes will focus on drinking reductions and cost and value comparisons during weeks 5-24

Background: Substance use (SU) is common among ED patients, with 1 in 10 ED users having an alcohol or drug use disorder. ED patients also have high levels of social needs such as homelessness and food insecurity. Yet, little research has examined how such social determinants of health (SDOH) intersect with SU among ED patients. In this study, we compared the prevalence of several SDOH among ED patients who did and did not screen positive for unhealthy alcohol and drug use. Methods: We surveyed a random sample of ED patients at a NYC public hospital from Nov 2016-Sept 2017. Eligible patients were >=18 years old, medically/psychiatrically stable, not in prison/police custody, and spoke English or Spanish. RA shifts occurred during all days of the week and hours of the day. RAs administered a 20-40 minute survey with validated single-item screeners for unhealthy alcohol and drug use and questions on self-reported past year social needs from national surveys or prior studies. We compared prevalence of SDOH by SU screening status in bivariate analyses with chisquare tests. Results: About half of patients (52.0%) approached were ineligible, primarily because they were medically unfit, intoxicated, or in prison/police custody. 2,396 of 2,925 eligible patients participated (81.9%); 76 duplicate patient records were removed, leaving a final sample size of 2,321 patients. Nearly one-third (32.3%) screened positive for unhealthy alcohol use and 21.8% for any drug use. Regarding SDOH, rates among patients overall vs. those with unhealthy alcohol use vs. those with drug use were: 1) homelessness 13.8%, 18.7% (X2 p<0.01 for difference between those who did vs. did not screen positive), 25.8% (p<0.01); 2) housing instability 25.2%, 29.5% (p<0.01), 35.9% (p<0.01); 3) food insecurity 50.9%, 56.3% (p<0.01), 63.4% (p<0.01); 4) inability to meet essential expenses 40.8%, 45.9% (p<0.01), 52.7% (p<0.01); and 5) unemployment 43.3%, 45.1% (p=0.23), 55.1% (p<0.01). Conclusion: Rates of homelessness and other social needs were high among ED patients in this study, suggesting the importance of considering SDOH in emergency medicine practice. We add to prior literature by showing that these needs were even higher among patients who screened positive for SU. These findings are important, as patients' significant comorbid social needs may affect the success of ED-based efforts to address substance use

BACKGROUND:Alcohol and drug use are leading causes of morbidity and mortality that frequently go unidentified in medical settings. As part of a multi-phase study to implement electronic health record-integrated substance use screening in primary care clinics, we interviewed key clinical stakeholders to identify current substance use screening practices, barriers to screening, and recommendations for its implementation. METHODS:Focus groups and individual interviews were conducted with 67 stakeholders, including patients, primary care providers (faculty and resident physicians), nurses, and medical assistants, in two urban academic health systems. Themes were identified using an inductive approach, revised through an iterative process, and mapped to the Knowledge to Action (KTA) framework, which guides the implementation of new clinical practices (Graham et al. in J Contin Educ Health Prof 26(1):13-24, 2006). RESULTS:Factors affecting implementation based on KTA elements were identified from participant narratives. Identifying the problem: Participants consistently agreed that having knowledge of a patient's substance use is important because of its impacts on health and medical care, that substance use is not properly identified in medical settings currently, and that universal screening is the best approach. Assessing barriers: Patients expressed concerns about consequences of disclosing substance use, confidentiality, and the individual's own reluctance to acknowledge a substance use problem. Barriers identified by providers included individual-level factors such as lack of clinical knowledge and training, as well as systems-level factors including time pressure, resources, lack of space, and difficulty accessing addiction treatment. Adapting to the local context: Most patients and providers stated that the primary care provider should play a key role in substance use screening and interventions. Opinions diverged regarding the optimal approach to delivering screening, although most preferred a patient self-administered approach. Many providers reported that taking effective action once unhealthy substance use is identified is crucial. CONCLUSIONS:Participants expressed support for substance use screening as a valuable part of medical care, and identified individual-level as well as systems-level barriers to its implementation. These findings suggest that screening programs should clearly communicate the goals of screening to patients and proactively counteract stigma, address staff concerns regarding time and workflow, and provide education as well as treatment resources to primary care providers.

AIM/OBJECTIVE:This study assesses whether genetic variants in stress-related genes are associated with prolonged abstinence from heroin in subjects that are not in long-term methadone treatment. METHODS:Frequencies of 117 polymorphisms in 30 genes were compared between subjects with history of heroin addiction, either without agonist treatment (n = 129) or in methadone maintenance treatment (n = 923). RESULTS:SNP rs1500 downstream of CRHBP and an interaction of SNPs rs10482672 (NR3C1) and rs4234955 (NPY1R/NPY5R) were significantly associated with prolonged abstinence without agonist treatment. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:This study suggests that variability in stress-related genes may contribute to the ability of certain subjects to remain in prolonged abstinence from heroin, possibly due to higher resilience to stress.

BACKGROUND:Although much research has been conducted on the determinants of HIV risk behavior among people who inject drugs (PWID), the influence of the neighborhood context on high-risk injection behavior remains understudied. To address this gap in the literature, we measured associations between neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage and high-risk injection behavior, and determined whether these associations were modified by drug-related police activity and syringe exchange program (SEP) accessibility. METHODS:Our sample was comprised of 484 pharmacy-recruited PWID in New York City. Measures of neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage were created using data from the 2006-2010 American Community Survey. Associations with high-risk injection behavior were estimated using multivariable Poisson regression. Effect modification by drug-related police activity and SEP accessibility was assessed by entering cross-product terms into adjusted models of high-risk injection behavior. RESULTS:Neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage was associated with decreased receptive syringe sharing and unsterile syringe use. In neighborhoods with high drug-related police activity, associations between neighborhood disadvantage and unsterile syringe use were attenuated to the null. In neighborhoods with high SEP accessibility, neighborhood disadvantage was associated with decreased acquisition of syringes from an unsafe source. CONCLUSIONS:PWID in disadvantaged neighborhoods reported safer injection behaviors than their counterparts in neighborhoods that were relatively better off. The contrasting patterns of effect modification by SEP accessibility and drug-related police activity support the use of harm reduction approaches over law enforcement-based strategies for the control of blood borne virus transmission among PWID in disadvantaged urban areas.