Faculty Bibliography

Overdose Good Samaritan Laws (GSLs) aim to reduce mortality by providing limited legal protections when an overdose bystander summons help. Most research into the impact of these laws is dated or potentially confounded by co-enacted naloxone access laws. Lack of awareness and trust in GSL protections, as well as fear of police involvement and legal repercussions, remain key deterrents of help-seeking. These barriers may be unequally distributed by race due to racist policing and drug policies, potentially producing racial disparities in the effectiveness of GSLs for reducing overdose mortality. We used 2015-2019 vital statistics data to estimate the effect of recent GSLs on overdose mortality, overall (eight states) and by Black/white race (four states). Given GSLs' near ubiquity, few unexposed states were available for comparison. We therefore proposed an "inverted" synthetic control method (SCM) to compare overdose mortality in new-GSL states to states with GSLs throughout the analytic period. The estimated relationships between GSLs and overdose mortality, both overall and stratified by Black/white race, were consistent with chance. An absence of effect could result from insufficient protection provided by the laws, insufficient awareness of them, and/or reticence to summon help not addressable by legal protections. The inverted SCM may be useful for evaluating other widespread policies.

OBJECTIVE:Polysubstance use may complicate treatment outcomes for individuals who use opioids. This research aimed to examine the prevalence of polysubstance use in an opioid use disorder treatment trial population and polysubstance use's association with opioid relapse and craving. METHODS:This study is a secondary data analysis of individuals with opioid use disorder who received at least one dose of medication (n = 474) as part of a 24-week, multi-site, open label, randomized Clinical Trials Network study (CTN0051, X:BOT) comparing the effectiveness of extended-release naltrexone versus buprenorphine. Models examined pretreatment polysubstance use and polysubstance use during the initial 4 weeks of treatment on outcomes of relapse by week 24 of the treatment trial and opioid craving. RESULTS:Polysubstance use was generally not associated with treatment outcomes of opioid relapse and craving. Proportion of days of pretreatment sedative use was associated with increased likelihood of opioid relapse (OR: 1.01, 95 % CI: 1.00-1.02). Proportion of days of cocaine use during the initial 4 weeks of treatment was associated with increased likelihood of opioid relapse (OR: 1.05, 95 % CI: 1.01-1.09) but this effect was no longer significant once the potential of confounding by opioid use was considered. Sedative use during initial 4 weeks of treatment was associated with increased opioid craving (b: 0.77, 95 % CI: 0.01-1.52). The study found no other significant relationships. CONCLUSIONS:In the current study population, polysubstance use was only marginally associated with 24-week treatment outcomes.

Structural racism is increasingly recognized as a key driver of health inequities and other adverse outcomes. This paper focuses on structural racism as an "upstream" institutionalized process, how it creates health inequities and how structural racism persists in spite of generations of efforts to end it. So far, "downstream" efforts to reduce these health inequities have had little success in eliminating them. Here, we attempt to increase public health awareness of structural racism and its institutionalization and sociopolitical supports so that research and action can address them. This paper presents both a theoretic and an analytic approach to how structural racism contributes to disproportionate rates of HIV/AIDS and related diseases among oppressed populations. We first discuss differences in disease and health outcomes among people who use drugs (PWUD) and other groups at risk for HIV from different racial and ethnic populations. The paper then briefly analyzes the history of racism; how racial oppression, class, gender and other intersectional divisions interact to create health inequities; and how structural racism is institutionalized in ways that contribute to disease disparities among people who use drugs and other people. It examines the processes, institutions and other structures that reinforce structural racism, and how these, combined with processes that normalize racism, serve as barriers to efforts to counter and dismantle the structural racism that Black, indigenous and Latinx people have confronted for centuries. Finally, we discuss the implications of this analysis for public health research and action to undo racism and to enhance the health of populations who have suffered lifetimes of racial/ethnic oppression, with a focus on HIV/AIDS outcomes.

AIM/OBJECTIVE:To quantify the trends in frequent and occasional cannabis vaping, demographic differences and concurrent nicotine and alcohol use. DESIGN/METHODS:Observational study. Survey-weighted multinomial logistic regression models assessed trends and disparities in past 30-day cannabis use. Trends were assessed overall and by sex, race/ethnicity, parental education and urbanicity. Multinomial logistic regression models also estimated associations of cannabis use (none, use without vaping, use with vaping) with past 2-week binge drinking and past 30-day nicotine/tobacco use. SETTING/METHODS:United States, 2017-19. PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:Participants in the national Monitoring the Future (n = 51 052) survey. MEASUREMENTS/METHODS:Past 30-day frequent cannabis use (six or more times/30 days) and past 30-day occasional use (one to five times/30 days), with and without vaping. FINDINGS/RESULTS:Past 30-day frequent cannabis use with vaping and occasional use with vaping rose from 2017 to 2019. Past 30-day frequent and occasional cannabis use without vaping declined. Certain groups, such as Hispanic/Latino or lower socio-economic status adolescents, experienced particularly notable increases in frequent cannabis use with vaping (e.g. prevalence among Hispanic/Latino adolescents). Adolescents who reported smoking and vaping nicotine, and 10+ occasions of binge drinking, were 42.28 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 33.14-53.93] and 10.09 (95% CI = 4.51-22.53) times more likely to report past 30-day cannabis use with vaping, respectively, compared with no use. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:Cannabis use without vaping appears to be declining among adolescents in the United States, while cannabis use with vaping is accelerating; frequent cannabis vaping is especially increasing, with consistent increases across almost all adolescent demographic groups. Cannabis use among US adolescents remains highly associated with other substance use.

BACKGROUND:Drug overdose rates in the United States have been steadily increasing, particularly in rural areas. The COVID-19 pandemic and associated mitigation strategies may have increased overdose risk for people who use drugs by impacting social, community, and structural factors. METHODS:The study included a quantitative survey focused on COVID-19 administered to 50 people who use drugs and semi-structured qualitative interviews with 17 people who use drugs, 12 of whom also participated in the quantitative survey. Descriptive statistics were run for the quantitative data. Qualitative coding was line-by-line then grouped thematically. Quantitative and qualitative data were integrated during analysis. RESULTS:Findings demonstrate how COVID-19 disruptions at the structural and community level affected outcomes related to mental health and drug use at the individual level. Themes that emerged from the qualitative interviews were (1) lack of employment opportunities, (2) food and housing insecurity, (3) community stigma impacting health service use, (4) mental health strains, and (5) drug market disruptions. Structural and community changes increased anxiety, depression, and loneliness on the individual level, as well as changes in drug use patterns, all of which are likely to increase overdose risk. CONCLUSION:The COVID-19 pandemic, and mitigation strategies aimed at curbing infection, disrupted communities and lives of people who use drugs. These disruptions altered individual drug use and mental health outcomes, which could increase risk for overdose. We recommend addressing structural and community factors, including developing multi-level interventions, to combat overdose. Trial registration Clinicaltrails.gov: NCT04427202. Registered June 11, 2020: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04427202?term=pho+mai&draw=2&rank=3.

BACKGROUND:There is pressing need to improve hospital-based addiction care. Various models for integrating substance use disorder care into hospital settings exist, but there is no framework for describing, selecting, or comparing models. We sought to fill that gap by constructing a taxonomy of hospital-based addiction care models based on scoping literature review and key informant interviews. METHODS:Methods included a scoping review of the literature on US hospital-based addiction care models and interventions for adults, published between January 2000 and July 2021. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 15 key informants experienced in leading, implementing, evaluating, andpracticing hospital-based addiction care to explore model characteristics, including their perceived strengths, limitations, and implementation considerations. We synthesized findings from the literature review and interviews to construct a taxonomy of model types. RESULTS:Searches identified 2,849 unique abstracts. Of these, we reviewed 280 full text articles, of which 76 were included in the final review. We added 8 references from reference lists and informant interviews, and 4 gray literature sources. We identified six distinct hospital-based addiction care models. Those classified as addiction consult models include (1) interprofessional addiction consult services, (2) psychiatry consult liaison services, and (3) individual consultant models. Those classified as practice-based models, wherein general hospital staff integrate addiction care into usual practice, include (4) hospital-based opioid treatment and (5) hospital-based alcohol treatment. The final type was (6) community-based in-reach, wherein community providers deliver care. Models vary in their target patient population, staffing, and core clinical and systems change activities. Limitations include that some models have overlapping characteristics and variable ways of delivering core components. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:A taxonomy provides hospital clinicians and administrators, researchers, and policy-makers with a framework to describe, compare, and select models for implementing hospital-based addiction care and measure outcomes.

BACKGROUND:Substance use disorders (SUD) elevate the risk for COVID-19 hospitalization, but studies are inconsistent on the relationship of SUD to COVID-19 mortality. METHODS:Veterans Health Administration (VHA) patients treated in 2019 and evaluated in 2020 for COVID-19 (n=5,556,315), of whom 62,303 (1.1%) tested positive for COVID-19 (COVID-19+). Outcomes were COVID-19+ by 11/01/20, hospitalization, ICU admission, or death within 60 days of a positive test. Main predictors were any ICD-10-CM SUDs, with substance-specific SUDs (cannabis, cocaine, opioid, stimulant, sedative) explored individually. Logistic regression produced unadjusted and covariate-adjusted odds ratios (OR; aOR). RESULTS:Among COVID-19+ patients, 19.25% were hospitalized, 7.71% admitted to ICU, and 5.84% died. In unadjusted models, any SUD and all substance-specific SUDs except cannabis use disorder were associated with COVID-19+(ORs=1.06-1.85); adjusted models produced similar results. Any SUD and all substance-specific SUDs were associated with hospitalization (aORs: 1.24-1.91). Any SUD, cocaine and opioid disorder were associated with ICU admission in unadjusted but not adjusted models. Any SUD, cannabis, cocaine, and stimulant disorders were inversely associated with mortality in unadjusted models (OR=0.27-0.46). After adjustment, associations with mortality were no longer significant. In ad hoc analyses, adjusted odds of mortality were lower among the 49.9% of COVID-19+ patients with SUD who had SUD treatment in 2019, but not among those without such treatment. CONCLUSIONS:In VHA patients, SUDs are associated with COVID-19 hospitalization but not COVID-19 mortality. SUD treatment may provide closer monitoring of care, ensuring that these patients received needed medical attention, enabling them to ultimately survive serious illness.