Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:We conducted a scoping review focused on various forms of substance use amid the pandemic, looking at both the impact of substance use on COVID-19 infection, severity, and vaccine uptake, as well as the impact that COVID-19 has had on substance use treatment and rates. METHODS:A scoping review, compiling both peer-reviewed and grey literature, focusing on substance use and COVID-19 was conducted on September 15, 2020 and again in April 15, 2021 to capture any new studies. Three bibliographic databases (Web of Science Core Collection, Embase, PubMed) and several preprint servers (EuropePMC, bioRxiv, medRxiv, F1000, PeerJ Preprints, PsyArXiv, Research Square) were searched. We included English language original studies only. RESULTS:Of 1564 articles screened in the abstract and title screening phase, we included 111 research studies (peer-reviewed: 98, grey literature: 13) that met inclusion criteria. There was limited research on substance use other than those involving tobacco or alcohol. We noted that individuals engaging in substance use had increased risk for COVID-19 severity, and Black Americans with COVID-19 and who engaged in substance use had worse outcomes than white Americans. There were issues with treatment provision earlier in the pandemic, but increased use of telehealth as the pandemic progressed. COVID-19 anxiety was associated with increased substance use. CONCLUSIONS:Our scoping review of studies to date during COVID-19 uncovered notable research gaps namely the need for research efforts on vaccines, COVID-19 concerns such as anxiety and worry, and low- to middle-income countries (LMICs) and under-researched topics within substance use, and to explore the use of qualitative techniques and interventions where appropriate. We also noted that clinicians can screen and treat individuals exhibiting substance use to mitigate effects of the pandemic. FUNDING/BACKGROUND:Study was funded by the Institution for Social and Policy Studies, Yale University and The Horowitz Foundation for Social Policy. DH was funded by a NIDA grant (R01DA048860). The funding body had no role in the design, analysis, or interpretation of the data in the study.

BACKGROUND:Drug overdoses surged during the COVID-19 pandemic, underscoring the need for expanded and accessible substance use disorder (SUD) treatment. Relatively little is known about the experiences of patients receiving treatment during the pandemic. METHODS:We worked with 21 harm reduction and drug treatment programs in nine states and the District of Columbia from August 2020 to January 2021. Programs distributed study recruitment cards to clients. Clients responded to the survey by calling a study hotline and providing a unique study identification number. Our survey included detailed questions about use of SUD treatment prior to and since the COVID-19 pandemic. We identified settings where individuals received treatment and, for those treated for opioid use disorder, we examined use of medications for opioid use disorder. Individuals also reported whether they had received telehealth treatment and pandemic related treatment changes (e.g., more take-home methadone). We calculated p-values for differences pre and since COVID-19. RESULTS:We interviewed 587 individuals of whom 316 (53.8%) were in drug treatment both before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Individuals in treatment reported substantial reductions in in-person service use since the start of the pandemic, including a 27 percentage point reduction (p<.001) in group counseling sessions and 28 percentage point reduction in mutual aid group participation (p<.001). By contrast, individuals reported a 21 percentage point increase in receipt of overdose education (p<.001). Most people receiving medications for opioid use disorder reported taking methadone and had high continuity of treatment (86.1% received methadone pre-COVID and 87.1% since-COVID, p=.71). Almost all reported taking advantage of new policy changes such as counseling by video/phone, increased take-home medication, or fewer urine drug screens. Overall, respondents reported relatively high satisfaction with their treatment and with telehealth adaptations (e.g., 80.2% reported "I'm able to get all the treatment that I need"). CONCLUSIONS:Accommodations to treatment made under the federal public health emergency appear to have sustained access to treatment in the early months of the pandemic. Since these changes are set to expire after the official public health emergency declaration, further action is needed to meet the ongoing need.

OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:The authors sought to estimate the prevalence of past-12-month and lifetime cannabis use and cannabis use disorder among U.S. veterans; to describe demographic, substance use disorder, and psychiatric disorder correlates of nonmedical cannabis use and cannabis use disorder; and to explore differences in cannabis use and cannabis use disorder prevalence among veterans in states with and without medical marijuana laws. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:Participants were 3,119 respondents in the 2012-2013 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions-III (NESARC-III) who identified as U.S. veterans. Weighted prevalences were calculated. Logistic regression analyses tested associations of nonmedical cannabis use and cannabis use disorder with demographic and clinical correlates and examined whether prevalence differed by state legalization status. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:The prevalences of any past-12-month cannabis use and cannabis use disorder were 7.3% and 1.8%, respectively. Lifetime prevalences were 32.5% and 5.7%, respectively. Past-12-month and lifetime cannabis use disorder prevalence estimates among nonmedical cannabis users were 24.4% and 17.4%, respectively. Sociodemographic correlates of nonmedical cannabis use and use disorder included younger age, male gender, being unmarried, lower income, and residing in a state with medical marijuana laws. Nonmedical cannabis use and use disorder were associated with most psychiatric and substance use disorders examined. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Among veterans, the odds of nonmedical cannabis use and use disorder were elevated among vulnerable subgroups, including those with lower income or psychiatric disorders and among survey participants residing in states with medical marijuana laws. The study findings highlight the need for clinical attention (e.g., screening, assessment) and ongoing monitoring among veterans in the context of increasing legalization of cannabis.

BACKGROUND:Tools are needed to aid clinicians in estimating their patients' risk of transitioning to long-term opioid use and to inform prescribing decisions. OBJECTIVE:The objective of this study was to develop and validate a model that predicts previously opioid-naive patients' risk of transitioning to long-term use. RESEARCH DESIGN/METHODS:This was a statewide population-based prognostic study. SUBJECTS/METHODS:Opioid-naive (no prescriptions in previous 2 y) patients aged 12 years old and above who received a pill-form opioid analgesic in 2016-2018 and whose prescriptions were registered in the California Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP). MEASURES/METHODS:A multiple logistic regression approach was used to construct a prediction model with long-term (ie, >90 d) opioid use as the outcome. Models were developed using 2016-2017 data and validated using 2018 data. Discrimination (c-statistic), calibration (calibration slope, intercept, and visual inspection of calibration plots), and clinical utility (decision curve analysis) were evaluated to assess performance. RESULTS:Development and validation cohorts included 7,175,885 and 2,788,837 opioid-naive patients with outcome rates of 5.0% and 4.7%, respectively. The model showed high discrimination (c-statistic: 0.904 for development, 0.913 for validation), was well-calibrated after intercept adjustment (intercept, -0.006; 95% confidence interval, -0.016 to 0.004; slope, 1.049; 95% confidence interval, 1.045-1.053), and had a net benefit over a wide range of probability thresholds. CONCLUSIONS:A model for the transition from opioid-naive status to long-term use had high discrimination and was well-calibrated. Given its high predictive performance, this model shows promise for future integration into PDMPs to aid clinicians in formulating opioid prescribing decisions at the point of care.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Estimates of HIV prevalence, and how it changes over time, are needed to inform action (e.g., resource allocation) to improve HIV-related public health. However, creating adequate estimates of (diagnosed and undiagnosed) HIV prevalence is challenging due to biases in samples receiving HIV testing and due to difficulties enumerating key risk populations. To our knowledge, estimates of HIV prevalence among high risk heterosexuals in the United States produced for geographic areas smaller than the entire nation have to date been only for single years and/or for single cities (or other single geographic locations). METHODS:The present study addresses these gaps by using multilevel modeling on multiple data series, in combination with previous estimates of HIV prevalence among heterosexuals from the extant literature, to produce annual estimates of HIV prevalence among high risk heterosexuals for each of 89 metropolitan statistical areas, from 1992 to 2013. It also produces estimates for these MSAs and years by racial/ethnic subgroup to allow for an examination of change over time in racial/ethnic disparities in HIV prevalence among high risk heterosexuals. RESULTS:The resulting estimates suggest that HIV prevalence among high risk heterosexuals has decreased steadily, on average, from 1992 to 2013. Examination of these estimates by racial/ ethnic subgroup suggests that this trend is primarily due to decreases among Black and Hispanic/Latino high risk heterosexuals. HIV prevalence among white high risk heterosexuals remained steady over time at around 1% during the study period. Although HIV prevalence among Black and Hispanic/Latino high risk heterosexuals was much higher (approximately 3.5% and 3.3%, respectively) than that among whites in 1992, over time these differences decreased as HIV prevalence decreased over time among these subgroups. By 2013, HIV prevalence among Hispanic/Latino high risk heterosexuals was estimated to be very similar to that among white high risk heterosexuals (approximately 1%), with prevalence among Black high risk heterosexuals still estimated to be almost twice as high. CONCLUSIONS:It is likely that as HIV incidence has decreased among heterosexuals from 1992 to 2013, mortality due to all causes has remained disparately high among racial/ethnic minorities, thereby outpacing new HIV cases. Future research should aim to empirically examine this by comparing changes over time in estimated HIV incidence among heterosexuals to changes over time in mortality and causes of death among HIV-positive heterosexuals, by racial/ethnic subgroup.

BACKGROUND:The COVID-19 pandemic has exerted a significant toll on the lives of people who use opioids (PWUOs). At the same time, more flexible regulations around provision of opioid use disorder (OUD) services have led to new opportunities for facilitating access to services for PWUOs. In the current scoping review, we describe new services and service modifications implemented by treatment and harm reduction programs serving PWUO, and discuss implications for policy and practice. METHODS:Literature searches were conducted within PubMed, LitCovid, Embase, and PsycInfo for English-language studies published in 2020 that describe a particular program, service, or intervention aimed at facilitating access to OUD treatment and/or harm reduction services during the COVID-19 pandemic. Abstracts were independently screened by two reviewers. Relevant studies were reviewed in full and those that met inclusion criteria underwent final data extraction and synthesis (n = 25). We used a narrative synthesis approach to identify major themes around key service modifications and innovations implemented across programs serving PWUO. RESULTS:Reviewed OUD treatment and harm reduction services spanned five continents and a range of settings from substance use treatment to street outreach programs. Innovative service modifications to adapt to COVID-19 circumstances primarily involved expanded use of telehealth services (e.g., telemedicine visits for buprenorphine, virtual individual or group therapy sessions, provision of donated or publicly available phones), increased take-home medication allowances for methadone and buprenorphine, expanded uptake of long-acting opioid medications (e.g. extended-release buprenorphine and naltrexone), home delivery of services (e.g. MOUD, naloxone and urine drug screening), outreach and makeshift services for delivering MOUD and naloxone, and provision of a safe supply of opioids. CONCLUSIONS:The COVID-19 pandemic has posed multiple challenges for PWUOs, while simultaneously accelerating innovations in policies, care models, and technologies to lower thresholds for life-saving treatment and harm reduction services. Such innovations highlight novel patient-centered and feasible approaches to mitigating OUD related harms. Further studies are needed to assess the long-term impact of these approaches and inform policies that improve access to care for PWUOs.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's 2016 Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain aimed to reduce unsafe opioid prescribing. It is unknown whether the guideline influenced prescribing in the target population: patients with chronic, noncancer pain, who may be at particular risk for opioid-related harms. To study this question, we used 2014-18 data from a commercial claims database to examine associations between the release of the guideline and opioid dispensing in a national cohort of more than 450,000 patients with four common chronic pain diagnoses. We also examined whether any reductions associated with the guideline were larger for diagnoses for which there existed stronger expert consensus against opioid prescribing. Overall, the guideline was associated with substantial reductions in dispensing opioids, including a reduction in patients' rate of receiving at least one opioid prescription by approximately 20 percentage points by December 2018 compared with the counterfactual, no-guideline scenario. However, the reductions in dispensing did not vary by the strength of expert consensus against opioid prescribing. These findings suggest that although voluntary guidelines can drive changes in prescribing, questions remain about how clinicians are tailoring opioid reductions to best benefit patients.

BACKGROUND:Variation in drug policies, norms, and substance use over time and across countries may affect the normative sequences of adolescent substance use initiation. We estimated relative and absolute time-varying associations between prior alcohol and tobacco use and adolescent marijuana initiation in Argentina and Chile. Relative measures quantify the magnitude of the associations, whereas absolute measures quantify excess risk. METHODS:We analyzed repeated, cross-sectional survey data from the National Surveys on Drug Use Among Secondary School Students in Argentina (2001-2014) and Chile (2001-2017). Participants included 8th, 10th, and 12th grade students (N = 680,156). Linear regression models described trends over time in the average age of first use of alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana. Logistic regression models were used to estimate time-varying risk ratios and risk differences of the associations between prior alcohol and tobacco use and current-year marijuana initiation. RESULTS:Average age of marijuana initiation increased and then decreased in Argentina and declined in Chile. In both countries, the relative associations between prior tobacco use and marijuana initiation weakened amid declining rates of tobacco use; e.g., in Argentina, the risk ratio was 19.9 (95% CI: 9.0-30.8) in 2001 and 11.6 (95% CI: 9.0-13.2) in 2014. The relative association between prior alcohol use and marijuana initiation weakened Chile, but not in Argentina. On the contrary, risk differences (RD) increased substantially across both relationships and countries, e.g., in Argentina, the RD for tobacco was 3% (95% CI: 0.02-0.03) in 2001 and 12% (95% CI: 0.11-0.13) in 2014. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Diverging trends in risk ratios and risk differences highlight the utility of examining multiple measures of association. Variation in the strength of the associations over time and place suggests the influence of environmental factors. Increasing risk differences indicate alcohol and tobacco use may be important targets for interventions to reduce adolescent marijuana use.

OBJECTIVE:Suicidal ideation and plans are increasing among US adolescents. Changing prevalence of online victimization is frequently hypothesized as an explanation for this increase. We tested trends in online and offline victimization and whether they contribute to recent trends in adolescent suicidal outcomes. METHODS:= 73 074) were collected biennially through national cross-sectional surveys of US school-attending adolescents. We examined trends in past-year victimization. We also examined whether the relationship between victimization and past-year suicidal ideation, plans, attempts, and injury changed over time using survey-weighted logistic regressions that adjusted for sex and race and ethnicity. We also sex-stratified results to examine sex differences. RESULTS:Although suicidal ideation and plans increased among US adolescents (mainly girls), online and offline victimization prevalence did not increase over time (offline: 20.0% in 2011, 19.5% in 2019; online: 16.2% in 2011, 15.7% in 2019). Online and offline victimization were associated with suicidal outcomes, especially co-occurring online and offline victimization (eg, adjusted odds ratio [co-occurring online and offline victimization versus none, outcome: suicidal injury] = 8.37; 95% confidence interval: 7.06-9.91). The magnitude of the associations between victimization and suicidal outcomes largely remained stable over time. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Peer victimization prevalence has not sufficiently changed over time in concert with suicidal outcomes to explain increased suicidal outcomes. The prevalence of victimization has remained relatively invariant across time despite growing awareness and programming, making online and offline victimization consistent, socially-patterned risk factors that warrant further monitoring and interventions. Research must examine risk factors beyond victimization to explain increasing suicidal outcomes.