Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:To examine nationwide trends in the prescribing of controlled medications to early adolescents, adolescents, and young adults enrolled in public insurance (Medicaid) from 2001 to 2019. METHODS:The study utilized US Medicaid data covering publicly insured enrollees from 43 states (2001-2019). Early adolescents (10-12y), adolescents (13-17y), and young adults (18-24y, 25-29y) with ≥ 10 months enrollment in each calendar year were included. Filled prescription for opioids, stimulants, benzodiazepines, Z-hypnotics, barbiturates, and gabapentin were identified. In each calendar year, annual proportions with 1 +  controlled medication, 2 +  classes of controlled medications, and each controlled medication were estimated. RESULTS:In 2019, the sample included 17.9 million enrollees (53 % female). The annual proportion prescribed any controlled medication peaked at 17.5 % in early adolescents (2003), 20.6 % in adolescents (2009), and 34.1 % (18-24y) and 47.0 % (25-29y) in young adults (2010). By 2019, the proportions declined to 11.7 % (early adolescents), 12.6 % (adolescents), 16.2 % (18-24y), and 23.9 % (25-29y). Trends varied by medication and age. The largest absolute decline was in the proportion with an opioid filled (2010 =29.8 %, 2019 =11.2 %, young adults 18-24y; 2003 =14.3 %, 2019 =4.4 %, adolescents). In contrast, the proportion with a stimulant fill increased, with eight-fold increases in young adults 25-29y (2001 =0.3 %, 2019 =2.6 %). Benzodiazepine and Z-hypnotic use peaked in 2010 and declined through 2019. CONCLUSIONS:In the past two decades, there were increases in stimulant prescriptions among young Medicaid enrollees. The declines in opioid, benzodiazepines, barbiturate and Z-hypnotic prescribing are encouraging and may indicate more cautious prescribing related to greater awareness of harms such as misuse and overdose, along with policy initiatives.

BACKGROUND:Practical and motivational barriers can deter people from engaging in substance use disorder (SUD) treatment, even those who seek treatment. Care navigation is a psychosocial intervention that seeks to facilitate patients' timely access to care by identifying and intervening upon barriers. Few trials have tested the effectiveness of care navigation when embedding in real-world healthcare, and no trials have studied the process of implementing care navigation into clinical practice. This protocol describes a study that will evaluate whether care navigation can increase treatment engagement among patients seeking SUD treatment. METHODS:The Addressing Barriers to Care for Substance Use Disorder (ABC-SUD) study is a hybrid type I cluster-randomized effectiveness-implementation trial. It is conducted in a mental health access center of an integrated healthcare system in Washington state. Within this center, licensed mental health clinicians assess patient needs and use shared decision-making to establish SUD treatment plans for patients (usual care). This study tests whether an added care navigation intervention can improve patient engagement in SUD treatment. Care navigation begins after a treatment plan is made and provides up to 7 weeks of support focused on enhancing patient motivation to initiate and engage in treatment, problem-solving barriers (e.g., transportation logistics), and accommodating patient preferences (e.g., preferred language of care, cultural preferences). This trial uses a two period, two sequence crossover design. Clinicians are randomized to offer care navigation to patients during the first or second study period (i.e., clinicians are assigned to an initial study condition and switch conditions halfway through the trial). Care navigation is implemented with several strategies: leadership engagement, clinical workflow specifications, electronic health record (EHR) tools, training, performance improvement, and electronic learning collaborative. The primary outcome-obtained from EHRs and insurance claims-is engagement in SUD treatment, defined as ≥3 SUD treatment visits within 48 days of a treatment plan. This study uses standardized measures of implementation climate and outcomes to examine mechanisms with which the intervention strategies exert their impact on implementation and effectiveness outcomes. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:The ABC-SUD study will test whether care navigation improves SUD treatment engagement while concurrently generating information about its implementation in healthcare. TRIAL REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:This study was prospectively registered at www. CLINICALTRIALS/RESULTS:gov (NCT06729957) on December 9, 2024.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:In Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) the response to substance use has primarily been abstinence-based, acute-care-oriented treatments. While harm reduction services (HRS) and interventions have expanded in LAC over the last decade, the research evidence on such programs has been sparse and disjointed. OBJECTIVE:This scoping review will map peer-reviewed literature on HRS and interventions in LAC, and synthesize gaps and opportunities for policy, practice, and research. INCLUSION CRITERIA/METHODS:Studies conducted in LAC. The HRS that will be included in the search are opioid agonist therapy, syringe services programs, drug consumption facilities, safer consumption kits, managed alcohol programs, and drug-checking services. The scoping review will consider peer-reviewed original research, including qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods designs. We will exclude studies addressing harms associated with nicotine or tobacco use. We included original research written in English, Spanish, Portuguese, or French published between January 2013 and December 2024. METHODS:We will conduct literature searches in English (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science), Spanish, Portuguese (SciELO and BIREME), and French (BIREME). Two reviewers will independently screen the literature. Extraction of characteristics of the studies using a template in Covidence. Data on the HRS and interventions studied and implemented in LAC will be summarized and presented in tables, graphs, and a narrative summary. We will use a narrative synthesis approach to summarize implications for policy, research, and practice identified in the literature. The review was registered in Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/qya7c/). DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:The proposed scoping review will provide valuable information regarding the current state of HRS and interventions for PWUD in LAC. This in return can help guide future research for evaluating services that are already being implemented or unveil services needed in the region. To our knowledge, this is the first scoping review to map HRS in LAC using a systematic approach. Furthermore, among the strengths of this review are: the broad number of services, countries, and time, as well as the consultation with experts and knowledge users.

IMPORTANCE/UNASSIGNED:Since the start of the 21st century, more than 800 000 firearm deaths and more than 2 million firearm injuries have occurred in the US. All categories of firearm violence-homicide, suicide, unintentional-result in reverberating harms to individuals, families, communities, and society. The collective responsibility of society is to safeguard the health and safety of its members, including from firearm harms. The JAMA Summit on Firearm Violence convened 60 thought leaders from a wide array of disciplines to chart an innovations roadmap that will lead to substantial reductions in firearm harms by 2040. OBSERVATIONS/UNASSIGNED:The vision for 2040 is a country where firearm violence is substantially reduced and where all people and communities report feeling safe from firearm harms. The vision centers on practical solutions with an understanding of the country's constitutional protections for firearm ownership. Achieving the 2040 vision will require expansion of proven evidence-based strategies and the development of new, innovative approaches rooted in equity, accountability, and collective responsibility. Discussions centered on projecting a safer world, community violence interventions, technologic innovations, federal and state-level oversight of firearms, ethical considerations, and primordial prevention of firearm violence. The Summit charted a roadmap of 5 essential actions in the next 5 years to achieve this vision: (1) focus on communities and change fundamental structures that lead to firearm harms, (2) harness technological strengths responsibly, (3) change the narrative around firearm harms, (4) take a whole-government and whole-society approach, and (5) spark a research revolution on preventing firearm harms. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE/UNASSIGNED:A safer world will require investing in the discovery, implementation, and scaling of solutions that reduce firearm harms and center on the people and communities most affected by firearm violence.

BACKGROUND:Neighborhood-level overdose risk may vary over time. In Rhode Island, we developed and validated a machine learning model to identify the 20 percent of census block groups (CBGs) at the highest predicted risk of future overdose death. We updated this model periodically between November 2021 and August 2024 to generate six sets of predictions. This study aims to characterize the trajectory of each CBG's predicted overdose risk over time across these six periods. METHODS:In each prediction period, CBGs were designated as "high risk" or not designated as "high risk" based on our model's 20 percent predicted overdose risk threshold. We implemented sequence analysis to describe unique trajectories in each CBG's risk designation over each prediction period. We then calculated optimal matching distances to estimate dissimilarity between each pair of trajectories and applied agglomerative hierarchical clustering to group similar trajectories. RESULTS:The 809 CBGs included in this study followed 60 unique trajectories in predicted overdose risk designation over the six prediction periods. Clustering of trajectories favored a solution with five trajectory groups. Most CBGs (73.4 %) were rarely or never designated as "high risk", 7.9 % of CBGs were always designated as "high risk", and the remaining 18.7 % were designated as "high risk" in multiple prediction periods, represented by trajectory groups with different patterning over time. CONCLUSIONS:Given the substantial variability in which CBGs were at highest overdose risk over time, dynamic machine learning predictions may inform harm reduction resource allocation by identifying neighborhoods with emerging needs.

PURPOSE/UNASSIGNED:Understanding the types of individuals and their position in the network may improve interventions for people who inject drugs (PWID). METHODS/UNASSIGNED:From the Transmission Reduction Intervention Project (TRIP), which enrolled PWID and their contacts in Athens, Greece, from 2013 to 2015, we extracted the largest connected component of the network (i.e., the largest group of connected individuals) and identified members who were in the top quartile of the distribution for three network centrality measures: closeness, betweenness, and eigenvector. Using logistic regression, we evaluated associations between high centrality measures and individual sociodemographic characteristics and behaviors. We also varied the definition for high centrality. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Among 231 individuals, 80% were male and between the ages of 25-40 years. Over half of the individuals injected at least once per day, compared to less than daily. Individuals who injected at least once per day were more likely to have high closeness (odds ratio (OR) = 3.36; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.57, 8.42), high betweenness (OR = 2.22; 95% CI = 1.06, 4.67), and eigenvector centrality (OR = 4.50; 95% CI = 1.89,10.68). Individuals who engaged in sex without a condom were less likely to have high closeness (OR = 0.18; 95% CI = 0.07, 0.45) or eigenvector (OR = 0.19; 95% CI = 0.07, 0.49) centrality. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Individual characteristics and behaviors were associated with centrality and may impact an individual's position in the network. These associations could be useful in identifying important community members to engage as part of public health initiatives.

Methadone treatment (MT) for opioid use disorder saves lives, but the US MT system has long been dominated by punitive policies and practices that make MT inaccessible, burdensome, and traumatic for patients. After generations without changes to methadone regulations, a confluence of circumstance-including the COVID-19 pandemic and an overdose crisis that has taken over a million lives-has begun to shift the MT advocacy and political landscape. This commentary describes the building of the "Liberate Methadone" movement; a grassroots effort led by people with lived and living experience with methadone, addiction clinicians, researchers, community leaders, and people with many of these identities. The Liberate Methadone movement is dedicated to building a more accessible, equitable MT system that prioritizes patient health, promotes dignity, and is grounded in evidence. We describe the experience of planning and hosting a national conference and generating proceedings with recommendations for needed incremental and structural reforms within the US MT system. The lessons learned from this movement can motivate others across clinical, research, and policy roles to partner with and learn from patient and community-led groups, guiding needed reforms within systems of care. It is through these joint efforts and listening to those directly impacted groups who have been left out of the conversation for far too long, that we can successfully reduce overdose and suffering, toward better health, dignity, and thriving in our communities.

BACKGROUND:Take-home methadone (THM) flexibility has increased since 2020, representing innovation in opioid use disorder treatment. There are no established approaches to measuring THM using insurance claims data. We proposed and validated candidate measures of THM. METHODS:Using 2020 Medicaid data from 4 states, we constructed treatment episodes for enrollees aged 18-64. Episodes started after July 1, 2020 and lasted at least 60 days. We labelled individuals as receiving THM if they received ≥6 consecutive days of THM in their 2nd month of treatment, as defined by presence of claims with a modifier code indicating THM (the "gold-standard" indicator). We defined 4 candidate indicators of THM based on intervals between in-clinic methadone administrations. We assessed performance of each candidate indicator against the gold-standard. We assessed the extent to which between-program variation explained total variation in measured THM. RESULTS:The study sample included 4836 episodes for 4801 individuals. THM was present in 14 % of episodes. Sensitivity of candidate indicators ranged from 65 to 100 %, with the most sensitive being an indicator that was true if any two adjacent in-clinic service dates had a gap of ≥7 days. Specificity ranged from 80 to 96 %, with the most specific measure being one requiring 2 consecutive intervals of ≥7 days that were of the same length. Between-program variation explained 38.6-48.3 % of variation in THM receipt. CONCLUSIONS:Two indicators of THM using Medicaid data presented excellent performance when evaluated against a gold-standard indicator. Our approach can be used to assess uptake and outcomes of THM.