Faculty Bibliography

Mandatory prescription drug monitoring programs and cannabis legalization have been hypothesized to reduce overdose deaths. We examined associations between prescription monitoring programs with access mandates ("must-query PDMPs"), legalization of medical and recreational cannabis supply, and opioid overdose deaths in United States counties in 2013-2020. Using data on overdose deaths from the National Vital Statistics System, we fit Bayesian spatiotemporal models to estimate risk differences and 95% credible intervals (CrI) in county-level opioid overdose deaths associated with enactment of these state policies. Must-query PDMPs were independently associated with on average 0.8 (95% CrI: 0.5, 1.0) additional opioid-involved overdose deaths per 100,000 person-years. Legal cannabis supply was not independently associated with opioid overdose deaths in this time period. Must-query PDMPs enacted in the presence of legal (medical or recreational) cannabis supply were associated with 0.7 (95% CrI: 0.4, 0.9) more opioid-involved deaths, relative to must-query PDMPs without any legal cannabis supply. In a time when overdoses are driven mostly by non-prescribed opioids, stricter opioid prescribing policies and more expansive cannabis legalization were not associated with reduced overdose death rates.

BACKGROUND:Identifying the most effective state laws and provisions to reduce opioid overdose deaths remains critical. METHODS:Using expert ratings of opioid laws, we developed annual state scores for three domains: opioid prescribing restrictions, harm reduction, and Medicaid treatment coverage. We modeled associations of state opioid policy domain scores with opioid-involved overdose death counts in 3133 counties, and among racial/ethnic subgroups in 1485 counties (2013-2020). We modeled a second set of domain scores based solely on experts' highest 20 ranked provisions to compare with the all-provisions model. RESULTS:From 2013 to 2020, moving from non- to full enactment of harm reduction domain laws (i.e., 0 to 1 in domain score) was associated with reduced county-level relative risk (RR) of opioid overdose death in the subsequent year (adjusted RR = 0.84, 95 % credible interval (CrI): 0.77, 0.92). Moving from non- to full enactment of opioid prescribing restrictions and Medicaid treatment coverage domains was associated with higher overdose in 2013-2016 (aRR 1.69 (1.35, 2.11) and aRR 1.20 (1.11, 1.29) respectively); both shifted to the null in 2017-2020. Effect sizes and direction were similar across racial/ethnic groups. Results for experts' highest 20 ranked provisions did not differ from the all-provision model. CONCLUSIONS:More robust state harm reduction policy scores were associated with reduced overdose risk, adjusting for other policy domains. Harmful associations with opioid prescribing restrictions in 2013-2016 may reflect early unintended consequences of these laws. Medicaid coverage domain findings did not align with experts' perceptions, though data limitations precluded inclusion of several highly ranked Medicaid policies.

Stimulant use disorder (StUD) is a rapidly growing concern in the United States, with escalating rates of death attributed to amphetamines and cocaine. No medications are currently approved for StUD treatment, leaving clinicians to navigate off-label medication options. Recent studies suggest that controlled prescription psychostimulants such as dextroamphetamine, methylphenidate, and modafinil are associated with reductions in self-reported stimulant use, craving, and depressive symptoms. Despite this positive initial evidence, prescribing rates of these medications for StUD treatment remain low, possibly because some clinicians believe that they are subject to the restrictions federal law imposes on medications for opioid use disorder. This is not the case. Rather, at the federal level, these medications are subject only to the general requirement that prescriptions be issued for a legitimate medical purpose within the usual course of professional practice, criteria that are buttressed by recent national guidelines that include controlled prescription psychostimulants as an option within a comprehensive treatment plan for StUD. In this commentary, we review the federal legal landscape regarding the prescription of psychostimulants for StUD and recommend strategies for increasing the utilization of this promising approach. Professional organizations, addiction clinicians, and researchers can reinforce this practice through publishing expert recommendations, developing clinician education materials, and disseminating their real-world experiences and well-documented treatment plans.

BACKGROUND:Wider availability of cannabis through medical and recreational legalization (MCL alone and RCL+MCL) has been hypothesized to contribute to reductions in opioid use, misuse, and related harms. We examined whether state adoption of cannabis laws was associated with changes in opioid outcomes overall and stratified by cannabis use. METHODS:Using National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) data from 2015 to 2019, we estimated cannabis law associations with opioid (prescription opioid misuse and/or heroin use) misuse and use disorder. All logistic regression models (overall models and models stratified by cannabis use), included year and state fixed effects, individual level covariates, and opioid-related state policies. Stratified analyses were restricted to individuals who reported lifetime cannabis use prior to law adoption to reduce potential for collider bias. Estimates accounted for multiple comparisons using false discovery rate (FDR) corrections and sensitivity to unmeasured confounding using e-values. RESULTS:Overall, MCL and RCL adoption were not associated with changes in the odds of any opioid outcome. After restricting to respondents reporting past-year cannabis use, we observed decreased odds of past year opioid misuse (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 0.57 [95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.38, 0.85]; FDR p-value: 0.07), among individuals in states with MCL compared to those in states without cannabis laws. RCLs were not associated with changes in the odds of any opioid outcome beyond MCL adoption. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Comparing individuals in MCL alone states to those in states without such laws, we found an inconsistent pattern of decreased odds of opioid outcomes, which were more pronounced among people reporting cannabis use. The pattern did not hold for individuals in RCL states. In line with a substitution-oriented perspective, findings suggests that MCLs may be associated with reductions in opioid use among people using cannabis but additional work to replicate and expand on these findings is needed.

BACKGROUND:U.S. state electronic prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) are associated with reduced opioid dispensing among people with chronic pain and may impact use of other chronic pain treatments. In states with medical cannabis laws (MCLs), patients can use cannabis for chronic pain management, reducing their need for chronic-pain related treatment visits and moderating effects of PDMP laws. OBJECTIVE:Given high rates of chronic pain among Medicaid enrollees, we examined associations between PDMP enactment in the presence or absence of MCL on chronic pain-related outpatient and emergency department (ED) visits. DESIGN/METHODS:We created annual cohorts of Medicaid enrollees with chronic pain diagnoses using national Medicaid claims data from 2002-2013 and 2016. Negative binomial hurdle models produced adjusted odds ratios (aOR) for the likelihood of any chronic pain-related outpatient or ED visit and incident rate ratios (IRR) for the rate of visits among patients with ≥ 1 visit. PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:Medicaid enrollees aged 18-64 years with chronic pain (N = 4,878,462). MAIN MEASURES/METHODS:A 3-level state-year variable with the following categories: 1) no PDMP, 2) PDMP enactment in the absence of MCL, or 3) PDMP enactment in the presence of MCL. Healthcare codes for chronic pain-related outpatient and ED visits each year. KEY RESULTS/RESULTS:The sample was primarily female (67.2%), non-Hispanic White (51.2%), and ages 40-55 years (37.2%). Compared to no-PDMP states, PDMP enactment in the absence of MCL was not associated with chronic pain-related outpatient visits but PDMP enactment in the presence of MCL was associated with lower odds of chronic pain-related outpatient visits (aOR = 0.81, 95% CI:0.71-0.92). PDMP enactment was not associated with ED visits, irrespective of MCL. CONCLUSIONS:During a period of PDMP and MCL expansion, our findings suggest treatment shifts for persons with chronic pain away from outpatient settings, potentially related to increased use of cannabis for chronic pain management.

OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:Opioid overdose is a public health epidemic adversely impacting individuals and communities. To combat this, California passed a law mandating that prescribers offer a naloxone prescription in certain circumstances. Our objective was to evaluate associations with California's naloxone prescription mandate and emergency department (ED) overdose visits/hospitalizations, opioid and naloxone prescribing, and 30-day mortality. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:This retrospective cohort study included data from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2019, and included all Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC) members aged >10 years across 15 KPSC EDs. Exposure was defined as presentation to the ED within the study period. The primary outcome was ED visits for opioid overdose pre- and post-implementation of California's naloxone prescription mandate. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:A total of 1.1 million ED visits (534K pre/576K post) were included in the study population. ED opioid overdose visits were 344 (6.4/10,000) pre-policy and 351 (6.1/10,000) post-policy implementation, while non-opioid overdose visits were 309 (5.8/10,000) pre-implementation and 411 (7.1/10,000) post-implementation. The unadjusted rate of visits with opioid prescriptions decreased significantly (14.9% pre to 13.5% post) after implementation. ED naloxone prescriptions increased substantially (104 pre vs. 6031 post). Primary adjusted interrupted time series analysis found no statistical difference between monthly opioid overdose visits pre versus post (odds ratio 1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.98‒1.07). Difference-in-differences analysis revealed no significant changes in hospitalization (coefficient [CE] = ‒0.05, 95% CI = ‒0.11 to 0.02) or 30-day mortality (CE = ‒0.01, 95% CI = ‒0.03 to 0.01). CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:This study revealed that the implementation of California's naloxone prescription mandate was associated with significantly increased naloxone prescribing and decreased opioid prescribing, but no significant change in ED opioid overdose visits, hospitalizations, or 30-day mortality. This indicates that increasing naloxone prescribing alone may not be sufficient to lower opioid overdose rates.

IMPORTANCE/UNASSIGNED:Two states modified laws to remove or substantially reduce criminal penalties for any drug possession. The hypothesis was that removing criminal penalties for drug possession may reduce fatal drug overdoses due to reduced incarceration and increased calls for help at the scene of an overdose. OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:To evaluate whether decriminalization of drug possession in Oregon and Washington was associated with changes in either direction in fatal drug overdose rates. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS/UNASSIGNED:This cohort study used a synthetic control method approach to examine whether there were changes in drug possession laws and fatal drug overdose rates in Oregon and Washington in the postpolicy period (February 1, 2021, to March 31, 2022, in Oregon and March 1, 2021, to March 31, 2022, in Washington). A counterfactual comparison group (synthetic controls) was created for Oregon and Washington, using 48 states and the District of Columbia, that did not implement similar policies during the study period (January 1, 2018, to March 31, 2022). For 2018-2021, final multiple cause-of-death data from the National Vital Statistics System (NVSS) were used. For 2022, provisional NVSS data were used. Drug overdose deaths were identified using International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision underlying cause-of-death codes X40-X44, X60-X64, X85, and Y10-Y14. EXPOSURES/UNASSIGNED:In Oregon, Measure 110 went into effect on February 1, 2021. In Washington, the Washington Supreme Court decision in State v Blake occurred on February 25, 2021. MAIN OUTCOME/UNASSIGNED:Monthly fatal drug overdose rates. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Following the implementation of Measure 110, absolute monthly rate differences between Oregon and its synthetic control were not statistically significant (probability = 0.26). The average rate difference post Measure 110 was 0.268 fatal drug overdoses per 100 000 state population. Following the implementation of the policy change in Washington, the absolute monthly rate differences between Washington and synthetic Washington were not statistically significant (probability = 0.06). The average rate difference post Blake was 0.112 fatal drug overdoses per 100 000 state population. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE/UNASSIGNED:This study found no evidence of an association between legal changes that removed or substantially reduced criminal penalties for drug possession in Oregon and Washington and fatal drug overdose rates. Additional research could examine potential other outcomes as well as longer-term associations with fatal drug overdose overall and across racial and ethnic groups.

BACKGROUND:In the United States, methadone treatment for opioid use disorder is only available at opioid treatment programs (OTPs). In addition to federal regulations, states can enact laws which shape access to OTPs. We aimed to define classes of states according to restrictiveness of state OTP laws and examine population characteristics associated with class membership. METHODS:A set of laws was extracted from a database of statutes and regulations governing OTPs in 49 states and the District of Columbia as of June 2021. Latent class analysis of laws was used to estimate the probability of class membership for each state. Class-weighted multinomial logistic regression analysis assessed state-level correlates of class membership and adjusted Relative Risk Ratio (aRRR) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were generated. RESULTS:States (n = 50) were assigned to three classes; Class 1) High restrictiveness on patient experience, low restrictiveness on access to service (n = 13); Class 2) Medium restrictiveness on patient experience, high restrictiveness on access to service (n = 14); Class 3) Low restrictiveness on patient experience, low restrictiveness on access to service (n = 23). States with a higher probability of membership in Classes with higher restrictiveness had higher rates of unemployment (Class 1 vs Class 3, aRRR:1.24; 95%CI:1.06-1.45), and Black residents (Class 2 vs Class 3, aRRR:1.10; 95%CI:1.04-1.15), and lower likelihood of Medicaid coverage of methadone (Class 1 vs Class 3, aRRR:0.25; 95%CI:0.07-0.88). States with a higher probability of membership in Classes with higher restrictiveness also had higher rates of potential indicators for opioid use disorder treatment need, including rates of opioid dispensing (Class 1 vs Class 3, aRRR:1.06; 95%CI:1.02-1.10, Class 2 vs Class 3, aRRR:1.07; 95%CI:1.03-1.11) and HIV diagnoses attributed to injection (Class 1 vs Class 3, aRRR:3.92; 95%CI:1.25-12.22). CONCLUSIONS:States with indicators of greater potential need for opioid use disorder treatment have the most restrictions, raising concerns about unmet treatment need.

BACKGROUND:Despite evidence that the U.S. "War on Drugs" is associated with increases in drug-related harm and other negative outcomes, all U.S. states have long criminalized most drug possession. In early 2021, both Oregon and Washington became exceptions to this rule when they fully (Oregon) or partially (Washington) decriminalized possession of small amounts of all drugs. METHODS:We obtained arrest data for 2019 to 2021 for intervention states (Oregon and Washington) and control states (Colorado, Idaho, Montana, and Nevada). We calculated monthly rates for arrests overall and for violent crimes, drug possession, equipment possession, non-drug crimes, and a set of low-level crimes termed displaced arrests. Using an interrupted time series analysis, we examined changes in monthly arrest rates after the implementation of policy change in Oregon and Washington compared to control states. RESULTS:In Oregon, there were 3 fewer drug possession arrests per 100,000 in the month after the policy change; the rate decreased throughout the post-implementation period. In Washington, there were almost 5 fewer drug possession arrests per 100,000 in the month following policy change, and the rate remained stable thereafter. Both declines were significantly greater than in comparison states. There were also statistically significant reductions in arrests for possession of drug equipment in Washington and a significant increase in displaced arrests in Oregon. There were no significant changes in overall arrests, non-drug arrests or arrests for violent crime in either state, relative to controls. CONCLUSION:This analysis demonstrates that it is possible for state drug decriminalization policies to dramatically reduce arrests for drug possession without increasing arrests for violent crimes, potentially reducing harm to people who use drugs and their communities. Additional research is needed to determine whether these legal reforms were associated with changes in overdose rates and other drug-related harms.

BACKGROUND:Drug overdose deaths continue to rise, and considerable racial inequities have emerged. Overdose Good Samaritan laws (GSLs) are intended to encourage overdose witnesses to seek emergency assistance. However, evidence of their effectiveness is mixed, and little is known regarding racial disparities in their implementation. This study examined GSL impact by assessing racial differences in awareness of and trust in New York state's GSL. METHODS:Using a sequential mixed methods design, Black and white participants were recruited from an existing longitudinal cohort study of people who use illicit opioids in New York City to participate in a quantitative survey and qualitative interviews. Racially stratified survey responses were analyzed using chi-squared tests, Fisher exact tests, or t-tests. Qualitative interviews were analyzed using a hybrid inductive-deductive approach. RESULTS:Participants (n=128) were 56% male and predominantly aged 50 years or older. Most met criteria for severe opioid use disorder (81%). Fifty-seven percent reported that the New York GSL makes them more likely to call 911 even though 42% reported not trusting law enforcement to abide by the GSL; neither differed by race. Black people were less likely to have heard of the GSL (36.1% vs 60%) and were less likely to have accurate information regarding its protections (40.4% vs 49.6%). CONCLUSIONS:Though GSLs may reduce negative impacts of the criminalization of people who use drugs, their implementation may exacerbate existing racial disparities. Resources should be directed towards harm reduction strategies that do not rely on trust in law enforcement.