Search

Among people who inject drugs (PWID), obtaining syringes via syringe services programs (SSPs) and pharmacies reduces injection sharing practices associated with hepatitis C virus (HCV). Whether indirect use of SSPs via secondary exchange confers a similar benefit remains unknown, particularly in rural settings. We compared HCV serostatus and injection sharing practices by primary syringe source among a sample of rural PWID.Data are from a cross-sectional study of adults who use drugs recruited from eleven rural counties in New Hampshire, Vermont, and Massachusetts using respondent-driven sampling (2018-2019). Study staff performed HCV antibody testing. An audio computer-assisted self-interview assessed sociodemographic characteristics, past 30-day injection practices, and past 30-day primary syringe source. Primary syringe source was classified as direct SSP, pharmacy, indirect SSP (secondary exchange), or "other" (friend/acquaintance, street seller, partner/relative, found them). Mixed effects modified Poisson models assessed the association of primary syringe source with HCV seroprevalence and injection sharing practices.Among 397 PWID, the most common primary syringe source was "other" (33%), then pharmacies (27%), SSPs (22%), and secondary exchange (18%). In multivariable models, compared with those obtaining most syringes from "other" sources, those obtaining most syringes from pharmacies had a lower HCV seroprevalence [adjusted prevalence ratio (APR):0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73-0.9985]; however, the upper bound of the 95% CI was close to 1.0. Compared with those obtaining most syringes from other sources, PWID obtaining most syringes directly from SSPs or pharmacies were less likely to report borrowing used syringes [APR(SSP):0.60, 95% CI 0.43-0.85 and APR(Pharmacies):0.70, 95% CI 0.52-0.93], borrowing used injection equipment [APR(SSP):0.59, 95% CI 0.50-0.69 and APR (Pharmacies):0.81, 95% CI 0.68-0.98], and backloading [APR(SSP):0.65, 95% CI 0.48-0.88 and APR(Pharmacies):0.78, 95% CI 0.67-0.91]. Potential inverse associations between obtaining most syringes via secondary exchange and injection sharing practices did not reach the threshold for statistical significance.PWID in rural New England largely relied on informal syringe sources (i.e., secondary exchange or sources besides SSPs/pharmacies). Those obtaining most syringes from an SSP or pharmacy were less likely to share injection equipment/syringes and had a lower HCV seroprevalence, which suggests using these sources reduces the risk of new HCV infections or serves as proxy for past injection behavior.

HIV clinicians are uniquely positioned to treat their patients with opioid use disorder using buprenorphine to prevent overdose death. The Prescribe to Save Lives (PtSL) study aimed to increase HIV clinicians' buprenorphine prescribing via an overdose prevention intervention.The quasi-experimental stepped-wedge study enrolled 22 Ryan White-funded HIV clinics and delivered a peer-to-peer training to clinicians with follow-up academic detailing that included overdose prevention education and introduced buprenorphine prescribing. Site-aggregated electronic medical record (EMR) data measured with the change in X-waivered clinicians and patients prescribed buprenorphine. Clinicians completed surveys preintervention and at 6- and 12-month postintervention that assessed buprenorphine training, prescribing, and attitudes. Analyses applied generalized estimating equation models, adjusting for time and clustering of repeated measures among individuals and sites.Nineteen sites provided EMR prescribing data, and 122 clinicians returned surveys. Of the total patients with HIV across all sites, EMR data showed 0.38% were prescribed buprenorphine pre-intervention and 0.52% were prescribed buprenorphine postintervention. The intervention increased completion of a buprenorphine training course (adjusted odds ratio 2.54, 95% confidence interval: 1.38 to 4.68, P = 0.003) and obtaining an X-waiver (adjusted odds ratio 2.11, 95% confidence interval: 1.12 to 3.95, P = 0.02). There were nonsignificant increases at the clinic level, as well.Although the PtSL intervention resulted in increases in buprenorphine training and prescriber certification, there was no meaningful increase in buprenorphine prescribing. Engaging and teaching HIV clinicians about overdose and naloxone rescue may facilitate training in buprenorphine prescribing but will not result in more treatment with buprenorphine without additional interventions.

Despite high mortality rates due to opioid overdose and excessive alcohol consumption, medications for the treatment of alcohol and opioid use disorder have not been widely used in the USA. This paper provides an overview of the literature on the availability of alcohol and opioid used disorder medications in the specialty substance use disorder treatment system, other treatment settings and systems, and among providers with a federal waiver to prescribe buprenorphine. We also present the most current data on the availability of alcohol and opioid use disorder medications in the USA. These estimates show steady growth in availability of opioid use disorder medications over the past decade and a decline in availability of alcohol use disorder medications. However, overall use of medications in the USA remains low. In 2017, only 16.3% of specialty treatment programs offered any single medication for alcohol use disorder treatment and 35.5% offered any single medication for opioid use disorder treatment. Availability of buprenorphine-waivered providers has increased significantly since 2002. However, geographic disparities in access to buprenorphine remain. Some of the most promising strategies to increase availability of alcohol and opioid use disorder medications include the following: incorporating substance use disorder training in healthcare education programs, educating the substance use disorder workforce about the benefits of medication treatment, reducing stigma surrounding the use of medications, implementing medications in primary care settings, implementing integrated care models, revising regulations on methadone and buprenorphine, improving health insurance coverage of medications, and developing novel medications for the treatment of substance use disorder.

Background Co-occurring mental health disorders are common among substance use disorder (SUD) patients. Medicaid expansion aimed to reduce barriers to SUD and mental health care and thereby improve treatment outcomes. Methods We estimated change in the proportion of United States SUD treatment sites offering treatment for psychiatric comorbidities following Medicaid expansion as part of implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2014. Using panel data from the 2013–2014, n = 660, and 2016–2017, n = 638, waves of the National Drug Abuse Treatment System Survey (NDATSS), we estimated change in the proportion of sites offering antidepressant medication, other psychiatric medication, behavioral treatment, or any combination thereof for treatment of mental health comorbidities (i.e., beyond services focused on SUD). We modeled the impact of Medicaid expansion as an interaction between year and date of Medicaid expansion. We constructed a mixed-effects linear regression model for each outcome, with the interaction variable as the main exposure, site as a random effect, and site's average duration of treatment, proportion of clients with psychiatric comorbidities, average caseload per treatment prescribing-clinician on staff, type of facility and geographic region as covariates, to estimate a difference-in-differences (D-I-D) equation. Results The adjusted D-I-D analysis indicated that the proportion of SUD treatment sites offering antidepressants for psychiatric treatment increased 10% (95% CI 1%, 18%) in the Medicaid expansion sites compared to non-expansion sites. The D-I-D for other psychiatric medications was also 10% (95% 1%, 19%). No significant changes were observed in behavioral treatment or the combination measure. The strongest association between Medicaid expansion and offering medication for mental health comorbidities was the 34% increase observed for residential treatment settings (95% CI 10%, 59%). Conclusion Availability of psychiatric medication treatment in SUD treatment settings increased following Medicaid expansion, particularly in residential SUD facilities. This policy change has facilitated integrated treatment for the substantial share of SUD treatment patients with mental health comorbidities, with the greatest benefit for patients receiving SUD treatment in residential programs.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) prompted sweeping changes to Medicaid, including expanding insurance coverage to an estimated 12 million previously uninsured Americans, and imposing new parity requirements on benefits for behavioral health services, including substance use disorder treatment. Yet, limited evidence suggests that these changes have reduced the number of uninsured in substance use disorder treatment, or increased access to substance use disorder treatment overall. This study links data from a nationally-representative study of outpatient substance use disorder treatment programs and a unique national survey of state Medicaid programs to capture changes in insurance coverage among substance use disorder treatment patients after ACA implementation. Medicaid expansion was associated with a 15.7-point increase in the percentage of patients insured by Medicaid in substance use disorder treatment programs and a 13.7-point decrease in the percentage uninsured. Restrictions in state Medicaid benefits and utilization policies were associated with a decreased percentage of Medicaid patients in treatment. Moreover, Medicaid expansion was not associated with a change in the total number of clients served over the study period. Our findings highlight the important role Medicaid has played in increasing insurance coverage for substance use disorder treatment.

OBJECTIVE To identify factors associated with referral and enrollment in early intervention (EI) for infants with neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS). METHODS We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 256 infants born with NAS (2006-2013) at a tertiary care hospital in (Springfield), Massachusetts, linking maternal-infant birth hospitalization records with Department of Public Health EI records. We calculated the percent of infants retained at each step in the EI enrollment process over the first 3 years of life. We conducted separate multivariable logistic regression analyses to identify factors associated with EI referral and enrollment. RESULTS Among mothers, 82% received medication-assisted treatment at delivery, 36% endorsed illicit drug use during pregnancy, and 76% retained custody of their child at discharge. Among infants, 77% were referred to EI and 48% were enrolled in services. Of infants discharged to biological parents, 81% were referred to EI versus 66% of infants discharged to foster care (p ≤ 0.05); this difference persisted in multivariable analysis [adjusted odds ratio, 2.30; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.09-4.86]. Infants in the highest tertile for length of stay had 2.70 times the odds of EI enrollment (95% CI, 1.37-5.31). CONCLUSION Fewer than half of the eligible infants with NAS were enrolled in EI services. Discharge to a biological parent and longer hospital stay had the strongest associations with EI referral and enrollment, respectively. Efforts to improve EI referral rates during the birth hospitalization, particularly among infants discharged into foster care, and close follow-up for infants with shorter hospital stays would enhance the developmental supports for this vulnerable population.

Objectives. To assess states’ provision of technical assistance and allocation of block grants for treatment, prevention, and outreach after the expansion of health insurance coverage for addiction treatment in the United States under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Methods. We used 2 waves of survey data collected from Single State Agencies in 2014 and 2017 as part of the National Drug Abuse Treatment System Survey. Results. The percentage of states providing technical assistance for cross-sector collaboration and workforce development increased. States also shifted funds from outpatient to residential treatment services. However, resources for opioid use disorder medications changed little. Subanalyses indicated that technical assistance priorities and allocation of funds for treatment services differed between Medicaid expansion and nonexpansion states. Public Health Implications. The ACA’s infusion of new public and private funds enabled states to reallocate funds to residential services, which are not as likely to be covered by health insurance. The limited allocation of block grant funds for effective opioid medications is concerning in light of the opioid crisis, especially in states that did not implement the ACA’s Medicaid expansion.

Background Despite being highly motivated to recover, pregnant and postpartum women with opioid use disorders (OUD) are at high risk of relapse and death. While many services mitigate this risk, engagement in voluntary, outpatient services remains low. Our aim was to understand the experiences of and factors influencing outpatient service engagement during the perinatal period among women in recovery from OUD. Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews about perinatal experiences engaging with outpatient services, with 20 women in recovery aged 22–46 years who had children between 6 months and 10 years old. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, coded, and analyzed using conventional content analysis. Results Women described a continuum of ‘collaborative engagement’ experiences, defined by the extent to which they perceived their providers or service organizations were invested in their journeys as a partners and advocates. The ability to achieve collaborative engagement depended upon two factors: (1) the woman's transformational development as a mother and woman in recovery, and (2) her perception of the providers’ ability to meet her multifaceted needs. Conclusions Women in recovery from OUD may experience deeper engagement in voluntary outpatient perinatal services when they perceive that their providers are invested and collaboratively engaging in their recovery and personal growth. Future research should test whether collaborative engagement improves service retention. Abbreviations: IPV: Intimate Partner Violence; OUD: opioid use disorder

Excessive alcohol use is a risk factor for most cardiac diseases. The prevalence of unhealthy alcohol use among hospitalized cardiac patients is uncertain as is the frequency with which it is addressed. We performed a single center, patient-level anonymous survey among hospitalized cardiac patients eligible for cardiac rehabilitation. Hazardous drinking was defined as an Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) score of 8 or greater. Binge drinking was defined as 5+ drinks for men or 4+ for women on ≥1 occasion within the past 30 days. Unhealthy drinking was defined as either hazardous or binge drinking. Of 300 patients approached, 290 (96.7%) completed the survey. Mean ( ± SD) age was 69 ± 11 years; 70% were male and 31% were cardiac surgical patients. The proportion (95% CI) of hazardous, binge, and unhealthy drinking was 12% (9 to 16), 16% (12 to 20), and 18% (14-23), respectively. Overall, 58% of subjects reported being screened for alcohol use, mostly by nurses (56%). Those with unhealthy drinking reported being counseled more frequently about their alcohol use compared to non-unhealthy drinkers (11% versus 3%, p = 0.03), but the large majority (89%) of unhealthy drinkers reported receiving no advice about their alcohol use while admitted. In conclusion, almost one-fifth of hospitalized cardiac patients reported unhealthy drinking, these patients were only screened about half of the time, and were rarely counseled about their alcohol use.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with legal involvement and opioid use disorders (OUD) are at an increased risk of overdose and premature death. Yet, few correctional systems provide all FDA approved medications for OUD (MOUD) to all qualifying incarcerated individuals. We report on the implementation of MOUD in seven Massachusetts’ jails following a state legislative mandate to provide access to all FDA-approved MOUD and to connect with treatment upon release. METHODS/PARTICIPANTS: Based on the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment framework, 61 clinical, corrections, and senior jail administrators participated in semi-structured interviews and focus groups between December 2019 and January 2020. Qualitative analyses focused on external and internal contexts and bridging factors. FINDINGS: Participants detailed how the outer context (i.e., legislative mandate) drove acceptance of MOUD and assisted with continuity of care. Salient inner context factors included decision-making around administration of agonist medications, staff perceptions and training, and changes to infrastructure and daily routines. Leadership was critical in flattening standard hierarchies and advocating for flexibility. System-based characteristics of incarcerated individuals, specifically those who were pre-sentenced, presented challenges with treatment initiation. Inter- and intra-agency bridging factors reduced duplication of effort and led to quick, innovative solutions. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of MOUD in jails requires collaboration with and reliance on external agencies. Preparation for implementation should involve systematic reviews of available resources and connections. Implementation requires flexibility from institutional systems that are inherently rigid. Accordingly, leaders and policymakers must recognize the cultural shift inherent in such programs and allow for resources and education to assure program success.

A major driver of the U.S. opioid crisis is limited access to effective medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) that reduce overdose risks. Traditionally, jails and prisons in the U.S. have not initiated or maintained MOUD for incarcerated individuals with OUD prior to their return to the community, which places them at high risk for fatal overdose. A 2018 law (Chapter 208) made Massachusetts (MA) the first state to mandate that five county jails deliver all FDA-approved MOUDs (naltrexone [NTX], buprenorphine [BUP], and methadone). Chapter 208 established a 4-year pilot program to expand access to all FDA-approved forms of MOUD at five jails, with two more MA jails voluntarily joining this initiative. The law stipulates that MOUD be continued for individuals receiving it prior to detention and be initiated prior to release among sentenced individuals where appropriate. The jails must also facilitate continuation of MOUD in the community on release. The Massachusetts Justice Community Opioid Innovation Network (MassJCOIN) partnered with these seven diverse jails, the MA Department of Public Health, and community treatment providers to conduct a Type 1 hybrid effectiveness-implementation study of Chapter 208. We will: (1) Perform a longitudinal treatment outcome study among incarcerated individuals with OUD who receive NTX, BUP, methadone, or no MOUD in jail to examine postrelease MOUD initiation, engagement, and retention, as well as fatal and nonfatal opioid overdose and recidivism; (2) Conduct an implementation study to understand systemic and contextual factors that facilitate and impede delivery of MOUDs in jail and community care coordination, and strategies that optimize MOUD delivery in jail and for coordinating care with community partners; (3) Calculate the cost to the correctional system of implementing MOUD in jail, and conduct an economic evaluation from state policy-maker and societal perspectives to compare the value of MOUD prior to release from jail to no MOUD among matched controls. MassJCOIN made significant progress during its first six months until the COVID-19 pandemic began in March 2020. Participating jail sites restricted access for nonessential personnel, established other COVID-19 mitigation policies, and modified MOUD programming. MassJCOIN adapted research activities to this new reality in an effort to document and account for the impacts of COVID-19 in relation to each aim. The goal remains to produce findings with direct implications for policy and practice for OUD in criminal justice settings.

Introduction: Excessive alcohol intake and binge drinking behavior has known detrimental cardiovascular impacts. National estimates suggest that about 7% of U.S. adults has hazardous drinking behavior, but it is unclear if this is different among the inpatient cardiac population and, furthermore, how often this issue is addressed during hospitalization. Hypothesis: Prevalence of alcohol use is underappreciated in the cardiac population due to purported health benefits, and therefore, likely to be overlooked. Methods: Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), among patients hospitalized for cardiac surgery, heart failure (HF) or myocardial infarction (MI) between June and September 2019. Problem drinking was defined as an AUDIT score of ≥8 with binge drinking defined as 5+ drinks for men or 4+ for women on a single occasion within the past 30 days. Hazardous drinking was defined as a combination of either problem or binge drinking behavior. Results: Of 300 patients approached, a total of 290 (96.7%) completed the survey (33% non-drinkers, age 69 ± 11 years, 70% male, 4% Spanish-speaking, 31% surgical). The rate (95% CI) of problem, binge, and hazardous drinking was 12% (9-16), 16% (12-20), and 18% (14-23), respectively. Irrespective of alcohol use, 58% of patients reported being asked about alcohol use during their admission, mostly by nurses (56%). Patients with hazardous drinking were counseled more frequently about their alcohol use compared to non-hazardous drinkers, (11% vs 3%, p = 0.03), but the large majority (89%) of hazardous drinkers received no advice about their alcohol use while hospitalized and only 34 (12%) patients reported having ever been given a recommendation about alcohol consumption by a cardiologist or cardiac surgeon. Conclusions: In patients hospitalized for acute cardiac illnesses, the prevalence of problem drinking was more than double national estimates. About half of patients with problem drinking behavior were asked about their alcohol, and only a minority of patients received counseling. Our findings suggest that hazardous alcohol use is more common that previously appreciated, and that there are substantial health-system gaps in screening and counseling for this important cardiovascular risk factor.

Background Calls for more patient-centered care are growing in the substance use disorder (SUD) treatment field. However, evidence is sparse regarding whether patient-centered care improves access to, or utilization of, effective treatment services. Methods Using nationally representative survey data from SUD treatment clinics in the United States, we examine the association between patient-centered clinical care and the utilization of six services: methadone, buprenorphine, behavioral treatment, routine medical care, HIV testing, and suicide prevention counseling. We measured clinics' practice of and emphasis on patient-centered care with two variables: (1) whether the clinic regularly invites patients into clinical decision-making processes, and (2) whether supervisors believe in patient-centered healthcare and shared decision-making practices within their clinics. Results In 2017, only 23% of SUD treatment clinics regularly invited patients into care decision-making meetings when their cases were discussed. A composite variable captured clinical supervisors' own experience with and expectations for patient-clinician interaction within their clinics (Cronbach's alpha = 0.79). Results from regression models that controlled for several organizational and environmental factors show that patient-centered care was independently associated with greater utilization of four of six evidence-based services. Conclusions A minority of SUD clinics practice patient-centered healthcare in the United States. Given the connection to evidence-based services, increasing participatory mechanisms in SUD treatment service provision can facilitate patients' access to appropriate and evidence-based services.

BACKGROUND: Buprenorphine is an effective medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) when offered in community-based settings, but evidence is limited for incarcerated populations, particularly in relation to recidivism. In Massachusetts, Franklin County jail (FCSO) was among the first to provide buprenorphine; adjacent Hampshire County jail (HCHC) offered it more recently. These jails present a natural experiment to determine whether outcomes are different between individuals who did and did not have the opportunity to receive buprenorphine in jail. METHODS: We examined outcomes of all incarcerated adults with opioid use disorder (n=469) who did (FCSO n=197) and did not (HCHC n=272) have the opportunity to receive buprenorphine. The primary outcome was post-release recidivism, defined as time from jail exit to a recidivism event (incarceration, probation violation, arraignment). Using Cox proportional hazards models, we investigated site as a predictor, controlling for covariates. We also examined post-release deaths. RESULTS: Fewer FCSO than HCHC individuals recidivated (48.2% vs. 62.5%; p=0.001); fewer FCSO individuals were re-arraigned (36.0% vs. 47.1%; p=0.046) or re-incarcerated (21.3% vs. 39.0%; p

Background Despite increasing opioid overdose mortality, problems persist in the availability and quality of treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD). Three FDA-approved medications (methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone) have high quality evidence supporting their use, but most individuals with OUD do not receive them and many experience relapse following care episodes. Developing and organizing quality measures under a unified framework such as a Cascade of Care could improve system level practice and treatment outcomes. In this context, a review was performed of existing quality measures relevant to the treatment of OUD and the literature assessing the utility of these measures in community practice. Methods Systematic searches of two national quality measure clearinghouses (National Quality Forum and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality) were performed for measures that can be applied to the treatment of OUD. Measures were categorized as structural, process, or outcome measures. Second stage searches were then performed within Ovid/Medline focused on published studies investigating the feasibility, reliability, and validity of identified measures, predictors of their satisfaction, and related clinical outcomes. Results Seven quality measures were identified that are applicable to the treatment of OUD. All seven were process measures that assess patterns of service delivery. One recently approved measure addresses retention in medication-assisted treatment for patients with OUD. Twenty-nine published studies were identified that evaluate the quality measures, primarily focused on initiation and engagement in care for addiction treatment generally. Most measures and related studies do not specifically incorporate the evidence base for the treatment of OUD or assess patient level outcomes such as overdose. Conclusion Despite considerable progress, gaps exist in quality measures for OUD treatment. Development of a unified quality measurement framework such as an OUD Treatment Cascade will require further elaboration and refinement of existing measures across populations and settings. Such a framework could form the basis for applying strategies at clinical, organizational, and policy levels to expand access to quality care and reduce opioid-related mortality.

Objective To assess the relationship of restrictions on Medicaid benefits for addiction treatment to Medicaid acceptance among addiction treatment programs. Data sources We collected primary data from the 2013–2014 wave of the National Drug Abuse Treatment System Survey. Study design We created two measures of benefits restrictiveness. In the first, we calculated the number of addiction treatment services covered by each state Medicaid program. In the second, we calculated the total number of utilization controls imposed on each service. Using a mixed-effects logistic regression model, we estimated the relationship between state Medicaid benefit restrictiveness for addiction treatment and adjusted odds of Medicaid acceptance among addiction treatment programs. Data collection Study data come from a nationally-representative sample of 695 addiction treatment programs (85.5% response rate), representatives from Medicaid programs in forty-seven states and the District of Columbia (response rate 92%), and data collected by the American Society for Addiction Medicine. Principal findings Addiction treatment programs in states with more restrictive Medicaid benefits for addiction treatment had lower odds of accepting Medicaid enrollees (AOR = 0.65; CI = 0.43, 0.97). The predicted probability of Medicaid acceptance was 35.4% in highly restrictive states, 48.3% in moderately restrictive states, and 61.2% in the least restrictive states. Conclusions Addiction treatment programs are more likely to accept Medicaid in states with less restrictive benefits for addiction treatment. Program ownership and technological infrastructure also play an important role in increasing Medicaid acceptance.

Opioid use disorder is often treated with short term hospitalization and medically supervised withdrawal from opioids followed by counseling alone without medication assisted treatment (MAT). More evidence is needed to confirm the expectation that the rate of relapse would be high after short term inpatient treatment and withdrawal from opioids without follow-up MAT.To examine relapse to opioid use disorder in a randomized, multi-site effectiveness trial of extended-release injection naltrexone (XR-NTX) vs community-based treatment as usual (TAU) without medication, as a function of the type of clinical service where treatment was initiated-short-term inpatient (N=59), long-term inpatient (N=48), or outpatient (N=201). Inpatients typically were admitted to treatment actively using opioids and had completed withdrawal from opioids before study entry. Outpatients typically presented already abstinent for varying periods of time.One month after randomization, relapse rates on TAU by setting were: short-term inpatient: 63%; long term inpatient: 14%; outpatient: 28%. On XR-NTX relapse rates after one month were low (12%) across all three settings. At the end of the 6 month trial, relapse rates on TAU were high across all treatment-initiation settings (short term inpatient 77%; long term inpatient 59%; outpatient 61%), while XR-NTX exerted a modest protective effect against relapse across settings (short term inpatient: 59%; long term inpatient 46%; outpatient 38%).Short term inpatient treatment is associated with a high rate of relapse among patients with opioid use disorder. These findings support the recommendation that medically supervised withdrawal from opioids should be followed by medication assisted treatment.

Background Extended release naltrexone (XR-NTX) injected intramuscularly monthly has been shown to reduce relapse in persons with opioid use disorder. Baseline factors, including patients' demographics, comorbidities and lifestyle, may help identify patients who will benefit most or least from XR-NTX treatment. Methods Potential moderators of XR-NTX's effect were examined in the largest North American randomized open-label effectiveness trial of XR-NTX. Relapse status (Yes/No) at 6-month follow-up was regressed on treatment group (XR-NTX, N=153; or Treatment-as-Usual [TAU], N=155), baseline covariates, and their two-way interaction to identify moderator effects. Baseline covariates included age, gender, summary scores for depression, suicidal thoughts, drug abuse risk, substance use, medical, psychiatric and employment status, socialization, legal and family/social issues, history of abuse and quality of life measures. Results Alcohol use to intoxication in the 30days before randomization was a significant moderator: during the treatment phase, those who reported being recently intoxicated before randomization to XR-NTX relapsed to opioids at a rate (56%) similar to TAU (58%), while those without alcohol intoxication in the prior 30days had a lower rate of opioid relapse (41% vs. 65%, respectively, P Conclusions XR-NTX appeared to work equally well across subgroups with diverse demographic, addiction, mental health and environmental characteristics, with the possible exception of working better among those without recent alcohol intoxication. These findings should be reassuring to practitioners increasingly using XR-NTX as medical addiction therapy in diverse and often vulnerable populations.

Objectives. To examine how utilization restrictions on state Medicaid benefits for buprenorphine are related to addiction treatment programs’ decision to offer the drug. Methods. We used data from 2 waves of the National Drug Abuse Treatment System Survey conducted in 2014 and 2017 in the United States to assess the relationship of utilization restrictions to buprenorphine availability. Results. The proportion of programs offering buprenorphine was 43.2% in states that did not impose any utilization restrictions, 25.5% in states that imposed only annual limits, 17.3% in states that imposed only prior authorization, and 12.8% in states that imposed both. Programs in states requiring prior authorization from Medicaid had substantially lower odds of offering buprenorphine (odds ratio = 0.50; 95% confidence interval = 0.29, 0.87). Conclusions. Medicaid prior authorization was linked to lower odds of buprenorphine provision among addiction treatment programs. Public Health Implications. State Medicaid prior authorization requirements are linked to reduced odds of buprenorphine provision among addiction treatment programs and may discourage prescribing.

Background/Aims Criminal-justice-involved persons are highly susceptible to opioid relapse and overdose-related deaths. In a recent randomized trial, we demonstrated the effectiveness of extended release naltrexone (XR-NTX; Vivitrol®) in preventing opioid relapse among criminal-justice-involved U.S. adults with a history of opioid use disorder. The cost of XR-NTX may be a significant barrier to adoption. Thus, it is important to account for improved quality of life, and downstream cost-offsets. Our aims were to (1) estimate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for XR-NTX versus treatment as usual (TAU), and evaluate it relative to generally-accepted value thresholds; and (2) estimate the incremental cost per additional year of opioid abstinence. Design Economic evaluation of the aforementioned trial from the taxpayer perspective. Participants were randomized to 25 weeks of XR-NTX injections or TAU; follow-up occurred at 52 and 78 weeks. Setting Five study sites in the U.S. Northeast corridor. Participants 308 participants were randomized to XR-NTX (n = 153) or TAU (n = 155). Measurements Incremental costs relative to incremental economic and clinical effectiveness measures, QALYs and abstinent-years, respectively. Findings The 25-week cost-per-QALY and -abstinent-year figures were $162,150 and $46,329, respectively. The 78-week figures were $76,400/QALY and $16,371/abstinent-year. At 25 weeks, we can be 10% certain that XR-NTX is cost-effective at a value threshold of $100,000/QALY, and 62% certain at $200,000/QALY. At 78 weeks, the cost-effectiveness probabilities are 59% at $100,000/QALY and 76% at $200,000/QALY. We can be 95% confident that the intervention would be considered a “good-value” at $90,000/abstinent-year at 25 weeks, and $500/abstinent-year at 78 weeks. Conclusions While extended release naltrexone appears to be effective in increasing both quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and abstinence, it does not appear to be cost-effective using generally-accepted value thresholds for QALYs, due to the high price of the injection.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: To identify possible failures that could occur in the delivery of an evidence-based parenting program for mothers with substance use disorders (SUD) through existing home-visiting services, and to develop solutions to the most significant failures. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Using failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) methodology, we conducted two 2-hour advisory panel discussions with 15 people from a variety of disciplines and life experiences related to SUDs. The intervention delivery process included five steps: (1) Recruitment, (2) Screening, (3) Matching, (4) Enrollment in person, and (5) Intervention delivery. Participants collectively determined possible failures, causes, and consequences. Participants then agreed on three scores (Likert Scale 0-10) for the likelihood of occurrence, detection, and severity of the failure, with 10 being the highest likelihood, difficulty detecting, or severity. A risk priority number (RPN) was calculated as the product of the 3 scores (maximum RPN = 1,000). The group then identified possible solutions for failures with higher RPNs. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: For each step in the process we identified the following number of failure nodes and RPN scores: (1) recruitment: 13 failures; RPN = 800, (2) screening: 102 failures; RPN = 10, (3) matching: 4 failures: RPN = 490, (4) enrollment: 6 failures; RPN = 80, (5) delivery: 11 failures; RPN = 80. The most critical failures related to recruitment and were perceived as being caused by potential development of mistrust in the community. Participants strongly encouraged the use of “strengths-based language,” clear referral plans for mothers that did not qualify, and inclusion of mothers that did not have custody of their children. These findings resulted in changes to the screening script, enrollment procedures, and inclusion criterial for the program. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: FMEA methodology was particularly effective in identifying possible failures for the integration of an evidence-based parenting program into existing home-visiting services as they related to the psychological safety of mothers with SUDs. The process resulted in direct changes to procedures for the anticipated program integration and study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Opioid-exposed infants frequently qualify for early intervention (EI). However, many eligible families choose not to enroll in this voluntary service. This study aims to understand the perceptions and experiences that may impact engagement with, and the potential benefits of, EI services among mothers in recovery from opioid use disorders (OUDs). METHODS: We conducted semistructured qualitative interviews (n = 22) and 1 focus group (n = 6) with mothers in recovery from OUDs in western Massachusetts. Transcripts were coded and analyzed by using a descriptive approach. RESULTS: The mean participant age was 32 years, and 13 had a high school degree or less. Five major themes emerged revealing mothers’ development through stages of engagement in EI services: (1) fear, guilt, and shame related to drug use (emotions acting as barriers to enrollment); (2) the question of whether it is “needed” (deciding whether there is value in EI for opioid-exposed infants); (3) starting with “judgment” (baseline level of perceived stigma that parents in recovery associate with EI); (4) breaking down the “wall” (how parents overcome the fear and perceived judgment to build partnerships with providers); and (5) “above and beyond” (need for a personal connection with mothers and concrete supports through EI in addition to the child-focused services provided). CONCLUSIONS: Barriers to engagement in EI among mothers in recovery from OUDs include a range of emotions, perceived stigma, and ambivalence. An effort to purposefully listen to and care for mothers through a strengths-based, bigenerational approach may help establish greater connections and foster stronger EI engagement among families affected by OUDs.

Substance use disorder treatment professionals are paying increased attention to implementing patient-centered care. Understanding environmental and organizational factors associated with clinicians' efforts to engage patients in clinical decision-making processes is essential for bringing patient-centered care to the addictions field. This study examined factors associated with patient-centered care practices in substance use disorder treatment.Data were from the 2017 National Drug Abuse Treatment System Survey, a nationally representative survey of U.S substance use disorder treatment clinics (outpatient nonopioid treatment programs, outpatient opioid treatment programs, inpatient clinics, and residential clinics). Multivariate regression analyses examined whether clinics invited patients into clinical decision-making processes and whether clinical supervisors supported and believed in patient-centered care practices.Of the 657 substance use disorder clinics included in the analysis, about 23% invited patients to participate in clinical decision-making processes. Clinicians were more likely to engage patients in decision-making processes when working in residential clinics (compared with outpatient nonopioid treatment programs) or in clinics serving a smaller proportion of patients with alcohol or opioid use disorder. Clinical supervisors were more likely to value patient-centered care practices if the organization's administrative director perceived less regional competition or relied on professional information sources to understand developments in the substance use disorder treatment field. Clinicians' tendency to engage patients in decision-making processes was positively associated with clinical supervisors' emphasis on patient-centered care.A minority of U.S. substance use disorder clinics invited patients into clinical decision-making processes. Therefore, patient-centered care may be unavailable to certain vulnerable patient groups.

Weak service coordination between community corrections and community treatment agencies is a significant barrier in the diffusion of pharmacotherapy for treating opioid and alcohol use disorders. This analysis draws on qualitative interviews (n=141) collected in a multisite randomized trial to explore what probation/parole officers and treatment staff believe are the most critical influences on developing positive interorganizational relationships (IORs) between their respective agencies. Officers and treatment staff highlighted factors at both the individual and organizational level, with issues related to communication surfacing as pivotal. Findings suggest that future interventions consider developing shared interagency goals with input at all staff levels.

Given the increase of opioid dependence and opioid-related morbidity and mortality, improving treatment options for individuals with opioid dependence warrants increased attention. This article provides a concise review of work in this area. Remission from opioid dependence can be very difficult to sustain, particularly in the absence of opioid replacement or opioid antagonist therapy. For those who wish to transition from opioid use or opioid replacement therapy to opioid antagonist therapy, a significant challenge can be the period of withdrawal symptoms that must be endured prior to the initiation of opioid antagonist therapy. Studies that have incorporated psychosocial interventions into detoxification protocols have found that they can result in improved treatment outcomes. Interventions based on Acceptance and Commitment Therapy have shown promise in the treatment of clinical disorders that present with symptoms similar to those of opioid withdrawal and have been found to positively impact outcomes among those tapering from methadone. However, the use of an Acceptance and Commitment Therapy-based intervention has yet to be studied among opioid-dependent patients transitioning to XR-NTX, and its value to those transitioning to XR-NTX is currently unknown.

Background In rural northern New England, located in the northeastern United States, the overdose epidemic has accelerated with the introduction of fentanyl. Opioid initiation and transition to opioid injection have been studied in urban settings. Little is known about opioid initiation and transition to injection drug use in rural northern New England. Methods This mixed-methods study characterized opioid use and drug injection in 11 rural counties in Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire between 2018 and 2019. People who use drugs completed audio computer-assisted self-interview surveys on substance use and risk behaviors (n = 589) and shared personal narratives through in-depth interviews (n = 22). The objective of the current study is to describe initiation of opioid use and drug injection in rural northern New England. Results Median age of first injection was 22 years (interquartile range 18–28 years). Key themes from in-depth interviews that led to initiating drug injection included normalization of drug use in families and communities, experiencing trauma, and abrupt discontinuation of an opioid prescription. Other factors that led to a transition to injecting included lower cost, increased effect/ rush, greater availability of heroin/ fentanyl, and faster relief of withdrawal symptoms with injection. Conclusions Trauma, normalization of drug use, over-prescribing of opioids, and abrupt discontinuation challenge people who use drugs in rural northern New England communities. Inadequate opioid tapering may increase transition to non-prescribed drug use. The extent and severity of traumatic experiences described highlights the importance of enhancing trauma-informed care in rural areas.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) established a minimum standard of insurance benefits for addiction treatment and expanded federal parity regulations to selected Medicaid benefit plans, which required state Medicaid programs to make changes to their addiction treatment benefits. We surveyed Medicaid programs in all fifty states and the District of Columbia regarding their addiction treatment benefits and utilization controls in standard and alternative benefit plans in 2014 and 2017, when plans were subject to ACA parity requirements. The number of state plans that provided benefits for residential treatment and opioid use disorder medications increased substantially. States imposing annual service limits on outpatient addiction treatment decreased by over 50 percent. Fewer states required preauthorization for services, with the largest reductions for medications treating opioid use disorder. The ACA may have prompted state Medicaid programs to expand addiction treatment benefits and reduce utilization controls in alternative benefit plans. This trend was also observed among standard Medicaid plans not subject to ACA parity laws, which suggests a potential spillover effect.