ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The opioid intervention court (OIC) is an innovative, pre-plea treatment court to facilitate rapid linkage to medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) for people at risk of overdose. This study compares participants in OIC and participants with opioid use problems in a traditional drug treatment court model on (i) initiation for any substance use (SU) treatment, (ii) initiation of MOUD, (iii) number of days to MOUD initiation, and (iv) retention in the OIC program/retention on MOUD. METHODS: We used administrative court records from n = 389 OIC and n = 229 drug court participants in 2 counties in New York State. Differences in outcomes by court were assessed using logistic, multinomial, or linear regressions. RESULTS: After adjusting for current charge severity, gender, race/ethnicity, age, and county, OIC participants were no more likely to initiate any SU treatment but were significantly more likely to initiate MOUD (81.2% OIC vs 45.9% drug court, P < 0.001) and were more quickly linked to any SU treatment (hazard ratio = 1.68, 95% confidence interval = 1.35-2.08) and MOUD (hazard ratio = 4.25, 95% confidence interval = 3.23-5.58) after starting the court. Retention in court/MOUD was higher among drug court participants and may speak to the immediate sanctions (eg, jail) for noncompliance with drug court directives as compared with opioid court, which does not carry such immediate sanctions for noncompliance. CONCLUSIONS: These analyses suggest that the new OIC model can more rapidly link participants to treatment, including MOUD, as compared with traditional drug court model, and may demonstrate improved ability to immediately stabilize and reduce overdose risk in court participants.
ABSTRACT
Background: The risk for cannabis use disorder (CUD) is elevated among U.S. adults with chronic pain, and CUD rates are disproportionately increasing in this group. Little is known about the role of medical cannabis laws (MCL) and recreational cannabis laws (RCL) in these increases. Among U.S. Veterans Health Administration (VHA) patients, we examined whether MCL and RCL effects on CUD prevalence differed between patients with and without chronic pain. Methods: Patients with ≥1 primary care, emergency, or mental health visit to the VHA and no hospice/palliative care within a given calendar year, 2005-2019 (yearly n=3,234,382 to 4,579,994) were analyzed using VHA electronic health record (EHR) data. To estimate the role of MCL and RCL enactment in the increases in prevalence of diagnosed CUD and whether this differed between patients with and without chronic pain, staggered-adoption difference-in-difference analyses were used, fitting a linear binomial regression model with fixed effects for state, categorical year, time-varying cannabis law status, state-level sociodemographic covariates, a chronic pain indicator, and patient covariates (age group [18-34, 35-64; 65-75], sex, and race and ethnicity). Pain was categorized using an American Pain Society taxonomy of painful medical conditions. Outcomes: In patients with chronic pain, enacting MCL led to a 0·14% (95% CI=0·12%-0·15%) absolute increase in CUD prevalence, with 8·4% of the total increase in CUD prevalence in MCL-enacting states attributable to MCL. Enacting RCL led to a 0·19% (95%CI: 0·16%, 0·22%) absolute increase in CUD prevalence, with 11·5% of the total increase in CUD prevalence in RCL-enacting states attributable to RCL. In patients without chronic pain, enacting MCL and RCL led to smaller absolute increases in CUD prevalence (MCL: 0·037% [95%CI: 0·03, 0·05]; RCL: 0·042% [95%CI: 0·02, 0·06]), with 5·7% and 6·0% of the increases in CUD prevalence attributable to MCL and RCL. Overall, MCL and RCL effects were significantly greater in patients with than without chronic pain. By age, MCL and RCL effects were negligible in patients age 18-34 with and without pain. In patients age 35-64 with and without pain, MCL and RCL effects were significant (p<0.001) but small. In patients age 65-75 with pain, absolute increases were 0·10% in MCL-only states and 0·22% in MCL/RCL states, with 9·3% of the increase in CUD prevalence in MCL-only states attributable to MCL, and 19.4% of the increase in RCL states attributable to RCL. In patients age 35-64 and 65-75, MCL and RCL effects were significantly greater in patients with pain. Interpretation: In patients age 35-75, the role of MCL and RCL in the increasing prevalence of CUD was greater in patients with chronic pain than in those without chronic pain, with particularly pronounced effects in patients with chronic pain age 65-75. Although the VHA offers extensive behavioral and non-opioid pharmaceutical treatments for pain, cannabis may seem a more appealing option given media enthusiasm about cannabis, cannabis commercialization activities, and widespread public beliefs about cannabis efficacy. Cannabis does not have the risk/mortality profile of opioids, but CUD is a clinical condition with considerable impairment and comorbidity. Because cannabis legalization in the U.S. is likely to further increase, increasing CUD prevalence among patients with chronic pain following state legalization is a public health concern. The risk of chronic pain increases as individuals age, and the average age of VHA patients and the U.S. general population is increasing. Therefore, clinical monitoring of cannabis use and discussion of the risk of CUD among patients with chronic pain is warranted, especially among older patients. Research in Context: Evidence before this study: Only three studies have examined the role of state medical cannabis laws (MCL) and/or recreational cannabis laws (RCL) in the increasing prevalence of cannabis use disorder (CUD) in U.S. adults, finding significant MCL and RCL effects but with modest effect sizes. Effects of MCL and RCL may vary across important subgroups of the population, including individuals with chronic pain. PubMed was searched by DH for publications on U.S. time trends in cannabis legalization, cannabis use disorders (CUD) and pain from database inception until March 15, 2023, without language restrictions. The following search terms were used: (medical cannabis laws) AND (pain) AND (cannabis use disorder); (recreational cannabis laws) AND (pain) AND (cannabis use disorder); (cannabis laws) AND (pain) AND (cannabis use disorder). Only one study was found that had CUD as an outcome, and this study used cross-sectional data from a single year, which cannot be used to determine trends over time. Therefore, evidence has been lacking on whether the role of state medical and recreational cannabis legalization in the increasing US adult prevalence of CUD differed by chronic pain status.Added value of this study: To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine whether the effects of state MCL and RCL on the nationally increasing U.S. rates of adult cannabis use disorder differ by whether individuals experience chronic pain or not. Using electronic medical record data from patients in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) that included extensive information on medical conditions associated with chronic pain, the study showed that the effects of MCL and RCL on the prevalence of CUD were stronger among individuals with chronic pain age 35-64 and 65-75, an effect that was particularly pronounced in older patients ages 65-75.Implications of all the available evidence: MCL and RCL are likely to influence the prevalence of CUD through commercialization that increases availability and portrays cannabis use as 'normal' and safe, thereby decreasing perception of cannabis risk. In patients with pain, the overall U.S. decline in prescribed opioids may also have contributed to MCL and RCL effects, leading to substitution of cannabis use that expanded the pool of individuals vulnerable to CUD. The VHA offers extensive non-opioid pain programs. However, positive media reports on cannabis, positive online "information" that can sometimes be misleading, and increasing popular beliefs that cannabis is a useful prevention and treatment agent may make cannabis seem preferable to the evidence-based treatments that the VHA offers, and also as an easily accessible option among those not connected to a healthcare system, who may face more barriers than VHA patients in accessing non-opioid pain management. When developing cannabis legislation, unintended consequences should be considered, including increased risk of CUD in large vulnerable subgroups of the population.
