Incarceration history and opioid use among adults living with HIV and chronic pain: a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Adults living with HIV have disproportionately high chronic pain, prescription opioid use, history of substance use, and incarceration. While incarceration can have long-lasting health impacts, prior studies have not examined whether distant (>1 year prior) incarceration is associated with opioid use for chronic pain, or with opioid misuse or opioid use disorder among people living with HIV and chronic pain. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study of adults living with HIV and chronic pain. The independent variables were any distant incarceration and drug-related distant incarceration (both dichotomous). Dependent variables were current long-term opioid therapy, current opioid misuse, and current opioid use disorder. A series of multivariate logistic regression models were conducted, adjusting for covariates. RESULTS: In a cohort of 148 participants, neither distant incarceration nor drug-related incarceration history were associated with current long-term opioid therapy. Distant incarceration was associated with current opioid misuse (AOR 3.28; 95% CI: 1.41-7.61) and current opioid use disorder (AOR 4.40; 95% CI: 1.54-12.56). Drug-related incarceration history was also associated with current opioid misuse (AOR 4.31; 95% CI: 1.53-12.17) and current opioid use disorder (AOR 7.28; 95% CI: 2.06-25.71). CONCLUSIONS: The positive associations of distant incarceration with current opioid misuse and current opioid use disorder could indicate a persistent relationship between incarceration and substance use in people living with HIV and chronic pain. Additional research on opioid use among formerly incarcerated individuals in chronic pain treatment is needed.

Methadone dosing at New York State opioid treatment programs following initial revisions to federal regulations.

INTRODUCTION: In March 2020, a temporary federal regulatory exemption for opioid treatment programs (OTPs) was issued, allowing for a greater number of take-home methadone doses than was previously permitted. In the same month, to address financial sustainability, New York State (NYS) Medicaid also transitioned to a bundle reimbursement methodology for OTPs. We examined methadone dosing schedules in NYS before and after these regulatory and financing changes. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using NYS OTP patient data from two sources: the client data system for a baseline period (February 2020) and survey data collected after regulatory and financing changes (May 2020 to August 2021, 64 weekly surveys). We compared methadone dosing schedules over time using chi-square tests and Poisson regression. RESULT: At baseline, data were available for 78% (n=77/99) of OTPs including 90.9% (n=26,225/28,839) of their enrolled patients. During the survey period, 99 OTPs completed 93.1% (n=5901/6336) of weekly surveys, with a mean statewide weekly patient census of 38,904 (SD=1214.5). Between February and May 2020, daily dosing significantly decreased from 55.4% to 16.3% of patients (-39.1 percentage points [95%CI: -39.8 to -38.4]), although it significantly increased subsequently (3.33%/4-weeks [95%CI: 3.28, 3.39]). In addition, weekly-to-monthly dosing significantly increased from 26.9% to 54.5% of patients (27.6 percentage points [95%CI: 26.9, 28.4]), although it significantly decreased subsequently (-1.19%/4-weeks [95%CI: -1.23, -1.15]). DISCUSSION: Despite large initial changes, we found a trend toward gradual return to more restrictive dosing schedules. OTPs need further support in leveraging new opportunities to improve methadone treatment and outcomes.

Mitigation through on-site testing & education among formerly incarcerated individuals against Covid-19 - The MOSAIC study: Design and rationale.

BACKGROUND: Many of the largest COVID-19 outbreaks in the United States have occurred at carceral facilities. Criminal legal system (CLS)-involved individuals typically face structural barriers accessing medical care post-release. Improving COVID-19 testing and education for CLS-involved individuals could improve health outcomes for this vulnerable population and the communities to which they return. Community-based organizations (CBO) and community health workers (CHWs) fill care gaps by connecting CLS-involved individuals with essential re-entry services. The MOSAIC study will: 1) test an onsite CHW-led SARS-CoV-2 testing and education intervention in a reentry CBO and 2) model the cost-effectiveness of this intervention compared to standard care. METHODS: We will recruit 250 CLS-involved individuals who have left incarceration in the prior 90 days. Participants will be randomized to receive onsite Point-of-Care testing and education (O-PoC) or Standard of Care (SoC). Over one year, participants will complete quarterly questionnaires and biweekly short surveys through a mobile application, and be tested for SARS-CoV-2 quarterly, either at the CBO (O-PoC) or an offsite community testing site (SoC). O-PoC will also receive COVID-19 mitigation counseling and education from the CHW. Our primary outcome is the proportion of SARS-CoV-2 tests performed with results received by participants. Secondary outcomes include adherence to mitigation behaviors and cost-effectiveness of the intervention. DISCUSSION: The MOSAIC study will offer insight into cost effective strategies for SARS-CoV-2 testing and education for CLS-involved individuals. The study will also contribute to the growing literature on CHW's role in health education, supportive counseling, and building trust between patients and healthcare organizations.

Nurse Care Management for Opioid Use Disorder Treatment: The PROUD Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Few primary care (PC) practices treat patients with medications for opioid use disorder (OUD) despite availability of effective treatments. Objective: To assess whether implementation of the Massachusetts model of nurse care management for OUD in PC increases OUD treatment with buprenorphine or extended-release injectable naltrexone and secondarily decreases acute care utilization. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Primary Care Opioid Use Disorders Treatment (PROUD) trial was a mixed-methods, implementation-effectiveness cluster randomized clinical trial conducted in 6 diverse health systems across 5 US states (New York, Florida, Michigan, Texas, and Washington). Two PC clinics in each system were randomized to intervention or usual care (UC) stratified by system (5 systems were notified on February 28, 2018, and 1 system with delayed data use agreement on August 31, 2018). Data were obtained from electronic health records and insurance claims. An implementation monitoring team collected qualitative data. Primary care patients were included if they were 16 to 90 years old and visited a participating clinic from up to 3 years before a system's randomization date through 2 years after. Intervention: The PROUD intervention included 3 components: (1) salary for a full-time OUD nurse care manager; (2) training and technical assistance for nurse care managers; and (3) 3 or more PC clinicians agreeing to prescribe buprenorphine. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a clinic-level measure of patient-years of OUD treatment (buprenorphine or extended-release injectable naltrexone) per 10 000 PC patients during the 2 years postrandomization (follow-up). The secondary outcome, among patients with OUD prerandomization, was a patient-level measure of the number of days of acute care utilization during follow-up. Results: During the baseline period, a total of 130 623 patients were seen in intervention clinics (mean [SD] age, 48.6 [17.7] years; 59.7% female), and 159 459 patients were seen in UC clinics (mean [SD] age, 47.2 [17.5] years; 63.0% female). Intervention clinics provided 8.2 (95% CI, 5.4-∞) more patient-years of OUD treatment per 10 000 PC patients compared with UC clinics (P = .002). Most of the benefit accrued in 2 health systems and in patients new to clinics (5.8 [95% CI, 1.3-∞] more patient-years) or newly treated for OUD postrandomization (8.3 [95% CI, 4.3-∞] more patient-years). Qualitative data indicated that keys to successful implementation included broad commitment to treat OUD in PC from system leaders and PC teams, full financial coverage for OUD treatment, and straightforward pathways for patients to access nurse care managers. Acute care utilization did not differ between intervention and UC clinics (relative rate, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.47-2.92; P = .70). Conclusions and Relevance: The PROUD cluster randomized clinical trial intervention meaningfully increased PC OUD treatment, albeit unevenly across health systems; however, it did not decrease acute care utilization among patients with OUD. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03407638.

"It doesn't make any sense to even try": the disruptive impact of COVID-19's first wave on people with chronic pain using medical cannabis in New York.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted health care but it is unknown how it impacted the lives of people using medical cannabis for chronic pain. OBJECTIVE: To understand the experiences of individuals from the Bronx, NY, who had chronic pain and were certified to use medical cannabis during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted 1:1 semi-structured qualitative telephone interviews from March through May 2020 with a convenience sample of 14 individuals enrolled in a longitudinal cohort study. We purposively recruited participants with both frequent and infrequent patterns of cannabis use. Interviews addressed the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on daily life, symptoms, medical cannabis purchase, and use. We conducted a thematic analysis, with a codebook approach, to identify and describe prominent themes. RESULTS: Participants' median age was 49 years, nine were female, four were Hispanic, four were non-Hispanic White, and four were non-Hispanic Black. We identified three themes: (1) disrupted access to health services, (2) disrupted access to medical cannabis due to the pandemic, and (3) mixed impact of chronic pain on social isolation and mental health. Due to increased barriers to health care in general and to medical cannabis specifically, participants reduced medical cannabis use, stopped use, or substituted medical cannabis with unregulated cannabis. Living with chronic pain both prepared participants for the pandemic and made the pandemic more difficult. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic amplified pre-existing challenges and barriers to care, including to medical cannabis, among people with chronic pain. Understanding pandemic-era barriers may inform policies in ongoing and future public health emergencies.

Factors Associated with Medical Cannabis Use After Certification: A Three-Month Longitudinal Study.

Background: Over the past decade, there has been increased utilization of medical cannabis (MC) in the United States. Few studies have described sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with MC use after certification and more specifically, factors associated with use of MC products with different cannabinoid profiles. Methods: We conducted a longitudinal cohort study of adults (N=225) with chronic or severe pain on opioids who were newly certified for MC in New York State and enrolled in the study between November 2018 and January 2022. We collected data over participants' first 3 months in the study, from web-based assessment of MC use every 2 weeks (unit of analysis). We used generalized estimating equation models to examine associations of sociodemographic and clinical factors with (1) MC use (vs. no MC use) and (2) use of MC products with different cannabinoid profiles. Results: On average, 29% of the participants used predominantly high delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) MC products within the first 3 months of follow-up, 30% used other MC products, and 41% did not use MC products. Non-Hispanic White race, pain at multiple sites, and past 30-day sedative use were associated with a higher likelihood of MC use (vs. no MC use). Current tobacco use, unregulated cannabis use, and enrollment in the study during the COVID-19 pandemic were associated with a lower likelihood of MC use (vs. no MC use). Among participants reporting MC use, female gender and older age were associated with a lower likelihood of using predominantly high-THC MC products (vs. other MC products). Conclusion: White individuals were more likely to use MC after certification, which may be owing to access and cost issues. The findings that sedative use was associated with greater MC use, but tobacco and unregulated cannabis were associated with less MC use, may imply synergism and substitution that warrant further research. From the policy perspective, additional measures are needed to ensure equitable availability of and access to MC. Health practitioners should check patients' history and current use of sedative, tobacco, and unregulated cannabis before providing an MC recommendation and counsel patients on safe cannabis use. clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03268551).

Reducing Opioid Analgesic Prescribing in Dentistry Through Prescribing Defaults: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of a uniform, reduced, default dispense quantity for new opioid analgesic prescriptions on the quantity of opioids prescribed in dentistry practices. METHODS: We conducted a cluster-randomized controlled trial within a health system in the Bronx, NY, USA. We randomly assigned three dentistry sites to a 10-tablet default, a 5-tablet default, or no change (control). The primary outcome was the quantity of opioid analgesics prescribed in the new prescription. Secondary outcomes were opioid analgesic reorders and health service utilization within 30 days after the new prescription. We analyzed outcomes from 6 months before implementation through 18 months after implementation. RESULTS: Overall, 6,309 patients received a new prescription. Compared with the control site, patients at the 10-tablet-default site had a significantly larger change in prescriptions for 10 tablets or fewer (38.7 percentage points; confidence interval [CI]: 11.5 to 66.0), lower number of tablets prescribed (-3.3 tablets; CI: -5.9 to -0.7), and lower morphine milligram equivalents (MME) prescribed (-14.1 MME; CI: -27.8 to -0.4), which persisted in the 30 days after the new prescription despite a higher percentage of reorders (3.3 percentage points; CI: 0.2 to 6.4). Compared with the control site, patients at the 5-tablet-default site did not have a significant difference in any outcomes except for a significantly higher percentage of reorders (2.6 percentage points; CI: 0.2 to 4.9). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings further support the efficacy of strategies that lower default dispense quantities, although they indicate that caution is warranted in the selection of the default. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.org ID: NCT03030469.

U.S. state policies on opioid prescribing during the peak of the prescription opioid crisis: Associations with opioid overdose mortality.

BACKGROUND: In response to the opioid overdose crisis in the United States, many states implemented policies to guide opioid prescribing, but their impact on overdose mortality (prescription and non-prescription) remains poorly understood. We examined the impact of U.S. state opioid-prescribing policies on opioid overdose mortality following implementation. METHODS: We calculated opioid overdose mortality rates from 1999-2016 by U.S. state using the CDC WONDER database, overall and separately for overdose deaths from prescription and non-prescription opioids. For each state, policies active on 1/1/2014 were reviewed for the presence and strength of six provisions recommending judicious opioid prescribing practices; "strong" provisions used the words "should," "shall," or "must". Interrupted time series (ITS) tested the association of each strong provision with overdose mortality, overall and separately for prescription and non-prescription opioids, in the two years following implementation. Sensitivity analyses compared between states, used time-lagged analyses, and excluded synthetic opioids from non-prescription opioid deaths. RESULTS: All six provisions had consistent direction of effect in ITS and sensitivity analyses. Strong provisions for prescriber training and limits on opioid dose reduced the slope of overall and prescription opioid overdose mortality in both ITS and sensitivity analyses. Reduced non-prescription opioid overdose mortality was only associated with strong provision for prescriber training. Some provisions had a negative impact. In ITS, strong provision for prescriber response to misuse increased the slope of non-prescription opioid overdose mortality. Strong provision for mandatory prescription drug monitoring program use had no relationship with overdose mortality in ITS and was associated with increased overall, prescription and non-prescription opioid overdose mortality in between-state sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSION: Opioid prescribing policies in U.S. states at the peak of the prescription opioid epidemic had modest mortality benefit, and did not reduce non-prescription opioid overdose mortality. A strong provision for prescriber training was the only provision associated with reduced prescription and non-prescription opioid overdose mortality. These findings can inform future efforts addressing prescription drug epidemics.

Increasing Access to Safe Medical Cannabis: Establishment of a Medical Cannabis Program in a Safety-Net Academic Medical Center.

Despite numerous challenges, Montefiore Medical Center in New York City implemented a program aimed at providing comprehensive, evidence-based medical cannabis certifications to patients, including those who have been historically disenfranchised, and shares insights from five years of operation.

Availability of medical cannabis services by racial, social, and geographic characteristics of neighborhoods in New York: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Within the United States (US), because racial/ethnic disparities in cannabis arrests continue, and cannabis legalization is expanding, understanding disparities in availability of legal cannabis services is important. Few studies report mixed findings regarding disparities in availability of legal cannabis services; none examined New York. We examined disparities in availability of medical cannabis services in New York. We hypothesized that New York census tracts with few Black or Hispanic residents, high incomes, high education levels, and greater urbanicity would have more medical cannabis services. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we used data from the 2018 US Census Bureau 5-year American Community Survey and New York Medical Marijuana Program. Main exposures were census tract characteristics, including urban-rural classification, percentage of Black and Hispanic residents, percentage of residents with bachelor's degrees or higher, and median household income. Main outcomes were presence of at least one medical cannabis certifying provider and dispensary in each census tract. To compare census tracts' characteristics with (vs. without) certifying providers and dispensaries, we used chi-square tests and t-tests. To examine characteristics independently associated with (vs. without) certifying providers, we used multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 4858 New York census tracts, 1073 (22.1%) had medical cannabis certifying providers and 37 (0.8%) had dispensaries. Compared to urban census tracts, suburban census tracts were 62% less likely to have at least one certifying provider (aOR = 0.38; 95% CI = 0.25-0.57). For every 10% increase in the proportion of Black residents, a census tract was 5% less likely to have at least one certifying provider (aOR = 0.95; 95% CI = 0.92-0.99). For every 10% increase in the proportion of residents with bachelor's degrees or higher, a census tract was 30% more likely to have at least one certifying provider (aOR = 1.30; 95% CI = 1.21-1.38). Census tracts with (vs. without) dispensaries were more likely to have a higher percentage of residents with bachelor's degrees or higher (43.7% vs. 34.1%, p < 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: In New York, medical cannabis services are least available in neighborhoods with Black residents and most available in urban neighborhoods with highly educated residents. Benefits of legal cannabis must be shared by communities disproportionately harmed by illegal cannabis.

Cascade of care for office-based buprenorphine treatment in Bronx community clinics.

INTRODUCTION: The cascade of care for opioid use disorder (OUD) has been described at the population level to inform health policy and in health care systems, programs, and communities to guide targeted interventions. Office-based buprenorphine treatment is essential for expanding access to OUD treatment; however, few studies examine the cascade of care specifically for office-based buprenorphine treatment. Our objective was to describe a cascade of care for patients referred for office-based buprenorphine treatment in the primary care setting. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with OUD who were referred for office-based buprenorphine treatment within a large, urban health care system between 2018 and 2019. Our primary outcomes included completion of each step of the buprenorphine treatment cascade of care: 1) referred for treatment, 2) scheduled initial visit, 3) completed initial visit, 4) initiated buprenorphine treatment, and 5) retained in treatment at 90 days. We constructed a cascade of care by calculating proportions of patients identified at every step, starting with the total number of patients referred for treatment as the first step. We extracted data from the program's referral database and electronic medical record system. We compared characteristics of patients referred who initiated buprenorphine to those referred who did not initiate buprenorphine treatment using chi-squared tests and t-tests. To account for the hierarchical nature of the data, we conducted a Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) modeling to test the differences in attrition rates among the steps of the cascade of care. RESULTS: In the 24-month period between 2018 and 2019, 226 patients were referred for office-based buprenorphine treatment at Montefiore's Buprenorphine Treatment Network. Patients' mean age at referral was 47 years, and most were male (68.6%), Hispanic (49.6%), and publicly insured (75.7%). Among all patients, 182 (80.5%) were scheduled for an initial visit, 142 (62.8%) completed the initial visit, 134 (59.3%) initiated buprenorphine treatment, and 95 (42.0%) were retained in treatment at 90 days. 37.2% of all patients referred did not complete the initial visit. A GEE model showed that attrition is significantly steeper in the first two steps of the cascade of care, compared to the later three steps (AOR = 1.95, 95% CI = 1.31-2.91, p < 0.05). Compared to referred patients who did not initiate treatment, those referred who initiated treatment were more likely to be using non-prescribed buprenorphine at time of referral (19.4% vs. 5.4%, p < 0.05) and be self-referred (22.4% vs. 9.8%, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Our study is the first to describe a cascade of care for office-based buprenorphine treatment in a large health care system. The study observed the steepest attrition in the first two steps of the cascade of care, where more than a third of patients referred did not complete the initial visit. Patients who were self-referred, or using non-prescribed buprenorphine were more likely to initiate treatment. A cascade of care specific for office-based buprenorphine can inform future efforts to improve linkage to care.

Clinical Management of Opioid Withdrawal.

Appropriate clinical management of opioid withdrawal is a crucial bridge to long-term treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD), because it is a high-risk time for potential opioid overdose and relapse. We provide a narrative review of evidence-based opioid withdrawal management strategies applicable to a variety of treatment settings and geographies. The goals of opioid withdrawal management include relieving suffering associated with withdrawal, providing appropriate diagnosis and screening, engaging patients in initiation of OUD treatment, and using harm reduction strategies, all guided by a patient-centered approach to care. In addition, we discuss complex cases, relapse prevention strategies, and new developments in opioid withdrawal management.

Onsite buprenorphine inductions at harm reduction agencies to increase treatment engagement and reduce HIV risk: Design and rationale.

BACKGROUND: Despite dramatic increases in opioid use disorder (OUD) and overdose deaths, the U.S. has been unable to consistently deliver OUD treatment to those who need it. Syringe services programs (SSPs) can engage an out-of-treatment population of people with OUD that has elevated overdose risk. Buprenorphine treatment is safe and effective, and US regulations allow for prescribing from diverse locations, including SSPs. This study's objective is to test buprenorphine treatment initiation at SSPs. We hypothesize that offering onsite buprenorphine treatment initiation will improve OUD treatment engagement without reducing buprenorphine treatment effectiveness or safety. METHODS: We will recruit 250 out-of-treatment SSP participants with OUD in a large urban area. Participants will be randomized to onsite buprenorphine treatment initiation or enhanced referral. Over 2 weeks, participants in the onsite treatment arm will see a buprenorphine provider twice at the SSP, receive weekly medication packs, and then their care will be transferred to a community health center for treatment continuation. In the control arm, within one week, participants will receive an appointment at the same community health center as in the intervention arm for buprenorphine initiation and continuation. Participants will be assessed with urine drug tests, questionnaires, and medical record review. The primary outcome will be engagement in buprenorphine treatment at 30 days. Secondary outcomes include buprenorphine diversion, opioid-free urine drug tests, and intervention cost-effectiveness. DISCUSSION: Our study will contribute to the growing literature on SSPs as a conduit to OUD treatment. SSPs hold promise to deliver needed care to people with OUD.

A comparison of office-based buprenorphine treatment outcomes in Bronx community clinics before versus during the COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: In 2020, the US and New York City experienced unprecedented deaths due to the COVID-19 pandemic and drug overdoses. Policy changes reduced burdensome regulations for medication treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD). Despite these policy changes, few studies examined buprenorphine treatment outcomes during the pandemic. We compared treatment outcomes among Bronx patients referred to office-based buprenorphine treatment before versus during the pandemic. METHODS: In a retrospective cohort study, we compared patients referred to buprenorphine treatment in a Bronx community clinic before (March-August 2019) versus during (March-August 2020) the pandemic. We describe changes to buprenorphine treatment during the pandemic, including telehealth and prioritizing harm reduction. Using data from medical records and program logs, main outcomes included steps of the OUD treatment cascade of care-initial visit scheduled and completed, treatment initiated, and retained in treatment at 90 days. Using chi square and t-tests, we examined differences in patient characteristics and OUD treatment cascade steps before versus during the pandemic. RESULTS: Before and during the pandemic, 72 and 35 patients were referred to buprenorphine treatment, respectively. Patients' mean age was 46 years, most were male (67.3%) or Hispanic (52.3%), and few had private insurance (19.6%). Patients referred during (vs. before) the pandemic were more likely to have private insurance (31.4% vs. 13.9%, p < 0.05) and be referred from acute care settings (37.1% vs. 19.4%, p < 0.05). No significant differences in OUD cascade of care outcomes existed between those referred during versus before the pandemic. However, among patients who initiated buprenorphine treatment, those referred during (vs. before) the pandemic were more likely to be retained in treatment at 90 days (68.0% vs. 42.9%, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the COVID-19 pandemic's unprecedented devastation to the Bronx, along with worsening drug overdose deaths, OUD cascade of care outcomes were similar among patients referred to buprenorphine treatment before versus during the pandemic. Among patients who initiated buprenorphine treatment, treatment retention was better during (versus before) the pandemic. During a public health emergency, incorporating telehealth and prioritizing harm reduction are key strategies to maintain optimal OUD treatment outcomes.

Clinical Approaches to Cannabis: A Narrative Review.

Cannabis use in the United States is growing at an unprecedented pace. Most states in the United States have legalized medical cannabis use, and many have legalized nonmedical cannabis use. In this setting, health care professionals will increasingly see more patients who have questions about cannabis use, its utility for medical conditions, and the risks of its use. This narrative review provides an overview of the background, pharmacology, therapeutic use, and potential complications of cannabis.

Underrepresentation of diverse populations and clinical characterization in opioid agonist treatment research: A systematic review of the neurocognitive effects of buprenorphine and methadone treatment.

INTRODUCTION: The relative neurocognitive effects of the two most common opioid agonist treatments (OAT; buprenorphine and methadone) for opioid use disorder (OUD) are poorly understood. The aim of this systematic review is to examine the neurocognitive effects of OAT (buprenorphine and methadone) and the clinical and sociodemographic characteristics of study samples. METHODS: The research team queried PubMed, PsycINFO and Cochrane Reviews for articles (01/1980-01/2020) with terms related to neurocognitive testing in adults (age ≥ 18) prescribed OAT. The team extracted neurocognitive data and grouped them by domain (e.g., executive functioning, learning/memory), and assessed study quality. RESULTS: The search retrieved 2341 abstracts, the team reviewed 278 full articles, and 32 met inclusion criteria. Of these, 31 were observational designs and one was an experimental design. Healthy controls performed better across neurocognitive domains than OAT-treated persons (buprenorphine or methadone). Compared to those with active OUD, OAT-treated persons had better neurocognition in various domains. However, in seven studies comparing buprenorphine- and methadone-treated persons, buprenorphine was associated with better neurocognition than was methadone, with moderate to large effect sizes in executive functioning, attention/working memory, and learning/memory. Additionally, OAT research underreports clinical characteristics and underrepresents Black and Latinx adults, as well as women. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that compared to active opioid use, both buprenorphine and methadone treatment are associated with better neurocognitive functioning, but buprenorphine is associated with better executive functioning, attention/working memory, and learning/memory. These findings should be interpreted with caution given widespread methodological heterogeneity, and limited representation of ethnoracially diverse adults and women. Rigorous longitudinal comparisons with more diverse, better characterized samples will help to inform treatment and policy recommendations for persons with OUD.

Pain catastrophizing and mental health phenotypes in adults with refractory chronic pain: A latent class analysis.

Chronic pain, pain catastrophizing, and mental health disorders such as anxiety or depression frequently occur together and are challenging to treat. To help understand the relationship between these conditions, we sought to identify distinct phenotypes associated with worse pain and function. In a cohort of people with chronic pain on opioids seeking medical cannabis in New York, we conducted latent class analysis to identify clusters of participants based on pain catastrophizing and mental health symptoms of depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). We then compared clusters with respect to sociodemographic and clinical characteristics using descriptive statistics. Among 185 participants, we identified four discrete groups: low pain catastrophizing and low mental health symptoms (49% of participants), low pain catastrophizing and ADHD-predominant mental health symptoms (11%), high pain catastrophizing and anxiety-predominant mental health symptoms (11%), and high pain catastrophizing and high mental health symptoms (30%). The group with high pain catastrophizing and high mental health symptoms had the worst pain intensity and interference, disability, insomnia, and quality of life, compared to the two groups with lower pain catastrophizing, though not all differences were statistically significant. Our findings highlight the importance of identifying and addressing pain catastrophizing in patients with comorbid chronic pain and mental health symptoms.