Rapid Initiation of Injection Naltrexone for Opioid Use Disorder: A Stepped-Wedge Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Injectable extended-release (XR)-naltrexone is an effective treatment option for opioid use disorder (OUD), but the need to withdraw patients from opioid treatment prior to initiation is a barrier to implementation. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of the standard procedure (SP) with the rapid procedure (RP) for XR-naltrexone initiation. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Surmounting Withdrawal to Initiate Fast Treatment with Naltrexone study was an optimized stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial conducted at 6 community-based inpatient addiction treatment units. Units using the SP were randomly assigned at 14-week intervals to implement the RP. Participants admitted with OUD received the procedure the unit was delivering at the time of their admission. Participant recruitment took place between March 16, 2021, and July 18, 2022. The last visit was September 21, 2022. Interventions: Standard procedure, based on the XR-naltrexone package insert (approximately 5-day buprenorphine taper followed by a 7- to 10-day opioid-free period and RP, defined as 1 day of buprenorphine at minimum necessary dose, 1 opioid-free day, and ascending low doses of oral naltrexone and adjunctive medications (eg, clonidine, clonazepam, antiemetics) for opioid withdrawal. Main Outcomes and Measures: Receipt of XR-naltrexone injection prior to inpatient discharge (primary outcome). Secondary outcomes included opioid withdrawal scores and targeted safety events and serious adverse events. All analyses were intention-to-treat. Results: A total of 415 participants with OUD were enrolled (mean [SD] age, 33.6 [8.48] years; 205 [49.4%] identified sex as male); 54 [13.0%] individuals identified as Black, 91 [21.9%] as Hispanic, 290 [69.9%] as White, and 22 [5.3%] as multiracial. Rates of successful initiation of XR-naltrexone among the RP group (141 of 225 [62.7%]) were noninferior to those of the SP group (68 of 190 [35.8%]) (odds ratio [OR], 3.60; 95% CI, 2.12-6.10). Withdrawal did not differ significantly between conditions (proportion of days with a moderate or greater maximum Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale score (>12) for RP vs SP: OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.62-2.50). Targeted safety events (RP: 12 [5.3%]; SP: 4 [2.1%]) and serious adverse events (RP: 15 [6.7%]; SP: 3 [1.6%]) were infrequent but occurred more often with RP than SP. Conclusions and Relevance: In this trial, the RP of XR-naltrexone initiation was noninferior to the standard approach and saved time, although it required more intensive medical management and safety monitoring. The results of this trial suggest that rapid initiation could make XR-naltrexone a more viable treatment for patients with OUD. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04762537.

Exemplar Hospital initiation trial to Enhance Treatment Engagement (EXHIT ENTRE): protocol for CTN-0098B a randomized implementation study to support hospitals in caring for patients with opioid use disorder.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalizations involving opioid use disorder (OUD) are increasing. Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) reduce mortality and acute care utilization. Hospitalization is a reachable moment for initiating MOUD and arranging for ongoing MOUD engagement following hospital discharge. Despite existing quality metrics for MOUD initiation and engagement, few hospitals provide hospital based opioid treatment (HBOT). This protocol describes a cluster-randomized hybrid type-2 implementation study comparing low-intensity and high-intensity implementation support strategies to help community hospitals implement HBOT. METHODS: Four state implementation hubs with expertise in initiating HBOT programs will provide implementation support to 24 community hospitals (6 hospitals/hub) interested in starting HBOT. Community hospitals will be randomized to 24-months of either a low-intensity intervention (distribution of an HBOT best-practice manual, a lecture series based on the manual, referral to publicly available resources, and on-demand technical assistance) or a high-intensity intervention (the low-intensity intervention plus funding for a hospital HBOT champion and regular practice facilitation sessions with an expert hub). The primary efficacy outcome, adapted from the National Committee on Quality Assurance, is the proportion of patients engaged in MOUD 34-days following hospital discharge. Secondary and exploratory outcomes include acute care utilization, non-fatal overdose, death, MOUD engagement at various time points, hospital length of stay, and discharges against medical advice. Primary, secondary, and exploratory outcomes will be derived from state Medicaid data. Implementation outcomes, barriers, and facilitators are assessed via longitudinal surveys, qualitative interviews, practice facilitation contact logs, and HBOT sustainability metrics. We hypothesize that the proportion of patients receiving care at hospitals randomized to the high-intensity arm will have greater MOUD engagement following hospital discharge. DISCUSSION: Initiation of MOUD during hospitalization improves MOUD engagement post hospitalization. Few studies, however, have tested different implementation strategies on HBOT uptake, outcome, and sustainability and only one to date has tested implementation of a specific type of HBOT (addiction consultation services). This cluster-randomized study comparing different intensities of HBOT implementation support will inform hospitals and policymakers in identifying effective strategies for promoting HBOT dissemination and adoption in community hospitals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04921787.

Implementing a pharmacist-integrated collaborative model of medication treatment for opioid use disorder in primary care: study design and methodological considerations.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacists remain an underutilized resource in the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD). Although studies have engaged pharmacists in dispensing medications for OUD (MOUD), few studies have evaluated collaborative care models in which pharmacists are an active, integrated part of a primary care team offering OUD care. METHODS: This study seeks to implement a pharmacist integrated MOUD clinical model (called PrIMO) and evaluate its feasibility, acceptability, and impact across four diverse primary care sites. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research is used as an organizing framework for study development and interpretation of findings. Implementation Facilitation is used to support PrIMO adoption. We assess the primary outcome, the feasibility of implementing PrIMO, using the Stages of Implementation Completion (SIC). We evaluate the acceptability and impact of the PrIMO model at the sites using mixed-methods and combine survey and interview data from providers, pharmacists, pharmacy technicians, administrators, and patients receiving MOUD at the primary care sites with patient electronic health record data. We hypothesize that it is feasible to launch delivery of the PrIMO model (reach SIC Stage 6), and that it is acceptable, will positively impact patient outcomes 1 year post model launch (e.g., increased MOUD treatment retention, medication regimen adherence, service utilization for co-morbid conditions, and decreased substance use), and will increase each site's capacity to care for patients with MOUD (e.g., increased number of patients, number of prescribers, and rate of patients per prescriber). DISCUSSION: This study will provide data on a pharmacist-integrated collaborative model of care for the treatment of OUD that may be feasible, acceptable to both site staff and patients and may favorably impact patients' access to MOUD and treatment outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered on Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05310786) on April 5, 2022, https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/study/NCT05310786?id=NCT05310786&rank=1.

Research Priorities for Expansion of Opioid Use Disorder Treatment in the Community Pharmacy.

In the last decade, the U.S. opioid overdose crisis has magnified, particularly since the introduction of synthetic opioids, including fentanyl. Despite the benefits of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), only about a fifth of people with opioid use disorder (OUD) in the U.S. receive MOUD. The ubiquity of pharmacists, along with their extensive education and training, represents great potential for expansion of MOUD services, particularly in community pharmacies. The National Institute on Drug Abuse's National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (NIDA CTN) convened a working group to develop a research agenda to expand OUD treatment in the community pharmacy sector to support improved access to MOUD and patient outcomes. Identified settings for research include independent and chain pharmacies and co-located pharmacies within primary care settings. Specific topics for research included adaptation of pharmacy infrastructure for clinical service provision, strategies for interprofessional collaboration including health service models, drug policy and regulation, pharmacist education about OUD and OUD treatment, including didactic, experiential, and interprofessional curricula, and educational interventions to reduce stigma towards this patient population. Together, expanding these research areas can bring effective MOUD to where it is most needed.

Potential effect of antidepressants on remission from cocaine use disorder - A nationwide matched retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Cocaine use disorder (CUD) is a significant public health issue for which there is no Food and Drug Administration-approved pharmacotherapy. Depressive disorders are common psychiatric comorbidity amongst individuals with CUD. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted among 161,544 patients diagnosed with CUD and depression to evaluate the effectiveness of 13 antidepressants on CUD remission. For any antidepressant found to be associated with CUD remission that had an additional indication, we conducted an additional analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of the candidate drug in patients with CUD with that indication. We then analyzed publicly genomic and functional databases to identify potential explanatory mechanisms of action of the candidate drug in the treatment of CUD. RESULTS: Among these antidepressants, bupropion was associated with higher rates of CUD remission compared to propensity-score matched patients prescribed other antidepressants: hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.57 (95% CI: 1.27-1.94). Bupropion is also approved for smoking cessation. We identified CUD patients with co-occurring nicotine dependence and observed that patients prescribed bupropion displayed a higher rate of CUD remission compared to matched individuals prescribed other drugs for nicotine dependence: 1.38 (95% CI: 1.11-1.71). Genetic and functional analyses revealed that bupropion interacts with four protein-encoding genes (COMT, DRD2, SLC6A3, and SLC6A4) which are also associated with CUD and targets CUD-associated pathways including serotonergic synapses, cocaine addiction, and dopaminergic synapses. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that bupropion might be considered a treatment for improving CUD remission in patients with CUD and co-occurring depression or nicotine dependence.

Buprenorphine use and courses of care for opioid use disorder treatment within the Veterans Health Administration.

BACKGROUND: Retention of patients in buprenorphine medication treatment for opioid use disorder (B-MOUD) reduces harms associated with opioid use disorder (OUD). We sought to characterize the patients receiving B-MOUD and courses of B-MOUD in a large healthcare system. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, open cohort study of patients with OUD who either did or did not receive B-MOUD courses within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) from January 2006 through July 2019, using VHA clinical data. We compared patients receiving or not receiving B-MOUD, characterized B-MOUD courses (e.g., length and doses), and examined persistence, across patient characteristics, over time. We used analyses for normally or non-normally distributed continuous variables, categorical data, and persistence over time (Kaplan-Meier persistence curves). RESULTS: We identified 255,726 Veterans with OUD; 40,431 (15.8%) had received 63,929 B-MOUD courses. Compared to patients with OUD without B-MOUD, patients with B-MOUD were younger, more often of white race, and had more co-morbidities. The frequency of new B-MOUD starts and prevalent B-MOUD patients ranged from 1550 and 1989 in 2007 to 8146 and 16,505 in 2018, respectively. The median duration of B-MOUD was 157 (IQR: 37-537) days for all courses and 33.8% patients had more than one course. The average proportion days covered was 90% (SD: 0.15), and the average prescribed daily dose was 13.44 (SD: 6.5). CONCLUSIONS: Within a VHA B-MOUD cohort, courses increased more than 10-fold from 2006 to 2016 with nearly half of patients experiencing multiple courses. Patient demographics seem to dictate the length of courses.

Surmounting Withdrawal to Initiate Fast Treatment with Naltrexone (SWIFT): A stepped wedge hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation study.

BACKGROUND: Extended-release injectable naltrexone (XR-NTX) is an effective treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD), but initiation remains a barrier to implementation. Standard practice requires a 10- to 15-day inpatient admission prior to XR-NTX initiation and involves a methadone or buprenorphine taper followed by a 7- to 10-day washout, as recommended in the Prescribing Information for XR-NTX. A 5- to 7-day rapid induction approach was developed that utilizes low-dose oral naltrexone and non-opioid medications. METHODS: The CTN-0097 Surmounting Withdrawal to Initiate Fast Treatment with Naltrexone (SWIFT) study was a hybrid type I effectiveness-implementation trial that compared the effectiveness of the standard procedure (SP) to the rapid procedure (RP) for XR-NTX initiation across six community inpatient addiction treatment units, and evaluated the implementation process. Sites were randomized to RP every 14 weeks in an optimized stepped wedge design. Participants (target recruitment = 450) received the procedure (SP or RP) that the site was implementing at time of admission. The hypothesis was RP will be non-inferior to SP on proportion of inpatients who receive XR-NTX, with a shorter admission time for RP. Superiority testing of RP was planned if the null hypothesis of inferiority of RP to SP was rejected. DISCUSSION: If RP for XR-NTX initiation is shown to be effective, the shorter inpatient stay could make XR-NTX more feasible and have an important public health impact expanding access to OUD pharmacotherapy. Further, a better understanding of facilitators and barriers to RP implementation can help with future translatability and uptake to other community programs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04762537 Registered February 21, 2021.

Repurposing ketamine to treat cocaine use disorder: integration of artificial intelligence-based prediction, expert evaluation, clinical corroboration and mechanism of action analyses.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Cocaine use disorder (CUD) is a significant public health issue for which there is no Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved medication. Drug repurposing looks for new cost-effective uses of approved drugs. This study presents an integrated strategy to identify repurposed FDA-approved drugs for CUD treatment. DESIGN: Our drug repurposing strategy combines artificial intelligence (AI)-based drug prediction, expert panel review, clinical corroboration and mechanisms of action analysis being implemented in the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (CTN). Based on AI-based prediction and expert knowledge, ketamine was ranked as the top candidate for clinical corroboration via electronic health record (EHR) evaluation of CUD patient cohorts prescribed ketamine for anesthesia or depression compared with matched controls who received non-ketamine anesthesia or antidepressants/midazolam. Genetic and pathway enrichment analyses were performed to understand ketamine's potential mechanisms of action in the context of CUD. SETTING: The study utilized TriNetX to access EHRs from more than 90 million patients world-wide. Genetic- and functional-level analyses used DisGeNet, Search Tool for Interactions of Chemicals and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes databases. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 7742 CUD patients who received anesthesia (3871 ketamine-exposed and 3871 anesthetic-controlled) and 7910 CUD patients with depression (3955 ketamine-exposed and 3955 antidepressant-controlled) were identified after propensity score-matching. MEASUREMENTS: EHR analysis outcome was a CUD remission diagnosis within 1 year of drug prescription. FINDINGS: Patients with CUD prescribed ketamine for anesthesia displayed a significantly higher rate of CUD remission compared with matched individuals prescribed other anesthetics [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.42-2.78]. Similarly, CUD patients prescribed ketamine for depression evidenced a significantly higher CUD remission ratio compared with matched patients prescribed antidepressants or midazolam (HR = 4.39, 95% CI = 2.89-6.68). The mechanism of action analysis revealed that ketamine directly targets multiple CUD-associated genes (BDNF, CNR1, DRD2, GABRA2, GABRB3, GAD1, OPRK1, OPRM1, SLC6A3, SLC6A4) and pathways implicated in neuroactive ligand-receptor interaction, cAMP signaling and cocaine abuse/dependence. CONCLUSIONS: Ketamine appears to be a potential repurposed drug for treatment of cocaine use disorder.

Association between treatment setting and outcomes among oregon medicaid patients with opioid use disorder: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Residential treatment is a common approach for treating opioid use disorder (OUD), however, few studies have directly compared it to outpatient treatment. The objective of this study was to compare OUD outcomes among individuals receiving residential and outpatient treatment. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study used linked data from a state Medicaid program, vital statistics, and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) Treatment Episodes Dataset (TEDS) to compare OUD-related health outcomes among individuals treated in a residential or outpatient setting between 2014 and 2017. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards and logistic regression models examined the association between treatment setting and outcomes (i.e., opioid overdose, non-overdose opioid-related and all-cause emergency department (ED) visits, hospital admissions, and treatment retention) controlling for patient characteristics, co-morbidities, and use of medications for opioid use disorders (MOUD). Interaction models evaluated how MOUD use modified associations between treatment setting and outcomes. RESULTS: Of 3293 individuals treated for OUD, 957 (29%) received treatment in a residential facility. MOUD use was higher among those treated as an outpatient (43%) compared to residential (19%). The risk of opioid overdose (aHR 1.39; 95% CI 0.73-2.64) or an opioid-related emergency department encounter or admission (aHR 1.02; 95% CI 0.80-1.29) did not differ between treatment settings. Independent of setting, MOUD use was associated with a significant reduction in overdose risk (aHR 0.45; 95% CI 0.23-0.89). Residential care was associated with greater odds of retention at 6-months (aOR 1.71; 95% CI 1.32-2.21) but not 1-year. Residential treatment was only associated with improved retention for individuals not receiving MOUD (6-month aOR 2.05; 95% CI 1.56-2.71) with no benefit observed in those who received MOUD (aOR 0.75; 95% CI 0.46-1.29; interaction p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Relative to outpatient treatment, residential treatment was not associated with reductions in opioid overdose or opioid-related ED encounters/hospitalizations. Regardless of setting, MOUD use was associated with a significant reduction in opioid overdose risk.

Comparison of Medical Cannabis Use Reported on a Confidential Survey vs Documented in the Electronic Health Record Among Primary Care Patients.

Importance: Patients who use cannabis for medical reasons may benefit from discussions with clinicians about health risks of cannabis and evidence-based treatment alternatives. However, little is known about the prevalence of medical cannabis use in primary care and how often it is documented in patient electronic health records (EHR). Objective: To estimate the primary care prevalence of medical cannabis use according to confidential patient survey and to compare the prevalence of medical cannabis use documented in the EHR with patient report. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study is a cross-sectional survey performed in a large health system that conducts routine cannabis screening in Washington state where medical and nonmedical cannabis use are legal. Among 108 950 patients who completed routine cannabis screening (between March 28, 2019, and September 12, 2019), 5000 were randomly selected for a confidential survey about cannabis use, using stratified random sampling for frequency of past-year use and patient race and ethnicity. Data were analyzed from November 2020 to December 2021. Exposures: Survey measures of patient-reported past-year cannabis use, medical cannabis use (ie, explicit medical use), and any health reason(s) for use (ie, implicit medical use). Main Outcomes and Measures: Survey data were linked to EHR data in the year before screening. EHR measures included documentation of explicit and/or implicit medical cannabis use. Analyses estimated the primary care prevalence of cannabis use and compared EHR-documented with patient-reported medical cannabis use, accounting for stratified sampling and nonresponse. Results: Overall, 1688 patients responded to the survey (34% response rate; mean [SD] age, 50.7 [17.5] years; 861 female [56%], 1184 White [74%], 1514 non-Hispanic [97%], and 1059 commercially insured [65%]). The primary care prevalence of any past-year patient-reported cannabis use on the survey was 38.8% (95% CI, 31.9%-46.1%), whereas the prevalence of explicit and implicit medical use were 26.5% (95% CI, 21.6%-31.3%) and 35.1% (95% CI, 29.3%-40.8%), respectively. The prevalence of EHR-documented medical cannabis use was 4.8% (95% CI, 3.45%-6.2%). Compared with patient-reported explicit medical use, the sensitivity and specificity of EHR-documented medical cannabis use were 10.0% (95% CI, 4.4%-15.6%) and 97.1% (95% CI, 94.4%-99.8%), respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that medical cannabis use is common among primary care patients in a state with legal use, and most use is not documented in the EHR. Patient report of health reasons for cannabis use identifies more medical use compared with explicit questions about medical use.

Pain Severity and Interference and Substance Use Among Community Pharmacy Patients Prescribed Opioids: A Secondary Analysis of the PHARMSCREEN Study.

This secondary analysis examined relationships between pain severity and interference and substance use among patients filling opioid prescriptions in Indiana and Ohio community pharmacies (n = 1,461). We likewise sought to explore the moderating role of gender in pain-substance use relations. We used patient-reported data from a cross-sectional health survey linked with controlled substance dispensing data from statewide prescription drug monitoring programs. Multivariable logistic regression estimated associations between pain severity and interference and various indices of risky prescription opioid use and non-opioid substance use. Exploratory analyses examined whether gender moderated associations. Increased pain severity was associated with increased odds of moderate- to high-risk opioid use (OR: 1.23; 95% CI: 1.16-1.31) and opioid-benzodiazepine co-use (OR: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.03-1.40). Increased pain interference was associated with greater odds of receiving opioids from multiple pharmacies or providers (OR: 1.15; 95% CI: 1.01-1.31). Increased pain severity and interference were associated with higher odds of any tobacco use (severity: OR: 1.13; 95% CI: 1.06-1.21; interference: OR: 1.07; 95% CI: 1.01-1.12) and weekly to daily sedative use (severity: OR: 1.13; 95% CI: 1.03-1.25; interference: OR: 1.13; 95% CI: 1.04-1.22). Increased pain severity was associated with decreased odds of any alcohol use (OR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.88-0.99). Gender was a significant effect modifier in associations between pain and alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis use. The study was registered in the database of clinicaltrials.gov (register number NCT03936985). Perspective: This study suggests that pain severity and interference are associated with increased use of non-medical prescription opioids, sedatives, and tobacco and decreased use of alcohol, in ways that are different between women and men. Findings may guide the development of gender-sensitive evidence-based strategies to ameliorate or prevent substance misuse among patients living with pain.

Clinical documentation of patient-reported medical cannabis use in primary care: Toward scalable extraction using natural language processing methods.

Background: Most states have legalized medical cannabis, yet little is known about how medical cannabis use is documented in patients' electronic health records (EHRs). We used natural language processing (NLP) to calculate the prevalence of clinician-documented medical cannabis use among adults in an integrated health system in Washington State where medical and recreational use are legal. Methods: We analyzed EHRs of patients ≥18 years old screened for past-year cannabis use (November 1, 2017-October 31, 2018), to identify clinician-documented medical cannabis use. We defined medical use as any documentation of cannabis that was recommended by a clinician or described by the clinician or patient as intended to manage health conditions or symptoms. We developed and applied an NLP system that included NLP-assisted manual review to identify such documentation in encounter notes. Results: Medical cannabis use was documented for 16,684 (5.6%) of 299,597 outpatient encounters with routine screening for cannabis use among 203,489 patients seeing 1,274 clinicians. The validated NLP system identified 54% of documentation and NLP-assisted manual review the remainder. Language documenting reasons for cannabis use included 125 terms indicating medical use, 28 terms indicating non-medical use and 41 ambiguous terms. Implicit documentation of medical use (e.g., "edible THC nightly for lumbar pain") was more common than explicit (e.g., "continues medical cannabis use"). Conclusions: Clinicians use diverse and often ambiguous language to document patients' reasons for cannabis use. Automating extraction of documentation about patients' cannabis use could facilitate clinical decision support and epidemiological investigation but will require large amounts of gold standard training data.

The opioid use disorder core outcomes set (OUD-COS) for treatment research: findings from a Delphi consensus study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: There is no gold-standard and considerable heterogeneity in outcome measures used to evaluate treatments for opioid use disorder (OUD) along the opioid treatment cascade. The aim of this study was to develop the US National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (CTN) opioid use disorder core outcomes set (OUD-COS). DESIGN: Four-round, e-Delphi expert panel consensus study and plenary research group discussion and targeted consultation. SETTING: United States. PARTICIPANTS: A panel of 25 members including clinical practitioners, clinical researchers and administrative staff from the CTN, the network's affiliated clinical and community sites and the NIDA Centre for the CTN. MEASUREMENTS: From a pool of 24 candidate items in four domains (biomedical/disease status; behaviors, symptoms and functioning; opioid treatment cascade; and morbidity and mortality), the panel completed an on-line questionnaire to rank items with defined specification on a 9-point scale for importance, with a standard 70% consensus criterion. FINDINGS: After the fourth round of the questionnaire and subsequent discussion, consensus was reached for five outcomes: two patient-reported (global impression of improvement and incident non-fatal overdose); one clinician-reported (illicit/non-medical drug toxicology); and two from administrative records (duration of treatment and fatal opioid poisoning). CONCLUSIONS: An e-Delphi consensus study has produced the US National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network opioid use disorder core outcomes set (version 1) for opioid use disorder treatment efficacy and effectiveness research.

Validation and threshold identification of a prescription drug monitoring program clinical opioid risk metric with the WHO alcohol, smoking, and substance involvement screening test.

BACKGROUND: Prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) are critical for pharmacists to identify risky opioid medication use. We performed an independent evaluation of the PDMP-based Narcotic Score (NS) metric. METHODS: This study was a one-time, cross-sectional health assessment within 19 pharmacies from a national chain among adults picking-up opioid medications. The NS metric is a 3-digit composite indicator. The WHO Alcohol, Smoking, and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) was the gold-standard to which the NS metric was compared. Machine learning determined optimal risk thresholds; Receiver Operating Characteristic curves and Spearman (P) and Kappa (K) coefficients analyzed concurrent validity. Regression analyses evaluated participant characteristics associated with misclassification. RESULTS: The NS metric showed fair concurrent validity (area under the curve≥0.70; K=0.35; P = 0.37, p < 0.001). The ASSIST and NS metric categorized 37% of participants as low-risk (i.e., not needing screening/intervention) and 32.3% as moderate/high-risk (i.e., needing screening/intervention). Further, 17.2% were categorized as low ASSIST risk but moderate/high NS metric risk, termed false positives. These reported disability (OR=3.12), poor general health (OR=0.66), and/or greater pain severity/interference (OR=1.12/1.09; all p < 0.05; i.e., needing unmanaged-pain screening/intervention). A total of 13.4% were categorized as moderate/high ASSIST risk but low NS metric risk, termed false negatives. These reported greater overdose history (OR=1.24) and/or substance use (OR=1.81-12.66; all p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The NS metric could serve as a useful initial universal prescription opioid-risk screener given its: 1) low-burden (i.e., no direct assessment); 2) high accuracy (86.5%) of actionable data identifying low-risk patients and those needing opioid use/unmanaged pain screening/intervention; and 3) broad availability.

Concomitant Cannabis Misuse and Associations with Depression, Pain and Substance Misuse among Patients Prescribed Opioids.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis use is common among individuals with pain who are prescribed opioids, occurring in approximately 10% of this population. This study aims to explore the relationship between non-medical cannabis use and other health risks among individuals filling opioids at community pharmacies. METHODS: This study was an exploratory secondary data analysis of a National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (CTN)-sponsored study, Validation of a Community Pharmacy-Based Prescription Drug Monitoring Program Risk Screening, examining the relationship between risky cannabis use and depressive symptoms, pain, overdose, and other substance misuse among individuals filling opioid prescriptions in community pharmacies (N = 1440). RESULTS: Participants reporting moderate- to high-risk compared to low-risk cannabis use were more likely to report depressive symptoms (adjusted OR = 1.67, 95% CI = 1.11-2.56), history of overdose (adjusted OR = 2.15, 95% CI = 1.34-3.44), and moderate- to high-risk use of alcohol (adjusted OR = 2.10, 95% CI = 1.28-3.45), opioids (adjusted OR = 2.50, 95% CI = 1.67-3.76), sedatives (adjusted OR = 2.58, 95% CI = 1.72-3.86), stimulants (adjusted OR = 4.79, 95% CI = 2.83-8.01), and tobacco (adjusted OR = 3.60, 95% CI = 2.47-5.24). CONCLUSIONS: Community pharmacies may be valuable sites for identifying, studying, and intervening with substance use problems.

An Examination of the Feasibility of Detecting Cocaine Use Using Smartwatches.

As digital technology increasingly informs clinical trials, novel ways to collect study data in the natural field setting have the potential to enhance the richness of research data. Cocaine use in clinical trials is usually collected via self-report and/or urine drug screen results, both of which have limitations. This article examines the feasibility of developing a wrist-worn device that can detect sufficient physiological data (i.e., heart rate and heart rate variability) to detect cocaine use. This study aimed to develop a wrist-worn device that can be used in the natural field setting among people who use cocaine to collect reliable data (determined by data yield, device wearability, and data quality) that is less obtrusive than chest-based devices used in prior research. The study also aimed to further develop a cocaine use detection algorithm used in previous research with an electrocardiogram on a chestband by adapting it to a photoplethysmography sensor on the wrist-worn device which is more prone to motion artifacts. Results indicate that wrist-based heart rate data collection is feasible and can provide higher data yield than chest-based sensors, as wrist-based devices were also more comfortable and affected participants' daily lives less often than chest-based sensors. When properly worn, wrist-based sensors produced similar quality of heart rate and heart rate variability features to chest-based sensors and matched their performance in automated detection of cocaine use events. Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT02915341.

Prevalence of Medical Cannabis Use and Associated Health Conditions Documented in Electronic Health Records Among Primary Care Patients in Washington State.

Importance: Many people use cannabis for medical reasons despite limited evidence of therapeutic benefit and potential risks. Little is known about medical practitioners' documentation of medical cannabis use or clinical characteristics of patients with documented medical cannabis use. Objectives: To estimate the prevalence of past-year medical cannabis use documented in electronic health records (EHRs) and to describe patients with EHR-documented medical cannabis use, EHR-documented cannabis use without evidence of medical use (other cannabis use), and no EHR-documented cannabis use. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study assessed adult primary care patients who completed a cannabis screen during a visit between November 1, 2017, and October 31, 2018, at a large health system that conducts routine cannabis screening in a US state with legal medical and recreational cannabis use. Exposures: Three mutually exclusive categories of EHR-documented cannabis use (medical, other, and no use) based on practitioner documentation of medical cannabis use in the EHR and patient report of past-year cannabis use at screening. Main Outcomes and Measures: Health conditions for which cannabis use has potential benefits or risks were defined based on National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine's review. The adjusted prevalence of conditions diagnosed in the prior year were estimated across 3 categories of EHR-documented cannabis use with logistic regression. Results: A total of 185 565 patients (mean [SD] age, 52.0 [18.1] years; 59% female, 73% White, 94% non-Hispanic, and 61% commercially insured) were screened for cannabis use in a primary care visit during the study period. Among these patients, 3551 (2%) had EHR-documented medical cannabis use, 36 599 (20%) had EHR-documented other cannabis use, and 145 415 (78%) had no documented cannabis use. Patients with medical cannabis use had a higher prevalence of health conditions for which cannabis has potential benefits (49.8%; 95% CI, 48.3%-51.3%) compared with patients with other cannabis use (39.9%; 95% CI, 39.4%-40.3%) or no cannabis use (40.0%; 95% CI, 39.8%-40.2%). In addition, patients with medical cannabis use had a higher prevalence of health conditions for which cannabis has potential risks (60.7%; 95% CI, 59.0%-62.3%) compared with patients with other cannabis use (50.5%; 95% CI, 50.0%-51.0%) or no cannabis use (42.7%; 95% CI, 42.4%-42.9%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, primary care patients with documented medical cannabis use had a high prevalence of health conditions for which cannabis use has potential benefits, yet a higher prevalence of conditions with potential risks from cannabis use. These findings suggest that practitioners should be prepared to discuss potential risks and benefits of cannabis use with patients.

Core outcomes set for research on the treatment of opioid use disorder (COS-OUD): the National Institute on Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network protocol for an e-Delphi consensus study.

BACKGROUND: A lack of consensus on the optimal outcome measures to assess the efficacy and effectiveness of interventions for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) has hampered the pooling of research data for evidence synthesis and clinical guidelines. A core outcome set (COS) is a minimum set of outcome measures that are recommended for all studies of a particular condition. The National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (CTN) Core Outcome Set for OUD (COS-OUD) is a development study to identify core constructs, meaningful outcomes, and their optimal measurement for all efficacy and effectiveness studies of OUD treatment and service delivery. METHODS/DESIGN: Overseen by an expert workgroup, a modified, stepwise, e-Delphi methodology will be used to gain consensus among a panel of clinical practitioners and researchers involved in the treatment of OUD, who are members of the CTN. Sequential rounds of anonymous, online questionnaires will be used to identify, rate the importance of, and refine a core outcome set. A consensus threshold will be achieved if at least 70% of the panel rate the measure as critical for inclusion in the COS-OUD. Where consensus is not reached or there are suggestions for new measures, these will be brought forward to a further round of review prior to a consensus meeting. Products from this study will be communicated via peer-reviewed scientific journals and conferences. DISCUSSION: This initiative will develop a COS for OUD intervention trials, treatment studies, and service delivery and will support the pooling of research and clinical practice data and efforts to develop measurement-based care within the OUD treatment cascade. TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1579.

Buprenorphine physician-pharmacist collaboration in the management of patients with opioid use disorder: results from a multisite study of the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Physician and pharmacist collaboration may help address the shortage of buprenorphine-waivered physicians and improve care for patients with opioid use disorder (OUD). This study investigated the feasibility and acceptability of a new collaborative care model involving buprenorphine-waivered physicians and community pharmacists. DESIGN: Nonrandomized, single-arm, open-label feasibility trial. SETTING: Three office-based buprenorphine treatment (OBBT) clinics and three community pharmacies in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Six physicians, six pharmacists, and 71 patients aged ≥18 years with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) OUD on buprenorphine maintenance. INTERVENTION: After screening, eligible patients' buprenorphine care was transferred from their OBBT physician to a community pharmacist for 6 months. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcomes included recruitment, treatment retention and adherence, and opioid use. Secondary outcomes were intervention fidelity, pharmacists' use of prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP), participant safety, and satisfaction with treatment delivery. FINDINGS: A high proportion (93.4%, 71/76) of eligible participants enrolled into the study. There were high rates of treatment retention (88.7%) and adherence (95.3%) at the end of the study. The proportion of opioid-positive urine drug screens (UDSs) among complete cases (i.e. those with all six UDSs collected during 6 months) at month 6 was (4.9%, 3/61). Intervention fidelity was excellent. Pharmacists used PDMP at 96.8% of visits. There were no opioid-related safety events. Over 90% of patients endorsed that they were "very satisfied with their experience and the quality of treatment offered," that "treatment transfer from physician's office to the pharmacy was not difficult at all," and that "holding buprenorphine visits at the same place the medication is dispensed was very or extremely useful/convenient." Similarly, positive ratings of satisfaction were found among physicians/pharmacists. CONCLUSIONS: A collaborative care model for people with opioid use disorder that involves buprenorphine-waivered physicians and community pharmacists appears to be feasible to operate in the United States and have high acceptability to patients.