Exposure to Sublethal Concentrations of Lead (Pb) Affects Ecologically Relevant Behaviors in House Sparrows (Passer domesticus).

Global contamination of environments with lead (Pb) poses threats to many ecosystems and populations. While exposure to Pb is toxic at high concentrations, recent literature has shown that lower concentrations can also cause sublethal, deleterious effects. However, there remains relatively little causal investigation of how exposure to lower concentrations of environmental Pb affects ecologically important behaviors. Behaviors often represent first-line responses of an organism and its internal physiological, molecular, and genetic responses to a changing environment. Hence, better understanding how behaviors are influenced by pollutants such as Pb generates crucial information on how species are coping with the effects of pollution more broadly. To better understand the effects of sublethal Pb on behavior, we chronically exposed adult wild-caught, captive house sparrows (Passer domesticus) to Pb-exposed drinking water and quantified a suite of behavioral outcomes: takeoff flight performance, activity in a novel environment, and in-hand struggling and breathing rate while being handled by an experimenter. Compared to controls (un-exposed drinking water), sparrows exposed to environmentally relevant concentrations of Pb exhibited decreases in takeoff flight performance and reduced movements in a novel environment following 9-10 weeks of exposure. We interpret this suite of results to be consistent with Pb influencing fundamental neuro-muscular abilities, making it more difficult for exposed birds to mount faster movements and activities. It is likely that suppression of takeoff flight and reduced movements would increase the predation risk of similar birds in the wild; hence, we also conclude that the effects we observed could influence fitness outcomes for individuals and populations altering ecological interactions within more naturalistic settings.

Internal Medicine Resident Addiction Training at the Veteran's Health Administration: A Qualitative Evaluation of Site Directors' Response to the 2022 ACGME Requirements.

BACKGROUND: Substance use disorders (SUDs) are prevalent in the USA yet remain dramatically undertreated. To address this care gap, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) approved revisions to the Program Requirements for Graduate Medical Education (GME) in Internal Medicine, effective July 1, 2022, requiring addiction medicine training for all internal medicine (IM) residents. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is a clinical training site for many academic institutions that sponsor IM residencies. This focus group project evaluated VHA IM residency site directors' perspectives about providing addiction medical education within VHA IM training sites. OBJECTIVE: To better understand the current state, barriers to, and facilitators of IM resident addiction medicine training at VHA sites. DESIGN: This was a qualitative evaluation based on semi-structured video-based focus groups. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were VHA IM site directors based at a VHA hospital or clinic throughout the USA. APPROACH: Focus groups were conducted using a semi-structured group interview guide. Two investigators coded each focus group independently, then met to create a final adjudicated coding scheme. Thematic analysis was used to identify key themes. KEY RESULTS: Forty-three participants from 38 VHA sites participated in four focus groups (average size: 11 participants). Six themes were identified within four pre-defined categories. Current state of training: most VHA sites offered no formal training in addiction medicine for IM residents. Barriers: addiction experts are often located outside of IM settings, and ACGME requirements were non-specific. Facilitators: clinical champions help support addiction training. Desired next steps: participants desired incentives to train or hire local champions and a pre-packaged didactic curriculum. CONCLUSIONS: Developing competent clinical champions and leveraging VHA addiction specialists from non-IM settings would create more addiction training opportunities for IM trainees at VHA sites. These insights can likely be applied to IM training at non-VHA sites.

History and current status of contingency management programs in the Department of Veterans Affairs.

OBJECTIVE: This article describes the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) national implementation of contingency management within VA substance use disorder (SUD) treatment programs. METHODS: The rationale for implementing CM, role of VA leadership, and training and supervision procedures are detailed. The role of the Veterans Canteen Service (VCS) in sustaining the CM implementation through the donation of incentives is outlined. Updated outcomes from the primary program, CM to incentivize stimulant abstinence, are provided. Data presented were gathered from June 2011 to January 2023, from VA facilities across the country. RESULTS: More than 6000 Veterans from 119 VA facilities have received CM in a 12-week program in which two urine samples are obtained per week, with 92% of the samples negative for the targeted substance. Two other CM pilot projects are described. The first incentivizes adherence to injectable medications for opioid and alcohol use disorders, with over 580 veterans from 27 VA sites participating to date. The second incentivized smoking cessation in 312 patients from four sites. A new initiative in which CM is implemented in smaller community-based VA facilities through use of onsite prize cabinets is presented and the possibility of providing CM remotely in VA is discussed. CONCLUSIONS: It has proved feasible to implement abstinence CM and several other CM pilot programs at many VA facilities. Factors that contributed to the success of the VA CM rollout, challenges that were encountered along the way, and lessons learned that may facilitate wider use of CM outside VA are discussed.

Access to Medications for Opioid Use Disorder in Rural Versus Urban Veterans Health Administration Facilities.

BACKGROUND: For patients with opioid use disorder (OUD), medications for OUD (MOUD) reduce morbidity, mortality, and return to use. Nevertheless, a minority of patients receive MOUD, and underutilization is pronounced among rural patients. OBJECTIVE: While Veterans Health Administration (VHA) initiatives have improved MOUD access overall, it is unknown whether access has improved in rural VA health systems specifically. How "Community Care," healthcare paid for by VHA but received from non-VA providers, has affected rural access is also unknown. DESIGN: Data for this observational study were drawn from the VHA Corporate Data Warehouse. Facility rurality was defined by rural-urban commuting area code of the primary medical center. International Classification of Diseases codes identified patients with OUD within each year, 2015-2020. We included MOUD (buprenorphine, methadone, extended-release naltrexone) received from VHA or paid for by VHA but received at non-VA facilities through Community Care. We calculated average yearly MOUD receipt; linear regression of outcomes on study years identified trends; an interaction between year and rural status evaluated trend differences over time. PARTICIPANTS: All 129 VHA Health Systems, a designation that encompasses one or more medical centers and their affiliated community-based outpatient clinics MAIN MEASURES: The average proportion of patients diagnosed with OUD that receive MOUD within rural versus urban VHA health care systems. KEY RESULTS: From 2015 to 2020, MOUD access increased substantially: the average proportion of patients receiving MOUD increased from 34.6 to 48.9%, with a similar proportion of patients treated with MOUD in rural and urban systems in all years. Overall, a small proportion (1.8%) of MOUD was provided via Community Care, and Community Care did not disproportionately benefit rural health systems. CONCLUSIONS: Strategies utilized by VHA could inform other health care systems seeking to ensure that, regardless of geographic location, all patients are able to access MOUD.

The Management of Substance Use Disorders: Synopsis of the 2021 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and U.S. Department of Defense Clinical Practice Guideline.

DESCRIPTION: In August 2021, leadership within the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) approved a joint clinical practice guideline (CPG) for the management of substance use disorders (SUDs). This synopsis summarizes key recommendations. METHODS: In March 2020, the VA/DoD Evidence-Based Practice Work Group assembled a team to update the 2015 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Substance Use Disorders that included clinical stakeholders and conformed to the National Academy of Medicine's tenets for trustworthy CPGs. The guideline panel developed key questions, systematically searched and evaluated the literature, created two 1-page algorithms, and distilled 35 recommendations for care using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system. This synopsis presents the recommendations that were believed to be the most clinically impactful. RECOMMENDATIONS: The scope of the CPG is broad; however, this synopsis focuses on key recommendations for the management of alcohol use disorder, use of buprenorphine in opioid use disorder, contingency management, and use of technology and telehealth to manage patients remotely.

Are x-waiver trainings enough? Facilitators and barriers to buprenorphine prescribing after x-waiver trainings.

BACKGROUND: In the United States, an x-waiver credential is necessary to prescribe buprenorphine medication treatment for opioid use disorder (B-MOUD). Historically, this process has required certified training, which could be a barrier to obtaining an x-waiver and subsequently prescribing. To address this barrier, the US recently removed the training requirement for some clinicians. We sought to determine if clinicians who attended x-waiver training went on to obtain an x-waiver and prescribe B-MOUD, and to examine what facilitated or impeded B-MOUD prescribing. METHODS: In September 2020, we conducted a cross-sectional, electronic survey of attendees of 15 in-person x-waiver pieces of training from June 2018 to January 2020 within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). Of the attendees (n = 321), we surveyed current VHA clinicians who recalled taking the training. The survey assessed whether clinicians obtained the x-waiver, had prescribed B-MOUD, and barriers or facilitators that influenced B-MOUD prescribing. RESULTS: Of 251 eligible participants, 62 (24.7%) responded to the survey, including 27 (43.5%) physicians, 16 (25.8%) advanced practice clinicians, and 12 (19.4%) pharmacists. Of the 43 clinicians who could prescribe, 29 (67.4%) had obtained their x-waiver and 16 (37.2%) had reported prescribing B-MOUD. Prominent barriers to prescribing B-MOUD included a lack of supporting clinical staff and competing demands on time. The primary facilitator to prescribing was leadership support. CONCLUSION AND SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE: Nine months after x-waiver training, two-thirds of clinicians with prescribing credentials had obtained their x-waiver and one-third were prescribing B-MOUD. Removing the x-waiver training may not have the intended policy effect as other barriers to B-MOUD prescribing persist.

Accessibility to Medication for Opioid Use Disorder After Interventions to Improve Prescribing Among Nonaddiction Clinics in the US Veterans Health Care System.

Importance: With increasing rates of opioid use disorder (OUD) and overdose deaths in the US, increased access to medications for OUD (MOUD) is paramount. Rigorous effectiveness evaluations of large-scale implementation initiatives using quasi-experimental designs are needed to inform expansion efforts. Objective: To evaluate a US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) initiative to increase MOUD use in nonaddiction clinics. Design, Setting, and Participants: This quality improvement initiative used interrupted time series design to compare trends in MOUD receipt. Primary care, pain, and mental health clinics in the VA health care system (n = 35) located at 18 intervention facilities and nonintervention comparison clinics (n = 35) were matched on preimplementation MOUD prescribing trends, clinic size, and facility complexity. The cohort of patients with OUD who received care in intervention or comparison clinics in the year after September 1, 2018, were evaluated. The preimplementation period extended from September 1, 2017, through August 31, 2018, and the postimplementation period from September 1, 2018, through August 31, 2019. Exposures: The multifaceted implementation intervention included education, external facilitation, and quarterly reports. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were the proportion of patients receiving MOUD and the number of patients per clinician prescribing MOUD. Segmented logistic regression evaluated monthly proportions of MOUD receipt 1 year before and after initiative launch, adjusting for demographic and clinical covariates. Poisson regression models examined yearly changes in clinician prescribing over the same time frame. Results: Overall, 7488 patients were seen in intervention clinics (mean [SD] age, 53.3 [14.2] years; 6858 [91.6%] male; 1476 [19.7%] Black, 417 [5.6%] Hispanic; 5162 [68.9%] White; 239 [3.2%] other race [including American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and multiple races]; and 194 [2.6%] unknown) and 7558 in comparison clinics (mean [SD] age, 53.4 [14.0] years; 6943 [91.9%] male; 1463 [19.4%] Black; 405 [5.4%] Hispanic; 5196 [68.9%] White; 244 [3.2%] other race; 250 [3.3%] unknown). During the preimplementation year, the proportion of patients receiving MOUD in intervention clinics increased monthly by 5.0% (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.05; 95% CI, 1.03-1.07). Accounting for this preimplementation trend, the proportion of patients receiving MOUD increased monthly by an additional 2.3% (AOR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.00-1.04) during the implementation year. Comparison clinics increased by 2.6% monthly before implementation (AOR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.04), with no changes detected after implementation. Although preimplementation-year trends in monthly MOUD receipt were similar in intervention and comparison clinics, greater increases were seen in intervention clinics after implementation (AOR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.08). Patients treated with MOUD per clinician in intervention clinics saw greater increases from before to after implementation compared with comparison clinics (incidence rate ratio, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.28-1.77). Conclusions and Relevance: A multifaceted implementation initiative in nonaddiction clinics was associated with increased MOUD prescribing. Findings suggest that engagement of clinicians in general clinical settings may increase MOUD access.

Facilitators and barriers in implementing buprenorphine in the Veterans Health Administration.

Opioid dependence is a chronic, relapsing disorder that deleteriously influences the health of those afflicted. Sublingual buprenorphine opioid agonist treatment (OAT) has been shown to be safe, effective, and cost-effective for the treatment of opioid dependence in nonspecialized, office-based settings, including the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). We sought to examine and describe provider-, facility-, and system-level barriers and facilitators to implementing buprenorphine therapy within the VHA. From June 2006 to October 2007, we conducted semistructured telephone interviews of key personnel at a national sample of VHA facilities with high prevalence of opioid dependence and without methadone OAT programs. Sites were categorized based on the number of veterans receiving buprenorphine prescriptions: More Buprenorphine (MB, >40 prescriptions, 5 sites), Some Buprenorphine (SB, 5-40 prescriptions, 3 sites), and No Buprenorphine (NB, 0-5 prescriptions, 9 sites). Interviews were taped, transcribed, and coded; consensus of coding themes was reached; and data were evaluated using grounded theory. Sixty-two staff members were interviewed. For NB sites, perceived patient barriers included lack of need and attitudes/stigma associated with opioid dependence. Provider barriers included lack of interest, stigma toward the population, and lack of education about buprenorphine-OAT. Prominent facilitators at MB sites included having established need, provider interest, and resources/time available for buprenorphine-OAT. The presence of a champion/role-model for buprenorphine care greatly facilitated its implementation. We conclude that factors that enable or impede buprenorphine-OAT vary by facility. Strategies and policies to encourage implementation of buprenorphine should be adaptable and target needs of each facility.

Multi-center trial of baclofen for abstinence initiation in severe cocaine-dependent individuals.

BACKGROUND: Cocaine dependence is a major public health problem for which there is no FDA-approved pharmacological treatment. Baclofen is a GABA(B) receptor agonist that in preclinical and early pilot clinical trials has shown promise for the treatment of cocaine dependence. The purpose of this multi-site, double-blind study, was to compare the safety and efficacy of baclofen (60 mg/day) vs placebo in an 8-week treatment of individuals with severe cocaine dependence. The primary outcome measure was subjects' self-reported cocaine use substantiated by urine benzoylecgonine (BE). Analysis of the data did not show a significant difference between the groups treated with baclofen and placebo. The current results do not support a role for 60 mg baclofen in treating cocaine dependence in the population studied. The contrast of this result to earlier, preclinical and human pilot data with baclofen may reflect the trial's focus on severe cocaine-dependent users, and/or the need for a higher baclofen dose. Baclofen's potential as a relapse prevention agent was not tested by the current design, but may be a useful target for future studies.

Outcomes of DATA 2000 certification trainings for the provision of buprenorphine treatment in the Veterans Health Administration.

Despite the high numbers of veterans with opioid dependence, few receive pharmacologic treatment for this disorder. The adoption of buprenorphine treatment within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has been slow. To expand capacity for buprenorphine treatment, the VHA sponsored two eight-hour credentialing courses for the Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 2000. We sought to describe the outcomes of such training. Following the training sessions, 29 participants (18 physicians) were highly satisfied with course content and affirmed their intention to prescribe buprenorphine; after nine-month follow-up, two physicians were prescribing. We conclude that providing credentialing courses, while popular, did not markedly promote the prescription of buprenorphine.

Implementation of buprenorphine in the Veterans Health Administration: results of the first 3 years.

BACKGROUND: Compared to non-veterans, veterans are disproportionately diagnosed with opioid dependence. Sublingual buprenorphine provides greater access to opioid agonist therapy. To understand the diffusion of this innovative treatment within a large healthcare system, we describe the introduction of buprenorphine within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) during the first 3 years of its approval as a VHA non-formulary medication. METHODS: Using VHA pharmacy databases, we examined the number of physicians who have prescribed buprenorphine and the number of veterans who have received office-based buprenorphine within VHA veterans integrated service networks (VISN) from fiscal years (FY) 2003 through FY 2005 (October 2002 through September 2005). RESULTS: From FY2003 through FY2005 the number of veterans with opioid dependence increased from 25,031 to 26,859 (>7.3%) and the number of veterans prescribed office-based buprenorphine increased from 53 to 739. During this interval, 16 of 21 VISNs had prescribed buprenorphine. In FY2005, two VISNs accounted for 31% of buprenorphine prescriptions. The number of buprenorphine prescriptions varied widely by VISN, but increased from 212 to 7076 from FY2003 through FY2005. During this interval, prescriptions per patient increased from 4.0 to 9.6 and physicians prescribing buprenorphine increased from 14 to 170. The ratio of patients prescribed buprenorphine to providers prescribing buprenorphine increased from 3.8 to 4.3 with an average increase of 15.1-41.6 of prescriptions per provider. CONCLUSIONS: VHA increased, but not uniformly, the non-formulary use of office-based buprenorphine during the first 3 years of availability.