Early emergency department experience with 7-day extended-release injectable buprenorphine for opioid use disorder.

As the opioid overdose epidemic escalates, there is an urgent need for treatment innovations to address both patient and clinician barriers when initiating buprenorphine in the emergency department (ED). These include insurance status, logistical challenges such as the ability to fill a prescription and transportation, concerns regarding diversion, and availability of urgent referral sites. Extended-release buprenorphine (XR-BUP) preparations such as a new 7-day injectable could potentially solve some of these issues. We describe the pharmacokinetics of a new 7-day XR-BUP formulation and the feasibility of its use in the ED setting. We report our early experiences with this medication (investigational drug CAM2038), in the context of an ongoing clinical trial entitled Emergency Department-Initiated BUP VAlidaTION (ED INNOVATION), to inform emergency clinicians as they consider incorporating this medication into their practice. The medication was approved by the European Medicines Agency in 2018 and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2023 for those 18 years or older for the treatment of moderate to severe opioid use disorder (OUD). We report our experience with approximately 800 ED patients with OUD who received the 7-day XR-BUP preparation in the ED between June 2020 and July 2023.

Implementation Facilitation to Promote Emergency Department-Initiated Buprenorphine for Opioid Use Disorder.

Importance: Emergency department (ED)-initiated buprenorphine for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) is underused. Objective: To evaluate whether provision of ED-initiated buprenorphine with referral for OUD increased after implementation facilitation (IF), an educational and implementation strategy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multisite hybrid type 3 effectiveness-implementation nonrandomized trial compared grand rounds with IF, with pre-post 12-month baseline and IF evaluation periods, at 4 academic EDs. The study was conducted from April 1, 2017, to November 30, 2020. Participants were ED and community clinicians treating patients with OUD and observational cohorts of ED patients with untreated OUD. Data were analyzed from July 16, 2021, to July 14, 2022. Exposure: A 60-minute in-person grand rounds was compared with IF, a multicomponent facilitation strategy that engaged local champions, developed protocols, and provided learning collaboratives and performance feedback. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were the rate of patients in the observational cohorts who received ED-initiated buprenorphine with referral for OUD treatment (primary implementation outcome) and the rate of patients engaged in OUD treatment at 30 days after enrollment (effectiveness outcome). Additional implementation outcomes included the numbers of ED clinicians with an X-waiver to prescribe buprenorphine and ED visits with buprenorphine administered or prescribed and naloxone dispensed or prescribed. Results: A total of 394 patients were enrolled during the baseline evaluation period and 362 patients were enrolled during the IF evaluation period across all sites, for a total of 756 patients (540 [71.4%] male; mean [SD] age, 39.3 [11.7] years), with 223 Black patients (29.5%) and 394 White patients (52.1%). The cohort included 420 patients (55.6%) who were unemployed, and 431 patients (57.0%) reported unstable housing. Two patients (0.5%) received ED-initiated buprenorphine during the baseline period, compared with 53 patients (14.6%) during the IF evaluation period (P < .001). Forty patients (10.2%) were engaged with OUD treatment during the baseline period, compared with 59 patients (16.3%) during the IF evaluation period (P = .01). Patients in the IF evaluation period who received ED-initiated buprenorphine were more likely to be in treatment at 30 days (19 of 53 patients [35.8%]) than those who did not 40 of 309 patients (12.9%; P < .001). Additionally, there were increases in the numbers of ED clinicians with an X-waiver (from 11 to 196 clinicians) and ED visits with provision of buprenorphine (from 259 to 1256 visits) and naloxone (from 535 to 1091 visits). Conclusions and Relevance: In this multicenter effectiveness-implementation nonrandomized trial, rates of ED-initiated buprenorphine and engagement in OUD treatment were higher in the IF period, especially among patients who received ED-initiated buprenorphine. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03023930.

Models for Implementing Emergency Department-Initiated Buprenorphine With Referral for Ongoing Medication Treatment at Emergency Department Discharge in Diverse Academic Centers.

There has been a substantial rise in the number of publications and training opportunities on the care and treatment of emergency department (ED) patients with opioid use disorder over the past several years. The American College of Emergency Physicians recently published recommendations for providing buprenorphine to patients with opioid use disorder, but barriers to implementing this clinical practice remain. We describe the models for implementing ED-initiated buprenorphine at 4 diverse urban, academic medical centers across the country as part of a federally funded effort termed "Project ED Health." These 4 sites successfully implemented unique ED-initiated buprenorphine programs as part of a comparison of implementation facilitation to traditional educational dissemination on the uptake of ED-initiated buprenorphine. Each site describes the elements central to the ED process, including screening, treatment initiation, referral, and follow-up, while harnessing organizational characteristics, including ED culture. Finally, we discuss common facilitators to program success, including information technology and electronic medical record integration, hospital-level support, strong connections with outpatient partners, and quality improvement processes.

The design and conduct of a randomized clinical trial comparing emergency department initiation of sublingual versus a 7-day extended-release injection formulation of buprenorphine for opioid use disorder: Project ED Innovation.

ED-INNOVATION (Emergency Department-INitiated bupreNOrphine VAlidaTION) is a Hybrid Type-1 Implementation-Effectiveness multisite emergency department (ED) study funded through The Helping to End Addiction Long-termSM Initiative, or NIH HEAL InitiativeSM efforts to increase access to medications for opioid use disorder (OUD). We use components of Implementation Facilitation to enhance adoption of ED-initiated buprenorphine (BUP) at approximately 30 sites. Subsequently we compare the effectiveness of two BUP formulations, sublingual (SL-BUP) and 7-day extended-release injectable (CAM2038, XR-BUP) in a randomized clinical trial (RCT) of approximately 2000 patients with OUD on the primary outcome of engagement in formal addiction treatment at 7 days. Secondary outcomes assessed at 7 and 30 days include self-reported opioid use, craving and satisfaction, health service utilization, overdose events, and engagement in formal addiction treatment (30 days) and receipt of medications for OUD (at 7 and 30 days). A sample size of 1000 per group provides 90% power at the 2-sided significance level to detect a difference in the primary outcome of 8% and accommodates a 15% dropout rate. We will compare the cost effectiveness of the two treatments on the primary outcome using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. We will also conduct an ancillary study in approximately 75 patients experiencing minimal to no opioid withdrawal who will undergo XR-BUP initiation. If the ancillary study demonstrates safety, we will expand the eligibility criteria for the RCT to include individuals with minimal to no opioid withdrawal. The results of these studies will inform implementation of ED-initiated BUP in diverse EDs which has the potential to improve treatment access.

Barriers and Facilitators to Clinician Readiness to Provide Emergency Department-Initiated Buprenorphine.

Importance: Treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) with buprenorphine decreases opioid use and prevents morbidity and mortality. Emergency departments (EDs) are an important setting for buprenorphine initiation for patients with untreated OUD; however, readiness varies among ED clinicians. Objective: To characterize barriers and facilitators of readiness to initiate buprenorphine for the treatment of OUD in the ED and identify opportunities to promote readiness across multiple clinician types. Design, Setting, and Participants: Using data collected from April 1, 2018, to January 11, 2019, this mixed-methods formative evaluation grounded in the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework included 4 geographically diverse academic EDs. Attending physicians (n = 113), residents (n = 107), and advanced practice clinicians (APCs) (n = 48) completed surveys electronically distributed to all ED clinicians (n = 396). A subset of participants (n = 74) also participated in 1 of 11 focus group discussions. Data were analyzed from June 1, 2018, to February 22, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Clinician readiness to initiate buprenorphine and provide referral for ongoing treatment for patients with OUD treated in the ED was assessed using a visual analog scale. Responders (268 of 396 [67.7%]) were dichotomized as less ready (scores 0-6) or most ready (scores 7-10). An ED-adapted Organizational Readiness to Change Assessment (ORCA) and 11 focus groups were used to assess ratings and perspectives on evidence and context-related factors to promote ED-initiated buprenorphine with referral for ongoing treatment, respectively. Results: Among the 268 survey respondents (153 of 260 were men [58.8%], with a mean [SD] of 7.1 [9.8] years since completing formal training), 56 (20.9%) indicated readiness to initiate buprenorphine for ED patients with OUD. Nine of 258 (3.5%) reported Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 2000 training completion. Compared with those who were less ready, clinicians who were most ready to initiate buprenorphine had higher mean scores across all ORCA Evidence subscales (3.50 [95% CI, 3.35-3.65] to 4.33 [95% CI, 4.13-4.53] vs 3.11 [95% CI, 3.03-3.20] to 3.60 [95% CI, 3.49-3.70]; P < .001) and on the Slack Resources of the ORCA Context subscales (3.32 [95% CI, 3.08-3.55] vs 3.0 [95% CI, 2.87-3.12]; P = .02). Barriers to ED-initiated buprenorphine included lack of training and experience in treating OUD with buprenorphine, concerns about ability to link to ongoing care, and competing needs and priorities for ED time and resources. Facilitators to ED-initiated buprenorphine included receiving education and training, development of local departmental protocols, and receiving feedback on patient experiences and gaps in quality of care. Conclusions and Relevance: Only a few ED clinicians had a high level of readiness to initiate buprenorphine; however, many expressed a willingness to learn with sufficient supports. Efforts to promote adoption of ED-initiated buprenorphine will require clinician and system-level changes.

Implementation facilitation to promote emergency department-initiated buprenorphine for opioid use disorder: protocol for a hybrid type III effectiveness-implementation study (Project ED HEALTH).

BACKGROUND: Patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) frequently present to the emergency department (ED) after overdose, or seeking treatment for general medical conditions, their addiction, withdrawal symptoms, or complications of injection drug use, such as soft tissue infections. ED-initiated buprenorphine has been shown to be effective in increasing patient engagement in treatment compared with brief intervention with a facilitated referral or referral alone. However, adoption into practice has lagged behind need. To address this implementation challenge, we are evaluating the impact of implementation facilitation (IF) on the adoption of ED-initiated buprenorphine for OUD into practice. METHODS: This protocol describes a study that is being conducted through the National Institute on Drug Abuse's Center for the Clinical Trials Network. A hybrid type III effectiveness-implementation study design is used to evaluate the effectiveness of a standard educational dissemination strategy versus IF on implementation (primary) and effectiveness (secondary) outcomes in four urban, academic EDs. Sites start with a standard 60-min "Grand Rounds" educational intervention describing the prevalence of ED patients with OUD, the evidence for opioid agonist treatment and for innovative interventions with ED-initiated buprenorphine; followed by a 1-year baseline evaluation period. Using a modified stepped wedge design, sites are randomly assigned to the IF intervention which is guided by the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARiHS) framework to assess evidence, context, and facilitation-related factors impacting the adoption of ED-initiated buprenorphine. During the 6 months of IF through the 1-year IF evaluation period, external facilitators work with local stakeholders to tailor and refine a bundle of activities to meet the site's needs. The primary analyses compare the baseline evaluation period to the IF evaluation period (n = 120 patients with untreated OUD enrolled during each period) on (1) rates of provision of ED-initiated buprenorphine by ED providers with referral for ongoing medication (implementation outcome) and (2) rates of patient engagement in addiction treatment on the 30th day after the ED visit (effectiveness outcome). Finally, we will perform a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to determine if the effectiveness benefits are worth the additional costs. DISCUSSION: Results will generate novel information regarding the impact of IF as a strategy to promote ED-initiated buprenorphine. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03023930 first posted 1/10/2017, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03023930?term=0069&rank=1.

Past-year Prescription Drug Monitoring Program Opioid Prescriptions and Self-reported Opioid Use in an Emergency Department Population With Opioid Use Disorder.

BACKGROUND: Despite increasing reliance on prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) as a response to the opioid epidemic, the relationship between aberrant drug-related behaviors captured by the PDMP and opioid use disorder is incompletely understood. How PDMP data should guide emergency department (ED) assessment has not been studied. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to evaluate a relationship between PDMP opioid prescription records and self-reported nonmedical opioid use of prescription opioids in a cohort of opioid-dependent ED patients enrolled in a treatment trial. METHODS: PDMP opioid prescription records during 1 year prior to study enrollment on 329 adults meeting Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV criteria for opioid dependence entering a randomized clinical trial in a large, urban ED were cross-tabulated with data on 30-day nonmedical prescription opioid use self-report. The association among these two types of data was assessed by the Goodman and Kruskal's gamma; a logistic regression was used to explore characteristics of participants who had PDMP record of opioid prescriptions. RESULTS: During 1 year prior to study enrollment, 118 of 329 (36%) patients had at least one opioid prescription (range = 1-51) in our states' PDMP. Patients who reported ≥15 of 30 days of nonmedical prescription opioid use were more likely to have at least four PDMP opioid prescriptions (20/38; 53%) than patients reporting 1 to 14 days (14/38, 37%) or zero days of nonmedical prescription opioid use (4/38, 11%; p = 0.002). Female sex and having health insurance were significantly more represented in the PDMP (p < 0.05 for both). CONCLUSION: PDMPs may be helpful in identifying patients with certain aberrant drug-related behavior, but are unable to detect many patients with opioid use disorder. The majority of ED patients with opioid use disorder were not captured by the PDMP, highlighting the importance of using additional methods such as screening and clinical history to identify opioid use disorders in ED patients and the limitations of PDMPs to detect opioid use disorders.

Cost-effectiveness of emergency department-initiated treatment for opioid dependence.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In a recent randomized trial, patients with opioid dependence receiving brief intervention, emergency department (ED)-initiated buprenorphine and ongoing follow-up in primary care with buprenorphine (buprenorphine) were twice as likely to be engaged in addiction treatment compared with referral to community-based treatment (referral) or brief intervention and referral (brief intervention). Our aim was to evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of these three methods of intervening on opioid dependence in the ED. DESIGN: Measured health-care use was converted to dollar values. We considered a health-care system perspective and constructed cost-effectiveness acceptability curves that indicate the probability each treatment is cost-effective under different thresholds of willingness-to-pay for outcomes studied. SETTING: An urban ED in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Opioid-dependent patients aged 18 years or older. MEASUREMENTS: Self-reported 30-day assessment data were used to construct cost-effectiveness acceptability curves for patient engagement in formal addiction treatment at 30 days and the number of days illicit opioid-free in the past week. FINDINGS: Considering only health-care system costs, cost-effectiveness acceptability curves indicate that at all positive willingness-to-pay values, ED-initiated buprenorphine treatment was more cost-effective than brief intervention or referral. For example, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $1000 for 30-day treatment engagement, we are 79% certain ED-initiated buprenorphine is most cost-effective compared with other studied treatments. Similar results were found for days illicit opioid-free in the past week. Results were robust to secondary analyses that included patients with missing cost data, included crime and patient time costs in the numerator, and to changes in unit price estimates. CONCLUSION: In the United States, emergency department-initiated buprenorphine intervention for patients with opioid dependence provides high value compared with referral to community-based treatment or combined brief intervention and referral.

An interventionist adherence scale for a specialized brief negotiation interview focused on treatment engagement for opioid use disorders.

BACKGROUND: No psychometrically validated instrument for evaluating the extent to which interventionists correctly implement brief interventions designed to motivate treatment engagement for opioid use disorders has been reported in the literature. The objective of this study was to develop and examine the psychometric properties of the Brief Negotiation Interview (BNI) Adherence Scale for Opioid Use Disorders (BAS-O). METHODS: In the context of a randomized controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of 3 models of emergency department care for opioid use disorders, the authors developed and subsequently examined the psychometric properties of the BAS-O, a 38-item scale that required raters to answer whether or not ("Yes" or "No") each of the critical actions of the BNI was correctly implemented by the research interventionist. BAS-O items pertained to the BNI's 4 steps: (1) Raise the Subject, (2) Provide Feedback, (3) Enhance Motivation, and (4) Negotiate and Advise. A total of 215 audio-recorded BNI and 88 control encounters were rated by 3 trained raters who were independent of the study team and blind to study hypotheses, treatment, and assignment. RESULTS: The results indicated the BAS-O has fair to excellent psychometric properties, in terms of good internal consistency, excellent interrater reliability, discriminant validity, and construct validity, and fair predictive validity. A 13-item, 2-factor solution accounted for nearly 80% of the variance, where factor 1 addressed "Autonomy and Planning" (7 items) and factor 2 addressed "Motivation and Problems" (6 items). However, predictive validity was found for only one of the BAS-O factor items (i.e., Telling patients that treatment will address a range of issues related to their opioid use disorder). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the BAS-O is a psychometrically valid measure of adherence to the specialized BNI for motivating treatment engagement in patients with opioid use disorders, thus providing a brief (13-item), objective method of evaluating BNI skill performance.

Emergency Department-Initiated Buprenorphine for Opioid Dependence with Continuation in Primary Care: Outcomes During and After Intervention.

BACKGROUND: Emergency department (ED)-initiated buprenorphine/naloxone with continuation in primary care was found to increase engagement in addiction treatment and reduce illicit opioid use at 30 days compared to referral only or a brief intervention with referral. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the long-term outcomes at 2, 6 and 12 months following ED interventions. DESIGN: Evaluation of treatment engagement, drug use, and HIV risk among a cohort of patients from a randomized trial who completed at least one long-term follow-up assessment. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 290/329 patients (88% of the randomized sample) were included. The followed cohort did not differ significantly from the randomized sample. INTERVENTIONS: ED-initiated buprenorphine with 10-week continuation in primary care, referral, or brief intervention were provided in the ED at study entry. MAIN MEASURES: Self-reported engagement in formal addiction treatment, days of illicit opioid use, and HIV risk (2, 6, 12 months); urine toxicology (2, 6 months). KEY RESULTS: A greater number of patients in the buprenorphine group were engaged in addiction treatment at 2 months [68/92 (74%), 95% CI 65-83] compared with referral [42/79 (53%), 95% CI 42-64] and brief intervention [39/83 (47%), 95% CI 37-58; p < 0.001]. The differences were not significant at 6 months [51/92 (55%), 95% CI 45-65; 46/70 (66%) 95% CI 54-76; 43/76 (57%) 95% CI 45-67; p = 0.37] or 12 months [42/86 (49%) 95% CI 39-59; 37/73 (51%) 95% CI 39-62; 49/78 (63%) 95% CI 52-73; p = 0.16]. At 2 months, the buprenorphine group reported fewer days of illicit opioid use [1.1 (95% CI 0.6-1.6)] versus referral [1.8 (95% CI 1.2-2.3)] and brief intervention [2.0 (95% CI 1.5-2.6), p = 0.04]. No significant differences in illicit opioid use were observed at 6 or 12 months. There were no significant differences in HIV risk or rates of opioid-negative urine results at any time. CONCLUSIONS: ED-initiated buprenorphine was associated with increased engagement in addiction treatment and reduced illicit opioid use during the 2-month interval when buprenorphine was continued in primary care. Outcomes at 6 and 12 months were comparable across all groups.

Emergency department-initiated buprenorphine/naloxone treatment for opioid dependence: a randomized clinical trial.

IMPORTANCE: Opioid-dependent patients often use the emergency department (ED) for medical care. OBJECTIVE: To test the efficacy of 3 interventions for opioid dependence: (1) screening and referral to treatment (referral); (2) screening, brief intervention, and facilitated referral to community-based treatment services (brief intervention); and (3) screening, brief intervention, ED-initiated treatment with buprenorphine/naloxone, and referral to primary care for 10-week follow-up (buprenorphine). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A randomized clinical trial involving 329 opioid-dependent patients who were treated at an urban teaching hospital ED from April 7, 2009, through June 25, 2013. INTERVENTIONS: After screening, 104 patients were randomized to the referral group, 111 to the brief intervention group, and 114 to the buprenorphine treatment group. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Enrollment in and receiving addiction treatment 30 days after randomization was the primary outcome. Self-reported days of illicit opioid use, urine testing for illicit opioids, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) risk, and use of addiction treatment services were the secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Seventy-eight percent of patients in the buprenorphine group (89 of 114 [95% CI, 70%-85%]) vs 37% in the referral group (38 of 102 [95% CI, 28%-47%]) and 45% in the brief intervention group (50 of 111 [95% CI, 36%-54%]) were engaged in addiction treatment on the 30th day after randomization (P < .001). The buprenorphine group reduced the number of days of illicit opioid use per week from 5.4 days (95% CI, 5.1-5.7) to 0.9 days (95% CI, 0.5-1.3) vs a reduction from 5.4 days (95% CI, 5.1-5.7) to 2.3 days (95% CI, 1.7-3.0) in the referral group and from 5.6 days (95% CI, 5.3-5.9) to 2.4 days (95% CI, 1.8-3.0) in the brief intervention group (P < .001 for both time and intervention effects; P = .02 for the interaction effect). The rates of urine samples that tested negative for opioids did not differ statistically across groups, with 53.8% (95% CI, 42%-65%) in the referral group, 42.9% (95% CI, 31%-55%) in the brief intervention group, and 57.6% (95% CI, 47%-68%) in the buprenorphine group (P = .17). There were no statistically significant differences in HIV risk across groups (P = .66). Eleven percent of patients in the buprenorphine group (95% CI, 6%-19%) used inpatient addiction treatment services, whereas 37% in the referral group (95% CI, 27%-48%) and 35% in the brief intervention group (95% CI, 25%-37%) used inpatient addiction treatment services (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among opioid-dependent patients, ED-initiated buprenorphine treatment vs brief intervention and referral significantly increased engagement in addiction treatment, reduced self-reported illicit opioid use, and decreased use of inpatient addiction treatment services but did not significantly decrease the rates of urine samples that tested positive for opioids or of HIV risk. These findings require replication in other centers before widespread adoption. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00913770.

Development of a scale to measure practitioner adherence to a brief intervention in the emergency department.

Brief intervention (BI) can reduce harmful and hazardous drinking among emergency department patients. However, no psychometrically-validated instrument for evaluating the extent to which practitioners correctly implement BIs in clinical practice (e.g., adherence) exists. We developed and subsequently examined the psychometric properties of a scale that measures practitioner adherence to a BI, namely the Brief Negotiation Interview (BNI). Ratings of 342 audiotaped BIs in the emergency department demonstrated that the BNI Adherence Scale (BAS) has: (1) excellent internal consistency and discriminant validity; (2) good to excellent inter-rater reliability, and (3) good construct validity, with an eight-item, two-factor structure accounting for 62% of the variance, but (4) no predictive validity in this study. The BAS provides practitioners with a brief, objective method to evaluate their BNI skills and give feedback to them about their performance.

A brief intervention reduces hazardous and harmful drinking in emergency department patients.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Brief interventions have been shown to reduce alcohol use and improve outcomes in hazardous and harmful drinkers, but evidence to support their use in emergency department (ED) patients is limited. The use of research assessments in studies of brief interventions may contribute to uncertainty about their effectiveness. Therefore we seek to determine (1) if an emergency practitioner-performed Brief Negotiation Interview or a Brief Negotiation Interview with a booster reduces alcohol consumption compared with standard care; and (2) the impact of research assessments on drinking outcomes using a standard care-no-assessment group. METHODS: We randomized 889 adult ED patients with hazardous and harmful drinking. A total of 740 received an emergency practitioner-performed Brief Negotiation Interview (n=297), a Brief Negotiation Interview with a 1-month follow-up telephone booster (Brief Negotiation Interview with booster) (n=295), or standard care (n=148). We also included a standard care with no assessments (n=149) group to examine the effect of assessments on drinking outcomes. Primary outcomes analyzed with mixed-models procedures included past 7-day alcohol consumption and 28-day binge episodes at 6 and 12 months, collected by interactive voice response. Secondary outcomes included negative health behaviors and consequences collected by telephone surveys. RESULTS: The reduction in mean number of drinks in the past 7 days from baseline to 6 and 12 months was significantly greater in the Brief Negotiation Interview with booster (from 20.4 [95% confidence interval {CI} 18.8 to 22.0] to 11.6 [95% CI 9.7 to 13.5] to 13.0 [95% CI 10.5 to 15.5]) and Brief Negotiation Interview (from 19.8 [95% CI 18.3 to 21.4] to 12.7 [95% CI 10.8 to 14.6] to 14.3 [95% CI 11.9 to 16.8]) than in standard care (from 20.9 [95% CI 18.7 to 23.2] to 14.2 [95% CI 11.2 to 17.1] to 17.6 [95% CI 14.1 to 21.2]). The reduction in 28-day binge episodes was also greater in the Brief Negotiation Interview with booster (from 7.5 [95% CI 6.8 to 8.2] to 4.4 [95% CI 3.6 to 5.2] to 4.7 [95% CI 3.9 to 5.6]) and Brief Negotiation Interview (from 7.2 [95% CI 6.5 to 7.9] to 4.8 [95% CI 4.0 to 5.6] to 5.1 [95% CI 4.2 to 5.9]) than in standard care (from 7.2 [95% CI 6.2 to 8.2] to 5.7 [95% CI 4.5 to 6.9] to 5.8 [95% CI 4.6 to 7.0]). The Brief Negotiation Interview with booster offered no significant benefit over the Brief Negotiation Interview alone. There were no differences in drinking outcomes between the standard care and standard care-no assessment groups. The reductions in rates of driving after drinking more than 3 drinks from baseline to 12 months were greater in the Brief Negotiation Interview (38% to 29%) and Brief Negotiation Interview with booster (39% to 31%) groups than in the standard care group (43% to 42%). CONCLUSION: Emergency practitioner-performed brief interventions can reduce alcohol consumption and episodes of driving after drinking in hazardous and harmful drinkers. These results support the use of brief interventions in ED settings.

Brief intervention for hazardous and harmful drinkers in the emergency department.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of emergency practitioner-performed brief intervention for hazardous/harmful drinkers in reducing alcohol consumption and negative consequences in an emergency department (ED) setting. METHODS: A randomized clinical trial (Project ED Health) was conducted in an urban ED from May 2002 to November 2003 for hazardous/harmful drinkers. Patients 18 years or older who screened above National Institute for Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism guidelines for "low-risk" drinking or presented with an injury in the setting of alcohol ingestion were eligible. The mean number of drinks per week and binge-drinking episodes during the past 30 days were collected at 6 and 12 months; negative consequences and use of treatment services, at 12 months. A Brief Negotiation Interview performed by emergency practitioners was compared to scripted Discharge Instructions. RESULTS: A total of 494 hazardous/harmful drinkers were studied. The 2 groups were similar with respect to baseline characteristics. In the Brief Negotiation Interview group, the mean number of drinks per week at 12 months was 3.8 less than the 13.6 reported at baseline. The Discharge Instructions group decreased 2.6 from 12.4 at baseline. Likewise, binge-drinking episodes per month decreased by 2.0 from a baseline of 6.0 in the Brief Negotiation Interview group and 1.5 from 5.4 in the Discharge Instructions group. For each outcome, the time effect was significant and the treatment effect was not. CONCLUSION: Among ED patients with hazardous/harmful drinking, we did not detect a difference in efficacy between emergency practitioner-performed Brief Negotiation Interview and Discharge Instructions. Further studies to test the efficacy of brief intervention in the ED are needed.

Serum polychlorinated biphenyls, cytochrome P-450 1A1 polymorphisms, and risk of breast cancer in Connecticut women.

Recent epidemiologic studies have suggested that genetic polymorphisms in the cytochrome P-450 1A1 gene (CYP1A1) may affect the relation between environmental exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and breast cancer risk. The authors report results from a case-control study evaluating the potential effect of gene-environment interaction between CYP1A1 and serum PCB levels on breast cancer risk among Caucasian women in Connecticut. The study included 374 case women with histologically confirmed breast cancer and 406 noncancerous controls with information on both serum PCB level and CYP1A1 genotype (1999-2002). Compared with women who had the homozygous wild-type CYP1A1 m2 genotype, significantly increased risks of breast cancer were found for women with the CYP1A1 m2 variant genotype (odds ratio (OR) = 2.1, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.1, 3.9), especially postmenopausal women (OR = 2.4, 95% CI: 1.1, 5.0). Risks associated with the CYP1A1 m2 variant genotype were highest for all women (OR = 3.6, 95% CI: 1.5, 8.2) and postmenopausal women (OR = 4.3, 95% CI: 1.6, 12.0) with higher serum PCB levels (611-2,600 ng/g). The CYP1A1 m1 and m4 genotypes were not associated with breast cancer risk independently or in combination with PCB exposure. In summary, the CYP1A1 m2 genetic polymorphism was associated with increased risk of female breast cancer and may modify the relation between PCB exposure and breast cancer risk.

Menstrual and reproductive factors and risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma among Connecticut women.

Several recent studies have suggested a potential role of menstrual and reproductive factors in the risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. To further examine the relation, the authors analyzed data from a population-based case-control study of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in Connecticut women between 1996 and 2000. A total of 601 histologically confirmed cases and 717 randomly selected population-based controls were included in this study. An in-person interview was conducted using a standardized and structured questionnaire to collect information on menstrual and reproductive factors and potential confounding factors. Compared with nulliparous women, women who had four or more pregnancies during their lifetime were found to have a significantly reduced risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (odds ratio (OR) = 0.6, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.4, 0.9). Risk appeared to decrease with increasing number of pregnancies (p(trend) = 0.03). The authors also observed an increased risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma overall (OR = 1.5, 95% CI: 1.0, 2.2) and of diffuse non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (OR = 1.7, 95% CI: 1.1, 2.7) for women who started their first menstrual period at age 15 or more years compared with those who started their first menstrual period before age 12 years. These findings support a reduced risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma associated with multiple pregnancies and an increased risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma associated with later age at menarche.

Blood transfusion and risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in Connecticut women.

The incidence and mortality rates of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma have been increasing worldwide. Allogeneic blood transfusion has been suggested as a risk factor for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, but the results from epidemiologic studies have been inconsistent. Data from a population-based case-control study of Connecticut women were analyzed to evaluate this relation. A total of 601 histologically confirmed, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma incident cases identified between 1996 and 2000 and 717 randomly selected controls were included in this study. Allogeneic blood transfusion was not associated with the increased risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma overall (odds ratio = 1.0, 95% confidence interval: 0.7, 1.3) or by subtype of the disease. The risk also did not vary by number of allogeneic blood transfusions, age at first transfusion, or time since first transfusion. When the reason for blood transfusion was considered, an increased risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma was found only for allogeneic blood transfusion for reason of anemia. In summary, the authors' findings do not support the hypothesis that allogeneic blood transfusion increases the risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

Prior medical conditions and medication use and risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in Connecticut United States women.

OBJECTIVE: To further investigate the role of prior medical conditions and medication use in the etiology of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), we analyzed the data from a population-based case-control study of NHL in Connecticut women. METHODS: A total of 601 histologically confirmed incident cases of NHL and 717 population-based controls were included in this study. In-person interviews were administered using standardized, structured questionnaires to collect information on medical conditions and medication use. RESULTS: An increased risk was found among women who had a history of autoimmune disorders (such as rheumatoid arthritis, lupus erythematosus, Sjogren's syndrome, and multiple sclerosis), anemia, eczema, or psoriasis. An increased risk was also observed among women who had used steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and tranquilizers. A reduced risk was found for women who had scarlet fever or who had used estrogen replacement therapy, aspirin, medications for non-insulin dependent diabetes, HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, or beta-adrenergic blocking agents. Risk associated with past medical history appeared to vary based on NHL subtypes, but the results were based on small number of exposed subjects. CONCLUSION: A relationship between certain prior medical conditions and medication use and risk of NHL was observed in this study. Further studies are warranted to confirm our findings.

Hepatitis C virus and risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma: a population-based case-control study among Connecticut women.

OBJECTIVES: Previous epidemiologic studies of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (B-NHL) have yielded conflicting results, perhaps due to differences in the classification of B-NHL and the choice of non-population-based control groups that may not reflect the background population prevalence of HCV. To further investigate the link between HCV and NHL, we conducted HCV testing on serum samples of 998 women (464 cases; 534 controls) from a population-based case-control study of women in Connecticut. METHODS: Serum samples were screened for HCV antibodies using an enzyme immunoassay; positive samples were confirmed by additional testing for HCV antibodies and for serum HCV RNA. RESULTS: Approximately 2% (8 of 464) of cases and 1% (5 of 534) of controls tested positive for HCV. The risk of NHL associated with HCV infection appeared to be concentrated among B-cell lymphomas [odds ratio (OR) 2.0; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.6, 8.2], particularly among follicular lymphomas (OR 4.1, 95% CI 0.8, 19.4). CONCLUSIONS: The primary strength of this study is our use of a population-based study design, although the low prevalence of HCV among women in Connecticut resulted in wide CIs for the estimated association between HCV and B-NHL subtypes. Our study suggests that HCV may be associated with increased risk of development of B-NHL, and that this risk may vary by B-NHL subtype among women. Due to the relatively low prevalence of HCV in our study population and the scarcity of population-based epidemiological research on this subject, our study highlights the need for additional large, population-based studies of the role of HCV in the etiology of B-NHL.

Diet and nutrient intakes and risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in Connecticut women.

A population-based case-control study (601 cases and 717 controls) was conducted in 1995-2001 among Connecticut women to evaluate the relation between diet and nutrient intakes and the risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL). When the highest quartile of intake was compared with the lowest, the authors found an increased risk of NHL associated with animal protein (odds ratio = 1.7, 95% confidence interval: 1.2, 2.4) and saturated fat (odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 2.3) but a reduced risk for polyunsaturated fat (odds ratio = 0.6, 95% confidence interval: 0.4, 0.9) and no relation for vegetable protein and monounsaturated fat. An increased risk was also observed for higher intakes of retinol, eggs, and dairy products. On the other hand, a reduced risk was found for higher intakes of dietary fiber and for several fruit and vegetable items. Risk of NHL associated with diet and nutrient intakes appeared to vary based on NHL subtype. An association between dietary intake and NHL risk is biologically plausible because diets high in protein and fat may lead to altered immunocompetence, resulting in an increased risk of NHL. The antioxidant or inhibiting nitrosation reaction properties of vegetables and fruits may result in a reduced risk. Further investigation of the role of dietary intakes on the risk of NHL is warranted.