Outpatient-Based Opioid Treatment Engagement and Attendance: A Prospective Cohort Study of Homeless-Experienced Adults.

BACKGROUND: The opioid overdose epidemic disproportionately impacts people experiencing homelessness. Outpatient-based opioid treatment (OBOT) programs have been established in homeless health care settings across the USA, but little is known about the success of these programs in engaging and retaining this highly marginalized patient population in addiction care. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate predictors of initial engagement and subsequent attendance in a homeless-tailored OBOT program. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study with 4 months of follow-up. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 148 homeless-experienced adults (≥18 years) who newly enrolled in the Boston Healthcare for the Homeless Program (BHCHP) OBOT program over a 1-year period (1/6/2022-1/5/2023). MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcomes were (1) initial OBOT program engagement, defined as having ≥2 additional OBOT visits within 1 month of OBOT enrollment, and (2) subsequent OBOT program attendance, measured monthly from months 2 to 4 of follow-up. KEY RESULTS: The average age was 41.7 years (SD 10.2); 23.6% were female, 35.8% were Hispanic, 12.8% were non-Hispanic Black, and 43.9% were non-Hispanic White. Over one-half (57.4%) were initially engaged. OBOT program attendances during months 2, 3, and 4 were 60.8%, 50.0%, and 41.2%, respectively. One-quarter (24.3%) were initially engaged and then attended the OBOT program every month during the follow-up period. Participants in housing or residential treatment programs (vs. unhoused; adjusted odds ratios (aORs) = 2.52; 95% CI = 1.17-5.44) and those who were already on or initiated a medication for opioid use disorder (OUD) (aOR = 6.53; 95% CI = 1.62-26.25) at the time of OBOT enrollment had higher odds of engagement. Older age (aOR = 1.74 per 10-year increment; 95% CI = 1.28-2.38) and initial engagement (aOR = 3.50; 95% CI = 1.86-6.59) conferred higher odds of attendance. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, over half initially engaged with the OBOT program, with initial engagement emerging as a strong predictor of subsequent OBOT program attendance. Interventions aimed at enhancing initial OBOT program engagement, including those focused on housing and buprenorphine initiation, may improve longer-term outcomes in this marginalized population.

Linkage to Care Outcomes Following Treatment in A Low-Threshold Substance Use Disorder Bridge Clinic.

BACKGROUND: Treatment for substance use disorders (SUD) remains low in the United States. To better meet needs of people who use alcohol and other drugs, low threshold bridge clinics which offer treatment without barrier and harm reduction services have gained prevalence. Bridge clinics work to surmount barriers to care by providing same day medication and treatment for SUD and eventually transitioning patients to community-based treatment providers. In this study, we examine SUD treatment outcomes among patients who transitioned out of a bridge clinic. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of posttreatment outcomes of patients seen at an urban medical center's bridge clinic between 2017 and 2022. The primary outcome was being in care anywhere at time of follow-up. We also examined the proportion of patients who completed each step of the cascade of care following transfer: connection to transfer clinic, completion of a clinic visit, retention in care, and medication use among those remaining in care at the transfer clinic. We examined the association of different bridge clinic services with still being in care anywhere and the association between successful transfer with being in care and taking medication at follow-up. RESULTS: Of 209 eligible participants, 63 were surveyed. Sixty-five percent of participants identified as male, 74% as white, 12% as Hispanic, 6% as Black, and 16% were unhoused. Most participants (78%) reported being connected to SUD treatment from the Bridge Clinic, and 37% remained in care at the same facility at the time of survey. Eighty-four percent reported being in treatment anywhere and 68% reported taking medication for SUD at follow-up, with most participants reporting taking buprenorphine (46%). CONCLUSION: Of those participants who transitioned out of a bridge clinic into community-based SUD care, 78% were successfully connected to ongoing care and 84% were still in care at follow-up.

HIV-related stigma and psychological distress in a cohort of patients receiving antiretroviral therapy in Nigeria.

Psychological distress is increasingly recognized as a barrier to engagement in HIV care, resulting in poor HIV outcomes. HIV-related stigma is a potential driver of distress in people living with HIV (PLWH). We conducted a prospective cohort study in 288 PLWH who newly initiated ART in a Nigeria. We assessed overall stigma (range 40-160) and four stigma subtypes (personalized, disclosure, negative self-image, and public stigma) at enrollment, and assessed psychological distress at enrollment, 6, and 12-months after ART initiation. We used logistic regression to assess the relationship between stigma and 12-month psychological distress. Overall stigma was high (102.34 ± 5.65) and was higher in both unmarried patients (p < 0.01) and those who had not disclosed their HIV status to anyone at enrollment (p < 0.01). Higher overall stigma (OR: 1.05, 95% CI 1.00-1.09) and personalized stigma (OR:1.08, 95% CI 1.00-1.16) were associated with higher odds of psychological distress at 12-months. Conclusions: Overall stigma levels were high in a cohort of PLWH initiating care in Nigeria. Higher stigma was associated with psychological distress. These data support the need for integration of measures to reduce stigma and psychological distress in the care of PLWH.

Rapid Methadone Induction in a General Hospital Setting: A Retrospective, Observational Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Outpatient methadone guidelines recommend starting at a low dose and titrating slowly. As fentanyl prevalence and opioid-related mortality increases, there is a need for individuals to rapidly achieve a therapeutic methadone dose. Hospitalization offers a monitored setting for methadone initiation, however dosing practices and safety are not well described. METHODS: Retrospective, observational analysis of hospitalized patients with opioid use disorder seen by an inpatient addiction consult team in an academic medical center who were newly initiated on methadone between 2016 and 2022. We calculated initial daily dose, maximum daily dose, timing interval of dose escalation, whether patients were connected to an opioid treatment program (OTP) prior to discharge, whether adverse effects or safety events occurred during the hospitalization, and whether such events were definitely or probably related versus possibly related or unrelated to methadone. RESULTS: One hundred twelve patients were included. The mean initial daily methadone dose administered was 32 mg (range: 10-90 mg). The mean maximum dose reached was 76.8 mg (range 30-165 mg). The mean number of days from initial to peak dose was 5.6 days (range 1-19 days). Overall, 30% of patients experienced a safety event, most commonly sedation. Only 4 safety events were deemed probably or definitely related to methadone. In regression analyses, there was no significant difference between starting doses among patients with or without sedation but there was a relationship between last dose and the likelihood of any possibly related event, with those ending at a dose of 100 mg or higher having a higher likelihood event, compared to those ending at lower doses (47.8% vs 12.4%, P < .001). Seventy-six percent were connected to OTP before discharge. CONCLUSION: Among hospitalized patients initiating methadone, rapid dose titration was infrequently associated with related safety events and most were connected to community-based methadone treatment before discharge.

Attitudes Toward Injection Practices Among People Who Inject Drugs Utilizing Medical Services: Opportunities for Harm Reduction Counseling in Health Care Settings.

Hospitals are an important setting to provide harm reduction services to people who inject drugs (PWID). This study aimed to characterize PWID's injection practices, the perceived risk and benefits of those practices, and the immediate IDU risk environment among individuals seeking medical care. Surveys were administered to 120 PWID seeking medical services at an urban hospital. Poisson regression was used to examine the effect of perceived risk or importance of injection practices on the rate of engaging in those practices. The mean participant reported "often" reusing syringes and "occasionally" cleaning their hands or skin prior to injection. 78% of participants reported that syringes were extremely risky to share, which was associated with lower likelihood of sharing them (ARR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.36-0.95). 38% of participants reported it was extremely important to use a new syringe for each injection, and these participants were more likely to report never reusing syringes >5 times (ARR: 1.62, 95% CI: 1.11-2.35). Other factors that may influence injection practices-including fear of arrest, withdrawal, lack of access to supplies, and injecting outdoors-were common among participants. In conclusion, practices that place PWID at risk of injury and infection are common, and risk-benefit perception is associated with some, but not all, injection practices. Injecting in challenging environments and conditions is common. Therefore, harm reduction counseling in medical settings must be accompanied by other strategies to reduce risk, including facilitating access to supplies. Ultimately, structural interventions, such as affordable housing, are needed to address the risk environment.

Preliminary feasibility of integrating tobacco treatment into SUD peer recovery coaching: a mixed-methods study of peer recovery coaches.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with substance use disorder (SUD) have high prevalence of cigarette smoking and difficulty quitting. Peer recovery coaches (PRCs; individuals with lived SUD experience) facilitate SUD behavior change in recoverees but it is unknown if/how they address tobacco treatment in SUD recovery coaching. We assessed PRC's tobacco-related practices and attitudes about tobacco treatment in SUD recovery. METHODS: The Tobacco use In Peer-recovery Study (TIPS) was a cross-sectional mixed-methods pilot survey (January-March 2022) of the 26 PRCs employed by a Massachusetts-based healthcare system's 12 SUD treatment clinics/programs. PRCs completed a quantitative survey (n = 23/26; 88%) and a telephone-based qualitative interview (n = 20/26; 77%). RESULTS: One-third of PRCs reported current smoking, 50% reported former smoking, and 18% never smoked. Among PRCs, 61% reported accompanying recoverees outdoors to smoke, 26% smoked with recoverees, 17% had provided cigarettes to recoverees, 32% used smoking to help build peer-relationships, and 74% rated smoking as socially acceptable in SUD treatment. PRCs reported regularly talking to recoverees about tobacco treatment (65%), believed they should have a role in helping recoverees quit smoking (52%), and were interested in tobacco treatment training (65%). A majority of both nonsmoking and current smoking PRCs (73% vs. 57%) regularly talked to recoverees about quitting smoking. CONCLUSION: PRCs' attitudes about integrating tobacco treatment into SUD recovery coaching were generally positive and PRCs reported they could have a role in helping recoverees with tobacco treatment. Barriers to integrating tobacco treatment into SUD recovery include use of cigarettes as a peer-recovery tool and high prevalence and social acceptability of smoking in SUD recovery.

Individuals Reporting Past 3-month Smoked Stimulant Use Are Placed at Risk for Infection and Injury Amid COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: Smoking stimulants, such as methamphetamine and "crack" cocaine, can spread infections, including hepatitis C and COVID-19, and lead to injuries, particularly when individuals share or use makeshift pipes. The purpose of the study was to assess the practices of people who inhale ("smoke") stimulants to guide future clinical harm reduction efforts. METHODS: Anonymous surveys were administered to participants reporting inhalation of crack cocaine and/or methamphetamine in the past 3 months. Participants were eligible if they sought services from an outreach team staffed by a municipal syringe service program (SSP) or if they were patients at a low-threshold substance use disorder treatment program, the Massachusetts General Hospital Bridge Clinic. RESULTS: The survey was administered to 68 total participants, 30% of whom were recruited in the Massachusetts General Hospital Bridge Clinic and 70% through SSP outreach. Unsafe smoking practices were reported by 93% of participants. Among the 46% of participants surveyed who both smoked and injected stimulants, 61% of those participants stated that they injected instead of smoked stimulants because of lack of access to pipes. Amid COVID-19, 35% of participants adopted safer smoking practices. Most participants reported that they would be more likely to attend an SSP or health center if pipes were provided. CONCLUSIONS: Inhalational practices that place participants at risk of injury and illness are common. Providing safer smoking equipment may promote health and engage individuals in care.

Psychological Distress Increases 30-Fold Among People with HIV in the First Year on ART in Nigeria-a Call for Integrated Mental Health Services.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have longitudinally assessed psychological distress among people with HIV (PWH) initiating ART in resource-limited settings. METHOD: Baseline, 6-month, and 12-month psychological distress were measured in a Nigerian cohort newly initiating therapy; the relationship between baseline factors and psychological distress at 12 months was assessed; and the association between psychological distress at 12 months and care retention or immunologic failure was determined. RESULTS: Among 563 patients, median age was 38 years (IQR: 33-46 years), 62% were female, and 51% were married. Psychological distress increased from 3% at baseline to 34% at 12 months. Age (aOR 1.28, 95% CI 1.06-1.56), female sex (aOR 2.89, 95% CI 1.93-4.33), lack of disclosure (aOR 4.32, 95% CI 2.48-7.51), and time on ART (6 months [aOR 6.91, 95% CI 3.14-15.18] and 12 months [aOR 32.63, 95% CI 16.54-64.36]) were associated with psychological distress while being married (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.30-0.61) was associated with reduced odds. Tweve-month psychological distress was associated with increased risk of immunologic failure (aOR 2.22, 95% CI 1.31-3.82). CONCLUSION: The risk of psychological distress increased 30-fold in the first year on therapy in PWH in Nigeria.

Patients With Serious Mental Illness Can Engage in Tobacco Treatment Trials and Tobacco Cessation Interventions During Cancer Treatment.

PURPOSE: More than half of individuals with serious mental illness (SMI) smoke, contributing to premature cancer mortality. A cancer diagnosis provides an opportunity to assist with smoking cessation; however, supportive oncology trials frequently exclude patients with SMI. To fill this gap, we examined differences in engagement and tobacco cessation in a pragmatic clinical trial. METHODS: We recruited 303 participants from two National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers, of which 10% had prior diagnoses of SMI (major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia spectrum disorders). We compared self-reported smoking behaviors, patient attitudes and beliefs about cessation, and rates of trial completion, engagement, and smoking abstinence among recently diagnosed patients with cancer with and without SMI. Six months after trial completion, we completed qualitative interviews on barriers and facilitators to tobacco cessation in a random sample of participants with SMI. RESULTS: Trial participants with SMI had similar motivation to quit smoking as those without SMI. Additionally, participants with SMI had a similar ability to engage in a tobacco treatment trial (6.5 counseling sessions completed v 7.3 sessions) and benefit from tobacco treatment as those without SMI (32.3% v 27.8% 6-month quit rates). CONCLUSION: Patients with cancer and SMI were able to engage in and benefit from a tobacco cessation trial integrated into cancer care. A cancer diagnosis provides an opportunity to assist patients with SMI with smoking cessation referrals and treatment. Pragmatic supportive oncology trials that include a diverse population of adults with SMI are needed to inform care delivery and improve cancer outcomes for patients with SMI and cancer.

Predictors of engagement and retention in care at a low-threshold substance use disorder bridge clinic.

INTRODUCTION: People with substance user disorder (SUD) have frequent intersections with the health care system; however, engagement and retention in SUD care remain low, particularly for marginalized populations. Low-threshold treatment models that aim to eliminate barriers to care are one proposed intervention to increase access and equity in SUD treatment. METHODS: This is a retrospective, cohort study of patients treated at a low-threshold bridge clinic from 2016 to 2021. The study's primary aim was to describe patient characteristics associated with engagement, defined as two or more completed visits, and treatment retention at 60 days, defined as a completed visit 45-to-75 days after first visit. A secondary outcome was transfer to ongoing treatment after bridge clinic. The study analyzed multivariable models assessing demographic and clinical predictors for each outcome using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: The study found that 1857 patients completed 2730 care episodes. The mean age was 38.7 years old, 70 % were male, 30 % female, 79 % White, 7 % Black, 9 % Latinx, and 97 % spoke English. Opioid use disorder (OUD) was the most common type of SUD, seen among 84 % of episodes, followed by alcohol (30 %), and stimulant use disorder (28 %). Seventy percent of bridge clinic episodes of care resulted in engagement, 38 % were retained at 60 days, and 28 % had transfer to care documented. In adjusted analyses, engagement was lower for Black patients compared to White patients and higher for patients who received buprenorphine or naltrexone. Retention for Black patients was also lower compared to White patients and higher for patients who were unhoused and patients who received buprenorphine or naltrexone. Transfer of care was more likely among patients who received buprenorphine. CONCLUSIONS: At a low-threshold bridge clinic 70 % of patients successfully engaged in care and 38 % were retained at two months. While OUD and AUD were most prevalent, stimulant use was common in this population. Patients who received buprenorphine or naltrexone had higher engagement, and retention, and those receiving buprenorphine also had higher care transfer. Black patients had lower rates of engagement and retention. Treatment providers need to adopt low-threshold SUD care models to eliminate racial disparities and address the needs of people using stimulants.

Study protocol for a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation trial testing virtual tobacco treatment in oncology practices [Smokefree Support Study 2.0].

BACKGROUND: Persistent smoking among patients diagnosed with cancer is associated with adverse clinical outcomes, yet an evidence-based tobacco use intervention has not been well-integrated into cancer care in community oncology settings. This paper describes the protocol of a nation-wide clinical trial conducted by the ECOG-ACRIN National Cancer Institute (NCI) Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) Research Base to assess the effectiveness of a virtual tobacco treatment intervention and the process of implementing tobacco treatment in NCORP community oncology settings. METHODS/DESIGN: This two-arm, multisite (n: 49 NCORP sites) hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation randomized controlled trial compares the effectiveness of a Virtual Intervention Treatment (VIT) versus an Enhanced Usual Control (EUC) among English and Spanish speaking patients recently diagnosed with cancer, reporting current smoking and receiving care at a participating NCORP Community or Minority/Underserved Site. The VIT includes up to 11 virtual counseling sessions with a tobacco treatment specialist and up to 12 weeks of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). The EUC arm receives a referral to the NCI Quitline. The primary study outcome is biochemically confirmed 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence. Moderators of treatment effect will be assessed. The study evaluates implementation processes from participating NCORP site staff via survey, administrative, and focus group data, including reach, acceptability, appropriateness, fidelity, feasibility, adoption, cost and sustainability outcomes. DISCUSSION: This trial will generate findings about the effectiveness of an evidence-based virtual tobacco treatment intervention targeting patients diagnosed with cancer and illuminate barriers and facilitators that influence implementing tobacco treatment into community oncology settings nationally. In the era of COVID-19, virtual care solutions are vital for maximizing access and utilization of tobacco treatment delivery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03808818) on January 18th, 2019; Last update posted: May 21st, 2020.

Cost-effectiveness of Implementing Smoking Cessation Interventions for Patients With Cancer.

Importance: Guidelines recommend cancer care clinicians offer smoking cessation treatment. Cost analyses will help stakeholders understand and plan for implementation of cessation programs. Objective: To estimate the incremental cost per quit (ICQ) of adopting an intensive smoking cessation intervention among patients undergoing treatment at cancer care clinics, from a clinic perspective. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation, a secondary analysis of the Smokefree Support Study (conducted 2013-2018; completed 2021), used microcosting methods and sensitivity analyses to estimate the ICQ of the interventions. Participants included patients undergoing treatment for a broad range of solid tumors and lymphomas who reported current smoking and were receiving care at cancer care clinics within 2 academic medical centers. Exposures: Intensive smoking cessation treatment (up to 11 counseling sessions with free medications), standard of care (up to 4 counseling sessions with medication advice), or usual care (referral to the state quitline). Main Outcomes and Measures: Total costs, component-specific costs, and the ICQ of the intensive smoking cessation treatment relative to both standard of care (comparator in the parent randomized trial) and usual care (a common comparator outside this trial) were calculated. Overall and post hoc site-specific estimates are provided. Because usual care was not included in the parent trial, sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess how assumptions about usual care quit rates affected study outcomes (ie, base case [from a published smoking cessation trial among patients with thoracic cancer], best case, and conservative case scenarios). Results: The per-patient costs of offering intensive smoking cessation treatment, standard of care, and usual care were $1989, $1482, and $0, respectively. For intensive treatment, the dominant costs were treatment (35%), staff supervision (26%), and patient enrollment (24%). Relative to standard of care, intensive treatment had an overall ICQ of $3906, and one site had an ICQ of $2892. Relative to usual care, intensive treatment had an ICQ of $9866 overall (base case), although at one site, the ICQ was $5408 (base case) and $3786 (best case). Conclusions and Relevance: In this economic evaluation study, implementation of an intensive smoking cessation treatment intervention was moderately to highly cost-effective, depending on existing smoking cessation services in place.

Comparative Effectiveness of Postdischarge Smoking Cessation Interventions for Hospital Patients: The Helping HAND 4 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Smoking cessation interventions for hospitalized patients must continue after discharge to improve long-term tobacco abstinence. How health systems can best deliver postdischarge tobacco treatment is uncertain. Objective: To determine if health system-based tobacco cessation treatment after hospital discharge produces more long-term tobacco abstinence than referral to a community-based quitline. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial was conducted September 2018 to November 2020 in 3 hospitals in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee. Cigarette smokers admitted to a study hospital who received brief in-hospital tobacco treatment and wanted to quit smoking were recruited for participation and randomized for postdischarge treatment to health system-based Transitional Tobacco Care Management (TTCM) or electronic referral to a community-based quitline (QL). Both multicomponent interventions offered smoking cessation counseling and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for up to 3 months. Data were analyzed from February 1, 2021, to April 25, 2022. Interventions: TTCM provided 8 weeks of NRT at discharge and 7 automated calls with a hospital-based counselor call-back option. The QL intervention sent referrals from the hospital electronic health record to the state quitline, which offered 5 counseling calls and an NRT sample. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was biochemically verified past 7-day tobacco abstinence at 6 months. Self-reported point-prevalence and continuous tobacco abstinence and tobacco treatment utilization were assessed 1, 3, and 6 months after discharge. Results: A total of 1409 participants (mean [SD] age, 51.7 [12.6] years; 784 [55.6%] women; mean [SD] 16.4 [10.6] cigarettes/day) were recruited, including 706 randomized to TTCM and 703 randomized to QL. Participants were comparable at baseline, including 216 Black participants (15.3%), 82 Hispanic participants (5.8%), and 1089 White participants (77.3%). At 1 and 3 months after discharge, more TTCM participants than QL participants used cessation counseling (1 month: 245 participants [34.7%] vs 154 participants [21.9%]; 3 months: 248 participants [35.1%] vs 123 participants [17.5%]; P < .001) and pharmacotherapy (1 month: 455 participants [64.4%] vs 324 participants [46.1%]; 3 months: 367 participants [52.0%] vs 264 participants [37.6%]; P < .001). More TTCM than QL participants reported continuous abstinence for 3 months (RR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.06-1.58) and point-prevalence abstinence at 1 month (RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.08-1.35) and 3 months (RR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.09-1.37) but not at 6 months (RR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.99-1.29). The primary outcome, biochemically verified point-prevalence abstinence at 6 months, was not statistically significantly different between groups (19.9% vs 16.9%; RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.92-1.50). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, biochemically verified tobacco abstinence rates were not significantly different between groups at the 6-month follow-up. However, the health system-based model was superior to the community-based quitline model throughout the 3 months of active treatment. A longer duration of postdischarge treatment may sustain the superiority of the health system-based model. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03603496.

Prevalence of Cannabis Use and Cannabis Route of Administration among Massachusetts Adults in Buprenorphine Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder.

BACKGROUND: Recent prevalence estimates of cannabis use among individuals receiving medication treatment for OUD (MOUD) are lacking, and no study has characterized cannabis route of administration (cROA) in this population. These knowledge gaps are relevant because cannabis' effects and health outcomes vary by cROA and the availability and perceptions of cROA (e.g., vaping devices) are changing. METHODS: The Vaping In Buprenorphine-treated patients Evaluation (VIBE) cross-sectional survey assessed the prevalence and correlates of cannabis use and cROA among adults receiving buprenorphine MOUD from 02/20 to 07/20 at five community health centers in Massachusetts, a state with legal recreational and medical cannabis use. RESULTS: Among the 92/222 (41%) respondents reporting past 30-day cannabis use, smoking was the most common cROA (75%), followed by vaping (38%), and eating (26%). Smoking was more often used as a single cROA vs. in combination others (p = 0.01), whereas vaping, eating, and dabbing were more often used in combination with another cROA (all p < 0.05). Of the 39% of participants reporting multiple cROA, smoking and vaping (61%), and smoking and eating (50%), were the most prevalent combinations. Nonwhite race (vs. white) and current cigarette smoking (vs. no nicotine use) were associated with past 30-day cannabis use in multiple logistic regression. CONCLUSIONS: Prevalence of past 30-day cannabis use among individuals receiving buprenorphine MOUD in Massachusetts in 2020 was nearly double the prevalence of cannabis use in Massachusetts' adult general population in 2019 (21%). Our data are consistent with state and national data showing smoking as the most common cROA.

Longitudinal Electronic Cigarette Use Among Patients Recently Diagnosed With Cancer Enrolled in a Smoking Cessation Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Many cancer patients who smoke report concurrent e-cigarette use. Using a mixed-methods approach, we aimed to (1) describe longitudinal e-cigarette use over 6 months after a cancer diagnosis and (2) assess the association between e-cigarette use and smoking cessation, among cancer patients in a smoking cessation trial. AIMS AND METHODS: Data were from a 2-site randomized controlled trial of Standard (brief counseling) versus Intensive treatment (sustained counseling plus smoking cessation medication) in individuals who smoke recently diagnosed with cancer. Participants (n = 303) reported e-cigarette use at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. Biochemically-verified past 7-day cigarette abstinence was collected at 6 months. Qualitative interviews at 6 months explored factors related to e-cigarette use. RESULTS: E-cigarette use prevalence was highest between baseline and 3 months (16%) and declined over time. Participants using e-cigarettes at follow-up had higher baseline cigarette dependence and smoked more heavily. Multivariable analyses found no significant association between follow-up e-cigarette use and 6-month cigarette abstinence. E-cigarette use at follow-up was higher in the Standard versus Intensive treatment group (p = .003 and .001 at 3 and 6 mo, respectively). Smoking cessation and health concerns were primary reasons for using e-cigarettes. CONCLUSIONS: Among individuals who smoke recently diagnosed with cancer and enrolled in a smoking cessation intervention trial, e-cigarette use during trial participation was not associated with smoking abstinence. Individuals who chose to use e-cigarettes were less likely to be receiving intensive cessation support as part of the trial. Further studies are needed to evaluate the association between e-cigarette use and smoking cessation in cancer patients. IMPLICATIONS: E-cigarette use was not associated with cigarette abstinence at 6 months among adults who smoke recently diagnosed with cancer enrolled in a smoking cessation trial. Individuals with easier access to evidence-based smoking cessation treatment may be less likely to use e-cigarettes.

Investigating documentation of alcohol and non-medical substance use in oncology treatment: an electronic health record review.

PURPOSE: Little is known about non-tobacco substance use (SU) and its treatment in cancer patients. National guidelines address tobacco only, and assessment of SU in cancer patients is not standardized. It is not clear how oncology clinicians assess, document, and follow-up on SU. METHODS: We conducted an electronic health record review of patients enrolled in a smoking cessation trial at one large hospital site (N = 176). Chart review of oncology treatment notes assessed whether SU assessment was documented, the content of the documentation/assessment (e.g., frequency of use), and details about documentation (e.g., where/who documented). RESULTS: Sixty-nine percent (121/176) of cancer patients had SU documented. Many patients (42%, 74/176) had only one substance documented; 66% (116/176) had alcohol use documented. For a substantial minority of patients (43/176; 24%), the provider did not specify the substance assessed (e.g., "drug use," "illicits"). SU was primarily documented by physicians (84%, 102/121), in routine progress notes (56%, 68/121), in the "social history" section of the note (84%, 102/121). Only 4 patients had a documented SU follow-up plan. When examining the subset of patients who reported problematic alcohol use (N = 27), the content of documentation was inconsistent (e.g., number of drinks/day vs. qualitative descriptors of use). CONCLUSIONS: About 1/3 of oncology patients did not have SU assessment documented. SU other than alcohol use was infrequently documented, many clinicians documented SU but did not specify substance type, and few clinicians documented a follow-up plan for problematic SU. Oncology settings should utilize standardized assessment and referral for SU treatment.

Perceptions of E-cigarettes among adults in treatment for opioid use disorder.

Background: Individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) have a high prevalence of smoking and limited success quitting smoking with existing tools. There is ongoing debate about whether electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) may be a viable harm reduction strategy. We sought to determine the potential acceptability of e-cigarettes for cigarette harm reduction among individuals receiving medication treatment for opioid use disorder (MOUD) with buprenorphine. Among individuals receiving MOUD we investigated health harm perceptions of cigarettes, nicotine e-cigarettes, and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), and perceptions of the helpfulness of e-cigarettes and NRT for quitting cigarettes. Methods: Cross-sectional telephone survey conducted among adults in buprenorphine treatment at five community health centers in the Boston, MA metropolitan area from February to July 2020. Results: 93% and 63% of participants rated cigarettes and e-cigarettes, respectively, as very or extremely harmful to health, and 62% rated NRT as not to slightly harmful to health. Over half (58%) rated cigarettes as more harmful than e-cigarettes; 65% and 83% perceived e-cigarettes and NRT, respectively, to be helpful for reducing/quitting cigarette use. In bivariate analyses, nicotine e-cigarette users, compared to nonusers, perceived e-cigarettes to be less harmful to health and more often rated e-cigarettes as helpful for reducing/quitting cigarette use (both p<0.05). Conclusions: This study suggests that Massachusetts patients receiving MOUD with buprenorphine have concerns about the health harms of e-cigarettes yet rate them as helpful tools for reducing or quitting cigarette smoking. Future research is needed to test the efficacy of e-cigarettes for cigarette harm reduction.

Emergency Department-initiated Buprenorphine and Referral to Follow-up Addiction Care: A Program Description.

INTRODUCTION: Emergency department (ED) initiated opioid use disorder (OUD) care is effective; however, real-world predictors of patient engagement are lacking. OBJECTIVE: This program evaluation examined predictors of ED-based OUD treatment and subsequent engagement. METHOD: Program evaluation in Boston, MA. Adult patients who met criteria for OUD during an ED visit in 2019 were included. Patients were included if a diagnosis of OUD or opioid-related overdose was associated with the ED visit or if they met previously validated criteria for OUD within the previous 12 months. We assessed predictors of ED-OUD treatment receipt and subsequent engagement, using Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set definition of initial encounter within 14 days of discharge and either 2 subsequent encounters or a subsequent buprenorphine prescription within 34 days of the initial encounter. We used generalized estimating equations for panel data. RESULTS: During 2019, 1946 patients met criteria for OUD. Referrals to Bridge Clinic were made for 207 (11%), buprenorphine initiated for 106 (5%), and home induction buprenorphine kits given to 56 (3%). Following ED discharge, 237 patients (12%) had a visit within 14 days, 122 (6%) had ≥2 additional visits, and 207 (11%) received a subsequent buprenorphine prescription. Young, White, male patients were most likely to receive ED-OUD care. Patients who received ED-OUD care were more likely to have subsequent treatment engagement (adjusted rate ratio: 2.30, 95% confidence intervals: 1.62-3.27). Referrals were made less often than predicted for Black (-49%) or Hispanic/Latinx (-25%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: Initiating treatment for OUD in the ED was associated with increased engagement in outpatient addiction care.

Interest in Electronic Cigarettes for Smoking Cessation Among Adults With Opioid Use Disorder in Buprenorphine Treatment: A Mixed-Methods Investigation.

INTRODUCTION: Individuals in treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) have high smoking rates and limited success with Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved cessation aids, suggesting need for novel approaches. Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) might benefit this population, but e-cigarettes' acceptability for tobacco reduction or cessation among smokers in OUD treatment is not known. METHODS: A cross-sectional mixed-methods study of 222 adults in OUD treatment with buprenorphine in the Boston, Massachusetts metropolitan area was conducted in 2020. We used quantitative and qualitative data to investigate individuals' experience with and interest in e-cigarettes and other methods for smoking cessation and assessed factors associated with interest in e-cigarette use. RESULTS: One hundred sixty (72%) of the 222 participants were past 30-day cigarette smokers. They most frequently reported having ever used nicotine replacement therapy (NRT; 83%) and e-cigarettes (71%) for smoking cessation and most often indicated interest in using NRT (71%) and e-cigarettes (44%) for future smoking cessation. In multiple logistic regression analysis, interest in using e-cigarettes for future smoking cessation was independently associated with having ever used e-cigarettes for smoking cessation, current e-cigarette use, and perceiving e-cigarettes to be less harmful than cigarettes (ps < .05). In qualitative data, many current vapers/former smokers reported that e-cigarettes had been helpful for quitting cigarettes. For current smokers who currently or formerly vaped, frequently reported challenges in switching to e-cigarettes were concerns about replacing one addiction with another and e-cigarettes not adequately substituting for cigarettes. CONCLUSIONS: E-cigarettes had a moderate level of acceptability for smoking cessation among cigarette smokers in OUD treatment. More research is warranted to test the efficacy of this approach. IMPLICATIONS: Individuals in treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) have high smoking rates and limited success with existing smoking cessation tools, suggesting a need for novel cessation treatment approaches. In this mixed-methods study of individuals receiving medication treatment for OUD with buprenorphine in Massachusetts in 2020, we found a moderate level of acceptability of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation.