Grayken lessons: between a rock and a hard place? A 37-year-old man with acute liver injury while enrolled in a managed alcohol program for severe alcohol use disorder.

Managed alcohol programs aim to reduce health and social harms associated with severe alcohol use disorder. Here, we describe a young man with severe alcohol use disorder enrolled in a managed alcohol program, who was admitted to hospital with acute liver injury. Fearing that alcohol was contributing, the inpatient care team discontinued the managed alcohol dose in hospital. He was ultimately diagnosed with cephalexin-induced liver injury. After consideration of risks, benefits, and alternative options, the patient and care team jointly decided to restart managed alcohol after hospital discharge. With this case, we describe managed alcohol programs and summarize the emerging evidence-base, including eligibility criteria and outcome measures; we explore clinical and ethical dilemmas in caring for patients with liver disease within managed alcohol programs; and we emphasize principles of harm reduction and patient-centered care when establishing treatment plans for patients with severe alcohol use disorder and unstable housing.

Evaluation of an emergency safe supply drugs and managed alcohol program in COVID-19 isolation hotel shelters for people experiencing homelessness.

BACKGROUND: During a COVID-19 outbreak in the congregate shelter system in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, a healthcare team provided an emergency "safe supply" of medications and alcohol to facilitate isolation in COVID-19 hotel shelters for residents who use drugs and/or alcohol. We aimed to evaluate (a) substances and dosages provided, and (b) outcomes of the program. METHODS: We reviewed medical records of all COVID-19 isolation hotel shelter residents during May 2021. The primary outcome was successful completion of 14 days isolation, as directed by public health orders. Adverse events included (a) overdose; (b) intoxication; and (c) diversion, selling, or sharing of medications or alcohol. RESULTS: Seventy-seven isolation hotel residents were assessed (mean age 42 ± 14 years; 24% women). Sixty-two (81%) residents were provided medications, alcohol, or cigarettes. Seventeen residents (22%) received opioid agonist treatment (methadone, buprenorphine, or slow-release oral morphine) and 27 (35%) received hydromorphone. Thirty-one (40%) residents received prescriptions stimulants. Six (8%) residents received benzodiazepines and forty-two (55%) received alcohol. Over 14 days, mean daily dosages increased of hydromorphone (45 ± 32 - 57 ± 42 mg), methylphenidate (51 ± 28 - 77 ± 37 mg), and alcohol (12.3 ± 7.6 - 13.0 ± 6.9 standard drinks). Six residents (8%) left isolation prematurely, but four returned. During 1059 person-days, there were zero overdoses. Documented concerns regarding intoxication occurred six times (0.005 events/person-day) and medication diversion/sharing three times (0.003 events/person-day). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 isolation hotel residents participating in an emergency safe supply and managed alcohol program experienced high rates of successful completion of 14 days isolation and low rates of adverse events.

Implementation and evaluation of a novel, unofficial, trainee-organized hospital addiction medicine consultation service.

Background: To evaluate a novel, unofficial, trainee-organized, hospital addiction medicine consultation service (AMCS), we aimed to assess whether it was (1) acceptable to hospital providers and patients, (2) feasible to organize and deliver, and (3) impacted patient care. Methods: We performed a retrospective descriptive study of all AMCS consultations over the first 16 months. We determined acceptability via the number of referrals received from admitting services, and the proportion of referred patients who consented to consultation. We evaluated feasibility via continuation/growth of the service over time, and the proportion of referrals successfully completed before hospital discharge. As most referrals related to opioid use disorder, we determined impact through the proportion of eligible patients offered and initiated on opioid agonist therapy (OAT) in hospital, and the proportion of patients who filled their outpatient prescription or attended their first visit with their outpatient OAT prescriber. Results: The unofficial AMCS grew to involve six hospital-based residents and five supervising community-based addiction physicians. The service received 59 referrals, primarily related to injection opioid use, for 50 unique patients from 12 different admitting services. 90% of patients were seen before discharge, and 98% agreed to addiction medicine consultation. Among 34 patients with active moderate-severe opioid use disorder who were not already on OAT, 82% initiated OAT in hospital and 89% of these patients continued after discharge. Conclusions: Established in response to identified gaps in patient care and learning opportunities, a novel, unofficial, trainee-organized AMCS was acceptable, feasible, and positively impacted patient care over the first 16 months. This trainee-organized, unofficial AMCS could be used as a model for other hospitals that do not yet have an official AMCS.