Offering nurse care management for opioid use disorder in primary care: Impact on emergency and hospital utilization in a cluster-randomized implementation trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) have increased emergency and hospital utilization. The PROUD trial showed that implementation of office-based addiction treatment (OBAT) increased OUD medication treatment compared to usual care, but did not decrease acute care utilization in patients with OUD documented pre-randomization (clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03407638). This paper reports secondary emergency and hospital utilization outcomes in patients with documented OUD in the PROUD trial. METHODS: This cluster-randomized implementation trial was conducted in 12 clinics from 6 diverse health systems (March 2015-February 2020). Patients who visited trial clinics and had an OUD diagnosis within 3 years pre-randomization were included in primary analyses; secondary analyses added patients with OUD who were new to the clinic or with newly-documented OUD post-randomization. Outcomes included days of emergency care and hospital utilization over 2 years post-randomization. Explanatory outcomes included measures of OUD treatment. Patient-level analyses used mixed-effect regression with clinic-specific random intercepts. RESULTS: Among 1988 patients with documented OUD seen pre-randomization (mean age 49, 53 % female), days of emergency care or hospitalization did not differ between intervention and usual care; OUD treatment also did not differ. In secondary analyses among 1347 patients with OUD post-randomization, there remained no difference in emergency or hospital utilization despite intervention patients receiving 32.2 (95 % CI 4.7, 59.7) more days of OUD treatment relative to usual care. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of OBAT did not reduce emergency or hospital utilization among patients with OUD, even in the sample with OUD first documented post-randomization in whom the intervention increased treatment.

Historic Cognitive Function Trajectories as Predictors of Sedentary Behavior and Physical Activity in Older Adults.

BACKGROUND: We examined whether trajectories of cognitive function over 10 years predict later-life physical activity (PA), sedentary time (ST), and sleep. METHODS: Participants were from the Adult Changes in Thought (ACT) cohort study. We included 611 ACT participants who wore accelerometers and had 3+ measures of cognition in the 10 years prior to accelerometer wear. The Cognitive Assessment Screening Instrument (CASI) measured cognition and was scored using item-response theory (IRT). activPAL and ActiGraph accelerometers worn over 7 days measured ST and PA outcomes. Self-reported time in bed and sleep quality measured sleep outcomes. Analyses used growth mixture modeling to classify CASI-IRT scores into latent groups and examine associations with PA, ST, and sleep including demographic and health covariates. RESULTS: Participants (Mean age = 80.3 (6.5) years, 90.3% White, 57.1% female, 29.3% had less than 16 years of education) fell into 3 latent trajectory groups: average stable CASI (56.1%), high stable CASI (34.0%), and declining CASI (9.8%). The declining group had 16 minutes less stepping time (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.6, 31.4), 1 517 fewer steps per day (95% CI: 138, 2 896), and 16.3 minutes per day less moderate-to-vigorous PA (95% CI: 1.3, 31.3) compared to the average stable group. There were no associations between CASI trajectory and sedentary or sleep outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Declining cognition predicted lower PA providing some evidence of a reverse relationship between PA and cognition in older adults. However, this conclusion is limited by having outcomes at only one time point, a nonrepresentative sample, self-reported sleep outcomes, and using a global cognition measure.

The electronic health record Risk of Alzheimer's and Dementia Assessment Rule (eRADAR) Brain Health Trial: Protocol for an embedded, pragmatic clinical trial of a low-cost dementia detection algorithm.

BACKGROUND: About half of people living with dementia have not received a diagnosis, delaying access to treatment, education, and support. We previously developed a tool, eRADAR, which uses information in the electronic health record (EHR) to identify patients who may have undiagnosed dementia. This paper provides the protocol for an embedded, pragmatic clinical trial (ePCT) implementing eRADAR in two healthcare systems to determine whether an intervention using eRADAR increases dementia diagnosis rates and to examine the benefits and harms experienced by patients and other stakeholders. METHODS: We will conduct an ePCT within an integrated healthcare system and replicate it in an urban academic medical center. At primary care clinics serving about 27,000 patients age 65 and above, we will randomize primary care providers (PCPs) to have their patients with high eRADAR scores receive targeted outreach (intervention) or usual care. Intervention patients will be offered a "brain health" assessment visit with a clinical research interventionist mirroring existing roles within the healthcare systems. The interventionist will make follow-up recommendations to PCPs and offer support to newly-diagnosed patients. Patients with high eRADAR scores in both study arms will be followed to identify new diagnoses of dementia in the EHR (primary outcome). Secondary outcomes include healthcare utilization from the EHR and patient, family member and clinician satisfaction assessed through surveys and interviews. CONCLUSION: If this pragmatic trial is successful, the eRADAR tool and intervention could be adopted by other healthcare systems, potentially improving dementia detection, patient care and quality of life.

Nurse Care Management for Opioid Use Disorder Treatment: The PROUD Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Few primary care (PC) practices treat patients with medications for opioid use disorder (OUD) despite availability of effective treatments. Objective: To assess whether implementation of the Massachusetts model of nurse care management for OUD in PC increases OUD treatment with buprenorphine or extended-release injectable naltrexone and secondarily decreases acute care utilization. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Primary Care Opioid Use Disorders Treatment (PROUD) trial was a mixed-methods, implementation-effectiveness cluster randomized clinical trial conducted in 6 diverse health systems across 5 US states (New York, Florida, Michigan, Texas, and Washington). Two PC clinics in each system were randomized to intervention or usual care (UC) stratified by system (5 systems were notified on February 28, 2018, and 1 system with delayed data use agreement on August 31, 2018). Data were obtained from electronic health records and insurance claims. An implementation monitoring team collected qualitative data. Primary care patients were included if they were 16 to 90 years old and visited a participating clinic from up to 3 years before a system's randomization date through 2 years after. Intervention: The PROUD intervention included 3 components: (1) salary for a full-time OUD nurse care manager; (2) training and technical assistance for nurse care managers; and (3) 3 or more PC clinicians agreeing to prescribe buprenorphine. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a clinic-level measure of patient-years of OUD treatment (buprenorphine or extended-release injectable naltrexone) per 10 000 PC patients during the 2 years postrandomization (follow-up). The secondary outcome, among patients with OUD prerandomization, was a patient-level measure of the number of days of acute care utilization during follow-up. Results: During the baseline period, a total of 130 623 patients were seen in intervention clinics (mean [SD] age, 48.6 [17.7] years; 59.7% female), and 159 459 patients were seen in UC clinics (mean [SD] age, 47.2 [17.5] years; 63.0% female). Intervention clinics provided 8.2 (95% CI, 5.4-∞) more patient-years of OUD treatment per 10 000 PC patients compared with UC clinics (P = .002). Most of the benefit accrued in 2 health systems and in patients new to clinics (5.8 [95% CI, 1.3-∞] more patient-years) or newly treated for OUD postrandomization (8.3 [95% CI, 4.3-∞] more patient-years). Qualitative data indicated that keys to successful implementation included broad commitment to treat OUD in PC from system leaders and PC teams, full financial coverage for OUD treatment, and straightforward pathways for patients to access nurse care managers. Acute care utilization did not differ between intervention and UC clinics (relative rate, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.47-2.92; P = .70). Conclusions and Relevance: The PROUD cluster randomized clinical trial intervention meaningfully increased PC OUD treatment, albeit unevenly across health systems; however, it did not decrease acute care utilization among patients with OUD. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03407638.

Study protocol for a factorial-randomized controlled trial evaluating the implementation, costs, effectiveness, and sustainment of digital therapeutics for substance use disorder in primary care (DIGITS Trial).

BACKGROUND: Experts recommend that treatment for substance use disorder (SUD) be integrated into primary care. The Digital Therapeutics for Opioids and Other SUD (DIGITS) Trial tests strategies for implementing reSET® and reSET-O®, which are prescription digital therapeutics for SUD and opioid use disorder, respectively, that include the community reinforcement approach, contingency management, and fluency training to reinforce concept mastery. This purpose of this trial is to test whether two implementation strategies improve implementation success (Aim 1) and achieve better population-level cost effectiveness (Aim 2) over a standard implementation approach. METHODS/DESIGN: The DIGITS Trial is a hybrid type III cluster-randomized trial. It examines outcomes of implementation strategies, rather than studying clinical outcomes of a digital therapeutic. It includes 22 primary care clinics from a healthcare system in Washington State and patients with unhealthy substance use who visit clinics during an active implementation period (up to one year). Primary care clinics implemented reSET and reSET-O using a multifaceted implementation strategy previously used by clinical leaders to roll-out smartphone apps ("standard implementation" including discrete strategies such as clinician training, electronic health record tools). Clinics were randomized as 21 sites in a 2x2 factorial design to receive up to two added implementation strategies: (1) practice facilitation, and/or (2) health coaching. Outcome data are derived from electronic health records and logs of digital therapeutic usage. Aim 1's primary outcomes include reach of the digital therapeutics to patients and fidelity of patients' use of the digital therapeutics to clinical recommendations. Substance use and engagement in SUD care are additional outcomes. In Aim 2, population-level cost effectiveness analysis will inform the economic benefit of the implementation strategies compared to standard implementation. Implementation is monitored using formative evaluation, and sustainment will be studied for up to one year using qualitative and quantitative research methods. DISCUSSION: The DIGITS Trial uses an experimental design to test whether implementation strategies increase and improve the delivery of digital therapeutics for SUDs when embedded in a large healthcare system. It will provide data on the potential benefits and cost-effectiveness of alternative implementation strategies. CLINICALTRIALS: gov Identifier: NCT05160233 (Submitted 12/3/2021). https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05160233.

Maternal and neonatal outcomes associated with treating hypertension in pregnancy at different thresholds.

INTRODUCTION: In the United States, there has been controversy over whether treatment of mild-to-moderate hypertension during pregnancy conveys more benefit than risk. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to compare risks and benefits of treatment of mild-to-moderate hypertension during pregnancy. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 11,871 pregnant women with mild-to-moderate hypertension as defined by blood pressure (BP) values from three Kaiser Permanente regions between 2005 and 2014. Data were extracted from electronic health records. Dynamic marginal structural models with inverse probability weighting and informative censoring were used to compare risks of adverse outcomes when beginning antihypertensive medication treatment at four BP thresholds (≥155/105, ≥150/100, ≥145/95, ≥140/90 mm Hg) compared with the recommended threshold in the United States at that time, ≥160/110 mm Hg. Outcomes included preeclampsia, preterm birth, small-for-gestational-age (SGA), Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) care, and stillbirth. Primary analyses allowed 2 weeks for medication initiation after an elevated BP. Several sensitivity and subgroup (i.e., race/ethnicity and pre-pregnancy body mass index) analyses were also conducted. RESULTS: In primary analyses, medication initiation at lower BP thresholds was associated with greater risk of most outcomes. Comparing the lowest (≥140/90 mm Hg) to the highest BP threshold (≥160/110 mm Hg), we found an excess risk of preeclampsia (adjusted Risk Difference (aRD) 38.6 per 100 births, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 30.6, 46.6), SGA (aRD: 10.2 per 100 births, 95% CI: 2.6, 17.8), NICU admission (aRD: 20.2 per 100 births, 95% CI: 12.6, 27.9), and stillbirth (1.18 per 100 births, 95% CI: 0.27, 2.09). The findings did not reach statistical significance for preterm birth (aRD: 2.5 per 100 births, 95% CI: -0.4, 5.3). These relationships were attenuated and did not always reach statistically significance when comparing higher BP treatment thresholds to the highest threshold (i.e., ≥160/110 mm Hg). Sensitivity and subgroup analyses produced similar results. CONCLUSIONS: Initiation of antihypertensive medication at mild-to-moderate BP thresholds (140-155/90-105 mm Hg; with the largest risk consistently associated with treatment at 140/90 mm Hg) may be associated with adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. Limitations include inability to measure medication adherence.

External Validation of the eRADAR Risk Score for Detecting Undiagnosed Dementia in Two Real-World Healthcare Systems.

BACKGROUND: Fifty percent of people living with dementia are undiagnosed. The electronic health record (EHR) Risk of Alzheimer's and Dementia Assessment Rule (eRADAR) was developed to identify older adults at risk of having undiagnosed dementia using routinely collected clinical data. OBJECTIVE: To externally validate eRADAR in two real-world healthcare systems, including examining performance over time and by race/ethnicity. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study PARTICIPANTS: 129,315 members of Kaiser Permanente Washington (KPWA), an integrated health system providing insurance coverage and medical care, and 13,444 primary care patients at University of California San Francisco Health (UCSF), an academic medical system, aged 65 years or older without prior EHR documentation of dementia diagnosis or medication. MAIN MEASURES: Performance of eRADAR scores, calculated annually from EHR data (including vital signs, diagnoses, medications, and utilization in the prior 2 years), for predicting EHR documentation of incident dementia diagnosis within 12 months. KEY RESULTS: A total of 7631 dementia diagnoses were observed at KPWA (11.1 per 1000 person-years) and 216 at UCSF (4.6 per 1000 person-years). The area under the curve was 0.84 (95% confidence interval: 0.84-0.85) at KPWA and 0.79 (0.76-0.82) at UCSF. Using the 90th percentile as the cut point for identifying high-risk patients, sensitivity was 54% (53-56%) at KPWA and 44% (38-51%) at UCSF. Performance was similar over time, including across the transition from International Classification of Diseases, version 9 (ICD-9) to ICD-10 codes, and across racial/ethnic groups (though small samples limited precision in some groups). CONCLUSIONS: eRADAR showed strong external validity for detecting undiagnosed dementia in two health systems with different patient populations and differential availability of external healthcare data for risk calculations. In this study, eRADAR demonstrated generalizability from a research sample to real-world clinical populations, transportability across health systems, robustness to temporal changes in healthcare, and similar performance across larger racial/ethnic groups.

Identifying hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, a comparison of two epidemiologic definitions.

Introduction: Studies of hypertension in pregnancy that use electronic health care data generally identify hypertension using hospital diagnosis codes alone. We sought to compare results from this approach to an approach that included diagnosis codes, antihypertensive medications and blood pressure (BP) values. Materials and methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 1,45,739 pregnancies from 2009 to 2014 within an integrated healthcare system. Hypertensive pregnancies were identified using the "BP-Inclusive Definition" if at least one of three criteria were met: (1) two elevated outpatient BPs, (2) antihypertensive medication fill plus an outpatient hypertension diagnosis, or (3) hospital discharge diagnosis for preeclampsia or eclampsia. The "Traditional Definition" considered only delivery hospitalization discharge diagnoses. Outcome event analyses compared rates of preterm delivery and small for gestational age (SGA) between the two definitions. Results: The BP-Inclusive Definition identified 14,225 (9.8%) hypertensive pregnancies while the Traditional Definition identified 13,637 (9.4%); 10,809 women met both definitions. Preterm delivery occurred in 20.9% of BP-Inclusive Definition pregnancies, 21.8% of Traditional Definition pregnancies and 6.6% of non-hypertensive pregnancies; for SGA the numbers were 15.6, 16.3, and 8.6%, respectively (p < 0.001 for all events compared to non-hypertensive pregnancies). Analyses in women meeting only one hypertension definition (21-24% of positive cases) found much lower rates of both preterm delivery and SGA. Conclusion: Prevalence of hypertension in pregnancy was similar between the two study definitions. However, a substantial number of women met only one of the study definitions. Women who met only one of the hypertension definitions had much lower rates of adverse neonatal events than women meeting both definitions.

Baseline representativeness of patients in clinics enrolled in the PRimary care Opioid Use Disorders treatment (PROUD) trial: comparison of trial and non-trial clinics in the same health systems.

BACKGROUND: Pragmatic primary care trials aim to test interventions in "real world" health care settings, but clinics willing and able to participate in trials may not be representative of typical clinics. This analysis compared patients in participating and non-participating clinics from the same health systems at baseline in the PRimary care Opioid Use Disorders treatment (PROUD) trial. METHODS: This observational analysis relied on secondary electronic health record and administrative claims data in 5 of 6 health systems in the PROUD trial. The sample included patients 16-90 years at an eligible primary care visit in the 3 years before randomization. Each system contributed 2 randomized PROUD trial clinics and 4 similarly sized non-trial clinics. We summarized patient characteristics in trial and non-trial clinics in the 2 years before randomization ("baseline"). Using mixed-effect regression models, we compared trial and non-trial clinics on a baseline measure of the primary trial outcome (clinic-level patient-years of opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment, scaled per 10,000 primary care patients seen) and a baseline measure of the secondary trial outcome (patient-level days of acute care utilization among patients with OUD). RESULTS: Patients were generally similar between the 10 trial clinics (n = 248,436) and 20 non-trial clinics (n = 341,130), although trial clinics' patients were slightly younger, more likely to be Hispanic/Latinx, less likely to be white, more likely to have Medicaid/subsidized insurance, and lived in less wealthy neighborhoods. Baseline outcomes did not differ between trial and non-trial clinics: trial clinics had 1.0 more patient-year of OUD treatment per 10,000 patients (95% CI: - 2.9, 5.0) and a 4% higher rate of days of acute care utilization than non-trial clinics (rate ratio: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.76, 1.42). CONCLUSIONS: trial clinics and non-trial clinics were similar regarding most measured patient characteristics, and no differences were observed in baseline measures of trial primary and secondary outcomes. These findings suggest trial clinics were representative of comparably sized clinics within the same health systems. Although results do not reflect generalizability more broadly, this study illustrates an approach to assess representativeness of clinics in future pragmatic primary care trials.

Sex Differences in Comorbid Mental and Substance Use Disorders Among Primary Care Patients With Opioid Use Disorder.

OBJECTIVE: The authors sought to characterize the 3-year prevalence of mental disorders and nonnicotine substance use disorders among male and female primary care patients with documented opioid use disorder across large U.S. health systems. METHODS: This retrospective study used 2014-2016 data from patients ages ≥16 years in six health systems. Diagnoses were obtained from electronic health records or claims data; opioid use disorder treatment with buprenorphine or injectable extended-release naltrexone was determined through prescription and procedure data. Adjusted prevalence of comorbid conditions among patients with opioid use disorder (with or without treatment), stratified by sex, was estimated by fitting logistic regression models for each condition and applying marginal standardization. RESULTS: Females (53.2%, N=7,431) and males (46.8%, N=6,548) had a similar prevalence of opioid use disorder. Comorbid mental disorders among those with opioid use disorder were more prevalent among females (86.4% vs. 74.3%, respectively), whereas comorbid other substance use disorders (excluding nicotine) were more common among males (51.9% vs. 60.9%, respectively). These differences held for those receiving medication treatment for opioid use disorder, with mental disorders being more common among treated females (83% vs. 71%) and other substance use disorders more common among treated males (68% vs. 63%). Among patients with a single mental health condition comorbid with opioid use disorder, females were less likely than males to receive medication treatment for opioid use disorder (15% vs. 20%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The high rate of comorbid conditions among patients with opioid use disorder indicates a strong need to supply primary care providers with adequate resources for integrated opioid use disorder treatment.

Maternal and neonatal outcomes of antihypertensive treatment in pregnancy: A retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare maternal and infant outcomes with different antihypertensive medications in pregnancy. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Kaiser Permanente, a large healthcare system in the United States. POPULATION: Women aged 15-49 years with a singleton birth from 2005-2014 treated for hypertension. METHODS: We identified medication exposure from automated pharmacy data based on the earliest dispensing after the first prenatal visit. Using logistic regression, we calculated weighted outcome prevalences, adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% confidence intervals, with inverse probability of treatment weighting to address confounding. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Small for gestational age, preterm delivery, neonatal and maternal intensive care unit (ICU) admission, preeclampsia, and stillbirth or termination at > 20 weeks. RESULTS: Among 6346 deliveries, 87% with chronic hypertension, the risk of the infant being small for gestational age (birthweight < 10th percentile) was lower with methyldopa than labetalol (prevalence 13.6% vs. 16.6%; aOR 0.77, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.92). For birthweight < 3rd percentile the aOR was 0.57 (0.39 to 0.80). Compared with labetalol (26.0%), risk of preterm delivery was similar for methyldopa (26.5%; aOR 1.10 [0.95 to 1.27]) and slightly higher for nifedipine (28.5%; aOR 1.25 [1.06 to 1.46]) and other ß-blockers (31.2%; aOR 1.58 [1.07 to 2.23]). Neonatal ICU admission was more common with nifedipine than labetalol (25.9% vs. 23.3%, aOR 1.21 [1.02 to 1.43]) but not elevated with methyldopa. Risks of other outcomes did not differ by medication. CONCLUSIONS: Risk of most outcomes was similar comparing labetalol, methyldopa and nifedipine. Risk of the infant being small for gestational age was substantially lower for methyldopa, suggesting this medication may warrant further consideration.