The addiction consultation service for hospitalized patients with substance use disorder: An integrative review of the evidence.

INTRODUCTION: The Addiction Consultation Service has emerged as a model of care for hospitalized patients with substance use disorder. The aim of this integrative review is to characterize the Addiction Consultation Service in general hospital settings, assess its impact on clinical outcomes, identify knowledge gaps, and offer guidance for implementation. METHODS: We conducted an integrative review of studies from January 2002 to August 2023, applying specific inclusion criteria to collect study design, service characteristics, staffing models, utilization, and health outcomes. Additionally, a comprehensive quality appraisal was conducted for all studies considered for inclusion. RESULTS: Findings from 41 studies meeting inclusion criteria were synthesized and tabulated. Study designs included six reports from three randomized controlled trials, five descriptive studies, and 30 observational studies. The most common study setting was the urban academic medical center. Studies evaluated the structure, process, and outcomes of the Addiction Consultation Service. A majority of studies, particularly those utilizing more rigorous designs, reported positive outcomes involving medication initiation, linkage to post-discharge care, and utilization outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The Addiction Consultation Service care model improves quality of care for hospitalized patients with substance use disorder. Additional research is needed to assess its effectiveness across diverse medical settings, determine the effectiveness of varying staffing models, demonstrate impactful outcomes, and establish funding mechanisms to support sustainability.

Comparative Effectiveness of Psychotherapy vs Antidepressants for Depression in Heart Failure: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Heart failure (HF) affects more than 6 million adults in the US and more than 64 million adults worldwide, with 50% prevalence of depression. Patients and clinicians lack information on which interventions are more effective for depression in HF. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of behavioral activation psychotherapy (BA) vs antidepressant medication management (MEDS) on patient-centered outcomes inpatients with HF and depression. Design, Setting, and Participants: This pragmatic randomized comparative effectiveness trial was conducted from 2018 to 2022, including 1-year follow-up, at a not-for-profit academic health system serving more than 2 million people from diverse demographic, socioeconomic, cultural, and geographic backgrounds. Participant included inpatients and outpatients diagnosed with HF and depression, and data were analyzed as intention-to-treat. Data were analyzed from 2022 to 2023. Interventions: BA is an evidence-based manualized treatment for depression, promoting engagement in personalized pleasurable activities selected by patients. MEDS involves the use of an evidence-based collaborative care model with care managers providing coordination with patients, psychiatrists, and primary care physicians to only administer medications. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was depressive symptom severity at 6 months, measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire 9-Item (PHQ-9). Secondary outcomes included physical and mental health-related quality of life (HRQOL), measured using the Short-Form 12-Item version 2 (SF-12); heart failure-specific HRQOL, measured using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire; caregiver burden, measured with the Caregiver Burden Questionnaire for Heart Failure; emergency department visits; readmissions; days hospitalized; and mortality at 3, 6, and 12 months. Results: A total of 416 patients (mean [SD] age, 60.71 [15.61] years; 243 [58.41%] male) were enrolled, with 208 patients randomized to BA and 208 patients randomized to MEDS. At baseline, mean (SD) PHQ-9 scores were 14.54 (3.45) in the BA group and 14.31 (3.60) in the MEDS group; both BA and MEDS recipients experienced nearly 50% reduction in depressive symptoms at 3, 6, and 12 months (eg, mean [SD] score at 12 months: BA, 7.62 (5.73); P < .001; MEDS, 7.98 (6.06); P < .001; between-group P = .55). There was no statistically significant difference between BA and MEDS in the primary outcome of PHQ-9 at 6 months (mean [SD] score, 7.53 [5.74] vs 8.09 [6.06]; P = .88). BA recipients, compared with MEDS recipients, experienced small improvement in physical HRQOL at 6 months (mean [SD] SF-12 physical score: 38.82 [11.09] vs 37.12 [10.99]; P = .04), had fewer ED visits (3 months: 38% [95% CI, 14%-55%] reduction; P = .005; 6 months: 30% [95% CI, 14%-40%] reduction; P = .008; 12 months: 27% [95% CI, 15%-38%] reduction; P = .001), and spent fewer days hospitalized (3 months: 17% [95% CI, 8%-25%] reduction; P = .002; 6 months: 19% [95% CI, 13%-25%] reduction; P = .005; 12 months: 36% [95% CI, 32%-40%] reduction; P = .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this comparative effectiveness trial of BA and MEDS in patients with HF experiencing depression, both treatments significantly reduced depressive symptoms by nearly 50% with no statistically significant differences between treatments. BA recipients experienced better physical HRQOL, fewer ED visits, and fewer days hospitalized. The study findings suggested that patients with HF could be given the choice between BA or MEDS to ameliorate depression. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03688100.

Pilot randomized controlled trial of a hospital-based substance use treatment and recovery team (START) to improve initiation of medication for alcohol or opioid use disorder and linkage to follow-up care.

OBJECTIVES: We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) to explore whether a hospital inpatient addiction consult team (Substance Use Treatment and Recovery Team [START]) based on collaborative care was feasible, acceptable to patients, and whether it could improve uptake of medication in the hospital and linkage to care after discharge, as well as reduce substance use and hospital readmission. The START consisted of an addiction medicine specialist and care manager who implemented a motivational and discharge planning intervention. METHODS: We randomized inpatients age ≥ 18 with a probable alcohol or opioid use disorder to receive START or usual care. We assessed feasibility and acceptability of START and the RCT, and we conducted an intent-to-treat analysis on data from the electronic medical record and patient interviews at baseline and 1-month postdischarge. The study compared RCT outcomes (medication for alcohol or opioid use disorder, linkage to follow-up care after discharge, substance use, hospital readmission) between arms by fitting logistic and linear regression models. FINDINGS: Of 38 START patients, 97 % met with the addiction medicine specialist and care manager; 89 % received ≥8 of 10 intervention components. All patients receiving START found it to be somewhat or very acceptable. START patients had higher odds of initiating medication during the inpatient stay (OR 6.26, 95 % CI = 2.38-16.48, p < .001) and being linked to follow-up care (OR 5.76, 95 % CI = 1.86-17.86, p < .01) compared to usual care patients (N = 50). The study found no significant differences between groups in drinking or opioid use; patients in both groups reported using fewer substances at the 1-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Pilot data suggest START and RCT implementation are feasible and acceptable and that START may facilitate medication initiation and linkage to follow-up for inpatients with an alcohol or opioid use disorder. A larger trial should assess effectiveness, covariates, and moderators of intervention effects.

The Substance Use Treatment and Recovery Team (START) study: protocol for a multi-site randomized controlled trial evaluating an intervention to improve initiation of medication and linkage to post-discharge care for hospitalized patients with opioid use disorder.

BACKGROUND: People with opioid use disorder experience high burden of disease from medical comorbidities and are increasingly hospitalized with medical complications. Medications for opioid use disorder are an effective, life-saving treatment, but patients with an opioid use disorder admitted to the hospital seldom initiate medication for their disorder while in the hospital, nor are they linked with outpatient treatment after discharge. The inpatient stay, when patients may be more receptive to improving their health and reducing substance use, offers an opportunity to discuss opioid use disorder and facilitate medication initiation and linkage to treatment after discharge. An addiction-focus consultative team that uses evidence-based tools and resources could address barriers, such as the need for the primary medical team to focus on the primary health problem and lack of time and expertise, that prevent primary medical teams from addressing substance use. METHODS: This study is a pragmatic randomized controlled trial that will evaluate whether a consultative team, called the Substance Use Treatment and Recovery Team (START), increases initiation of any US Food and Drug Administration approved medication for opioid use disorder (buprenorphine, methadone, naltrexone) during the hospital stay and increases linkage to treatment after discharge compared to patients receiving usual care. The study is being conducted at three geographically distinct academic hospitals. Patients are randomly assigned within each hospital to receive the START intervention or usual care. Primary study outcomes are initiation of medication for opioid use disorder in the hospital and linkage to medication or other opioid use disorder treatment after discharge. Outcomes are assessed through participant interviews at baseline and 1 month after discharge and data from hospital and outpatient medical records. DISCUSSION: The START intervention offers a compelling model to improve care for hospitalized patients with opioid use disorder. The study could also advance translational science by identifying an effective and generalizable approach to treating not only opioid use disorder, but also other substance use disorders and behavioral health conditions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT05086796, Registered on 10/21/2021. https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/ct2/results?recrs=ab&cond=&term=NCT05086796&cntry=&state=&city=&dist = .

Psychosocial Interventions for Patients With Heart Failure and Their Impact on Depression, Anxiety, Quality of Life, Morbidity, and Mortality: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the ability of psychosocial interventions to reduce depression and anxiety, improve quality of life, and reduce hospitalization and mortality rates in patients with heart failure. METHODS: Studies of psychosocial interventions published from 1970 to 2021 were identified through four databases (PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane). Two authors independently conducted a focused analysis and reached a final consensus on the studies to include, followed by a quality check by a third author. A risk of bias assessment was conducted. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies were identified, but only 15 studies of mostly randomized controlled trials with a total of 1370 patients with heart failure were included in the meta-analysis. Interventions were either cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) or stress management. The pooled intervention effect was in favor of the intervention for depression (combined difference in standardized mean change [DSMC]: -0.41; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.66 to -0.17; p = .001) and anxiety (combined DSMC: -0.33; 95% CI = -0.51 to -0.15; p < .001) but was only a trend for quality of life (combined DSMC: 0.14; 95% CI = -0.00 to 0.29; p = .053). Evidence was limited that interventions produced lower rates of hospitalization (5 of 5 studies showing a beneficial effect) or death (1 of 5 with a beneficial effect). CONCLUSIONS: CBT and stress management interventions significantly reduced depression and anxiety compared with control conditions. CBT significantly improved quality of life compared with controls, but stress management did not. Longer treatment duration seemed to be an important factor related to treatment success.