Binge drinking and perceived ethnic discrimination among Hispanics/Latinos: Results from the Hispanic community health study/study of Latinos sociocultural ancillary study

The study assessed whether overall perceived ethnic discrimination and four unique discrimination types were associated with binge drinking in participants from the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos (HCHS/SOL) who also completed the HCHS/SOL Sociocultural Ancillary Study (n = 5,313). In unadjusted analyses that were weighted for sampling strategy and design, each unit increase in discrimination type was associated with a 12 - 63% increase in odds of binge drinking; however, after adjusting for important demographic variables including age, sex, heritage group, language, and duration of US residence, there was no longer an association between discrimination and binge drinking. Further research still needs to identify the salient factors that contribute to increased risk for binge drinking among Hispanics/Latinos

The acute-to-chronic workload ratio:An inaccurate scaling index for an unnecessary normalisation process?

BACKGROUND: Problematic use of alcohol and other drugs (AOD) is highly prevalent among people living with the human immunodeficiency virus (PLWH), and untreated AOD use disorders have particularly detrimental effects on human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) outcomes. The Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) measures of treatment initiation and engagement are important benchmarks for access to AOD use disorder treatment. To inform improved patient care, we compared HEDIS measures of AOD use disorder treatment initiation and engagement and health care utilization among PLWH and patients without an HIV diagnosis. METHODS: Patients with a new AOD use disorder diagnosis documented between October 1, 2014, and August 15, 2015, were identified using electronic health records (EHR) and insurance claims data from 7 health care systems in the United States. Demographic characteristics, clinical diagnoses, and health care utilization data were also obtained. AOD use disorder treatment initiation and engagement rates were calculated using HEDIS measure criteria. Factors associated with treatment initiation and engagement were examined using multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: There were 469 PLWH (93% male) and 86,096 patients without an HIV diagnosis (60% male) in the study cohort. AOD use disorder treatment initiation was similar in PLWH and patients without an HIV diagnosis (10% vs. 11%, respectively). Among those who initiated treatment, few engaged in treatment in both groups (9% PLWH vs. 12% patients without an HIV diagnosis). In multivariable analysis, HIV status was not significantly associated with either AOD use disorder treatment initiation or engagement. CONCLUSIONS: AOD use disorder treatment initiation and engagement rates were low in both PLWH and patients without an HIV diagnosis. Future studies need to focus on developing strategies to efficiently integrate AOD use disorder treatment with medical care for HIV

Receipt of medications for opioid use disorder among youth engaged in primary care: data from 6 health systems

PURPOSE: Little is known about prevalence and treatment of OUD among youth engaged in primary care (PC). Medications are the recommended treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) for adolescents and young adults (youth). This study describes the prevalence of OUD, the prevalence of medication treatment for OUD, and patient characteristics associated with OUD treatment among youth engaged in PC. METHODS: This cross-sectional study includes youth aged 16-25 years engaged in PC. Eligible patients had ≥ 1 PC visit during fiscal years (FY) 2014-2016 in one of 6 health systems across 6 states. Data from electronic health records and insurance claims were used to identify OUD diagnoses, office-based OUD medication treatment, and patient demographic and clinical characteristics in the FY of the first PC visit during the study period. Descriptive analyses were conducted in all youth, and stratified by age (16-17, 18-21, 22-25 years). RESULTS: Among 303,262 eligible youth, 2131 (0.7%) had a documented OUD diagnosis. The prevalence of OUD increased by ascending age groups. About half of youth with OUD had documented depression or anxiety and one third had co-occurring substance use disorders. Receipt of medication for OUD was lowest among youth 16-17 years old (14%) and highest among those aged 22-25 (39%). CONCLUSIONS: In this study of youth engaged in 6 health systems across 6 states, there was low receipt of medication treatment, and high prevalence of other substance use disorders and mental health disorders. These findings indicate an urgent need to increase medication treatment for OUD and to integrate treatment for other substance use and mental health disorders

PRimary Care Opioid Use Disorders treatment (PROUD) trial protocol: a pragmatic, cluster-randomized implementation trial in primary care for opioid use disorder treatment

BACKGROUND: Most people with opioid use disorder (OUD) never receive treatment. Medication treatment of OUD in primary care is recommended as an approach to increase access to care. The PRimary Care Opioid Use Disorders treatment (PROUD) trial tests whether implementation of a collaborative care model (Massachusetts Model) using a nurse care manager (NCM) to support medication treatment of OUD in primary care increases OUD treatment and improves outcomes. Specifically, it tests whether implementation of collaborative care, compared to usual primary care, increases the number of days of medication for OUD (implementation objective) and reduces acute health care utilization (effectiveness objective). The protocol for the PROUD trial is presented here. METHODS: PROUD is a hybrid type III cluster-randomized implementation trial in six health care systems. The intervention consists of three implementation strategies: salary for a full-time NCM, training and technical assistance for the NCM, and requiring that three primary care providers have DEA waivers to prescribe buprenorphine. Within each health system, two primary care clinics are randomized: one to the intervention and one to Usual Primary Care. The sample includes all patients age 16-90 who visited the randomized primary care clinics from 3 years before to 2 years after randomization (anticipated to be \u3e 170,000). Quantitative data are derived from existing health system administrative data, electronic medical records, and/or health insurance claims ( electronic health records, [EHRs]). Anonymous staff surveys, stakeholder debriefs, and observations from site visits, trainings and technical assistance provide qualitative data to assess barriers and facilitators to implementation. The outcome for the implementation objective (primary outcome) is a clinic-level measure of the number of patient days of medication treatment of OUD over the 2 years post-randomization. The patient-level outcome for the effectiveness objective (secondary outcome) is days of acute care utilization [e.g. urgent care, emergency department (ED) and/or hospitalizations] over 2 years post-randomization among patients with documented OUD prior to randomization. DISCUSSION: The PROUD trial provides information for clinical leaders and policy makers regarding potential benefits for patients and health systems of a collaborative care model for management of OUD in primary care, tested in real-world diverse primary care settings

Proceedings of the 13th annual conference of INEBRIA

CITATION: Watson, R., et al. 2016. Proceedings of the 13th annual conference of INEBRIA. Addiction Science & Clinical Practice, 11:13, doi:10.1186/s13722-016-0062-9.The original publication is available at https://ascpjournal.biomedcentral.comENGLISH SUMMARY : Meeting abstracts.https://ascpjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13722-016-0062-9Publisher's versio

Single-Item Screens for Prescription and Illicit Drug Misuse Largely Identifies Primary Care Patients With Unrecognized Drug Use

Background/Aims: The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends depression and alcohol screening as part of routine primary care, but not drug screening because brief primary care counseling about drug use does not improved outcomes. However, drug screening might be helpful if it led to identification and treatment of patients with unrecognized substance use disorders. The objective was to describe the prevalence of positive drug and marijuana screens in a primary care population and whether patients who screened positive had previously recognized substance use disorders. Methods: We conducted a 3-week feasibility test of universal depression and alcohol misuse screening in one primary care clinic as a prelude to behavioral health integration. Providers asked that we also screen for illicit drug and marijuana use (the latter was legal in Washington state). A total of 409 (61%) of 667 patients who were seen in the primary care clinic for a 3-week period completed a one-page behavioral health questionnaire that included brief depression (PHQ-2), alcohol misuse (AUDIT-C), drug (validated single-item) and marijuana screens. The latter was adapted from the single-item drug screen. Results: Of 409 patients who completed screening (68% women; 10%, 17%, 43% and 31% age \u3c30, 30–44, 45–64 and ≥65 years, respectively), 4% screened positive for past-year prescription or illicit drug use, 13% reported marijuana past-year use (3% daily or almost) and 16% screened positive for alcohol misuse. Among the 16 patients who screened positive for drug misuse, 4 (25%) reported daily drug misuse, and 7 (44%) screened positive for alcohol misuse. Only 1 (6%) of the 16 patients who screened positive for drug misuse had a prior diagnosis of a substance use disorders (but not in the past year). However, 38% had been prescribed opioids and 13% benzodiazepines in the past year (38% either). Providers found drug screening valuable as they had been previously unaware of most patients’ drug use. Discussion: Most patients who screened positive for illicit or prescription drug misuse did not have recognized substance use disorders. Findings suggest that routine screening with single-item drug and marijuana screens provide important clinical information for primary care teams

Frequency of Cannabis Use among Primary Care Patients in Washington State

Background and Objectives—Over 12% of U.S. adults report past-year cannabis use, and among those who use daily, 25% or more have a cannabis use disorder. Use is increasing as legal access expands. Yet, cannabis use is not routinely assessed in primary care, and little is known about use among primary care patients and relevant demographic and behavioral health subgroups. This study describes the prevalence and frequency of past-year cannabis use among primary care patients assessed for use during a primary care visit. Methods—This observational cohort study included adults who made a visit to primary care clinics with annual behavioral health screening, including a single-item question about frequency past-year cannabis use (March 2015-February 2016; n=29,857). Depression, alcohol and other drug use were also assessed by behavioral health screening. Screening results, tobacco use, and diagnoses for past-year behavioral health conditions (e.g., mental health and substance use disorders) were obtained from EHRs. Results—Among patients who completed the cannabis use question (n=22,095; 74% of eligible patients), 15.3% (14.8–15.8%) reported any past-year use: 12.2% (11.8%–12.6%) less than daily and 3.1% (2.9%–3.3%) daily. Among 2,228 patients 18–29 years, 36.0% (34.0%–38.0%) reported any cannabis use and 8.1% (7.0%–9.3%) daily use. Daily cannabis use was common among men 18–29 who used tobacco or screened positive for depression: 25.5% (18.8%–32.1%) and 31.7% (23.3%–40.0%), respectively. Conclusions—Cannabis use was common in adult primary care patients, especially among younger patients and those with behavioral health conditions. Results highlight the need for primary care approaches to address cannabis use