Dataset Information

Empirical Studies Addressing the Opioid Epidemic: An Urgent Call for Research.

ABSTRACT: Opioid misuse has become one of the most pressing public health problems facing the country. In this article, we briefly review literature regarding the opioid epidemic in the United States and the negative consequences of opioid use disorder. We provide information regarding treatment and relapse using a variety of intervention approaches. We call for research on people with opioid use disorder that can contribute to a variety of areas: improving medication-assisted treatment, addressing chronic pain, examination of adjunctive behavioral interventions, overdose, high risk behaviors and infections, pregnancy, diverse populations, and other psychological factors. Collectively addressing these crucial areas of research will advance the field and help alleviate suffering and prevent death from opioid use disorder.

SUBMITTER: Stuart GL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6090487 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Empirical Studies Addressing the Opioid Epidemic: An Urgent Call for Research.

Stuart Gregory L GL Shorey Ryan C RC France Christopher R CR Macfie Jenny J Bell Kathryn K Fortner Kimberly B KB Towers Craig V CV Schkolnik Paul P Ramsey Susan S

Substance abuse : research and treatment 20180812

Opioid misuse has become one of the most pressing public health problems facing the country. In this article, we briefly review literature regarding the opioid epidemic in the United States and the negative consequences of opioid use disorder. We provide information regarding treatment and relapse using a variety of intervention approaches. We call for research on people with opioid use disorder that can contribute to a variety of areas: improving medication-assisted treatment, addressing chroni ...[more]

PMID: 30127614

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionDespite the widely recognized ethical and practical benefits of community engagement in HIV research, epistemic injustice persists within the field. Namely, the knowledge held by communities disproportionately affected by HIV is systematically afforded less credibility than that of more privileged academic researchers. In order to illustrate what this looks like in practice, we synthesized the extent of reporting on community engagement within recent high-impact HIV intervention research papers. However, we also posit that the HIV research sector has the potential to devise and showcase world-leading examples of equitable research-community partnerships and suggest actionable key steps to achieving this goal.DiscussionIn the absence of reporting requirements within the publishing process, it is difficult to infer whether and how the community have been consulted in the design, implementation, analysis and/or interpretation of findings. As an illustrative exercise, we offer a rapid synthesis of the extent of reporting on community engagement in HIV research from 2017 to 2019, which highlighted sporadic and very low rates of reporting of community engagement in recent high-impact HIV intervention studies. Of note is that none of the included studies reported on community engagement through all stages of the research process. There were also discrepancies in how community involvement was reported. We provide three actionable recommendations to enhance reporting on community engagement in HIV research: (1) community-led organizations, researchers and scientific journals should band together to develop, publish and require adherence to standardized guidelines for reporting on community involvement in HIV research; (2) research funders should (continue to) require details about how relevant communities have been engaged prior to the submission of funding requests; and (3) researchers should take proactive measures to describe their engagement with community organizations in a clear and transparent manner.ConclusionsThere is a clear and urgent need for guidelines that facilitate transparent and consistent reporting on community engagement in HIV intervention research. Without standardized reporting requirements and accountability mechanisms within the research sector, the extent of meaningful community engagement cannot be established and may remain a catchphrase rather than reality.

Project description:BackgroundThe syndemic of injection drug use and serious injection-related infections is leading to increasing mortality in the USA. Although outpatient treatment with medications for opioid use disorder reduces overdose risk and recurrent infections, hospitalisation remains common. We evaluated the clinical impact, costs, and cost-effectiveness of hospital-based strategies to address the US opioid epidemic.MethodsWe developed a microsimulation model to compare the cost-effectiveness of: standard hospital care-detoxification for opioids, no addiction consult service (status quo); expanded inpatient prescribing of medications for opioid use disorder, including bridge prescriptions (ie, medication until they can see an outpatient provider) when possible (medications for opioid use disorder with bridge); implementation of addiction consult services within the hospital (addiction consult services alone); and a combined medication for opioid use disorder with addiction consult services strategy (combined). We used clinical trials and observational cohorts to inform model inputs. Outcomes were life-years, discounted costs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, hospitalisations, and deaths. We did deterministic sensitivity analyses on key model inputs related to costs and sequelae of drug use and probabilistic sensitivity analysis to further address uncertainty.FindingsAmong people who inject opioids in the USA, we estimated that expanding medications for opioid use disorder with bridge prescriptions would reduce hospitalisations and overdose deaths by 3·2% and 3·6%, respectively, and the combination of expanded medications with opioid use disorder along with addiction consult sevices would reduce hospitalisations and overdoses by 5·2% and 6·6%, respectively, compared with the status quo. Mean lifetime costs ranged from US$731 400 (95% credible interval 447 911-859 189 for the medications for opioid use disorder strategy) to $741 200 (470 930-868 551 for the combined strategy) per person. Assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per life-year gained, medications for opioid use disorder with bridge and combined strategies were cost-effective ($7600 and $14 300, respectively). A scenario that assumed ideal access to harm reduction services came to the same conclusions as the base case and our results were robust in deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.InterpretationThe combined interventions of expanding hospital-based prescribing of medications for opioid use disorder and implementing addiction consult services could improve life expectancy, be cost-effective, and could be the basis for a comprehensive hospital-based strategy for addressing the opioid epidemic in the USA and countries with similar opioid epidemics.FundingNational Institute on Drug Abuse and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Dataset Information

Empirical Studies Addressing the Opioid Epidemic: An Urgent Call for Research.

Publications

Empirical Studies Addressing the Opioid Epidemic: An Urgent Call for Research.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure