Emergency department patients with untreated opioid use disorder: A comparison of those seeking versus not seeking referral to substance use treatment.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Coupet E
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8110210 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Study objectiveConcurrent use of amphetamine-type stimulants among individuals with opioid use disorder can exacerbate social and medical harms, including overdose risk. The study evaluated rates of amphetamine-type stimulant use among patients with untreated opioid use disorder presenting at emergency departments in Baltimore, MD; New York, NY; Cincinnati, OH; and Seattle, WA.MethodsEmergency department (ED) patients with untreated opioid use disorder (N=396) and enrolled between February 2017 and January 2019 in a multisite hybrid type III implementation science study were evaluated for concurrent amphetamine-type stimulant use. Individuals with urine tests positive for methamphetamine, amphetamine, or both were compared with amphetamine-type stimulant-negative patients.ResultsOverall, 38% of patients (150/396) were amphetamine-type stimulant positive; none reported receiving prescribed amphetamine or methamphetamine medications. Amphetamine-type stimulant-positive versus -negative patients were younger: mean age was 36 years (SD 10 years) versus 40 years (SD 12 years), 69% (104/150) versus 46% (114/246) were white, 65% (98/150) versus 54% (132/246) were unemployed, 67% (101/150) versus 49 (121/246) had unstable housing, 47% (71/150) versus 25% (61/245) reported an incarceration during 1 year before study admission, 60% (77/128) versus 45% (87/195) were hepatitis C positive, 79% (118/150) versus 47% (115/245) reported drug injection during 1 month before the study admission, and 42% (62/149) versus 29% (70/244) presented to the ED for an injury. Lower proportions of amphetamine-type stimulant-positive patients had cocaine-positive urine test results (33% [50/150] versus 52% [129/246]) and reported seeking treatment for substance use problems as a reason for their ED visit (10% [14/148] versus 19% [46/246]). All comparisons were statistically significant at P<.05 with the false discovery rate correction.ConclusionAmphetamine-type stimulant use among ED patients with untreated opioid use disorder was associated with distinct sociodemographic, social, and health factors. Improved ED-based screening, intervention, and referral protocols for patients with opioid use disorder and amphetamine-type stimulant use are needed.
| S-EPMC8048036 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceAlthough substantial evidence supports buprenorphine for treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) in controlled trials, prospective study of patient outcomes in clinical implementation of emergency department (ED) buprenorphine treatment is lacking.ObjectiveTo examine the association between buprenorphine treatment in the ED and follow-up engagement in OUD treatment 1 month later.Design, setting, and participantsThis multisite cohort study was conducted in 7 California EDs participating in a statewide implementation project to improve access to buprenorphine treatment. The study population included ED patients aged at least 18 years identified with OUD between April 1, 2021, and June 30, 2022. Data analysis was performed in October 2023.ExposureAll participants were offered buprenorphine treatment for OUD (either in ED administration, prescription, or both), the uptake of which was examined as the exposure of interest.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was engagement in OUD treatment 30 days after the ED visit, determined by patient report or clinical documentation. The association of ED buprenorphine treatment with subsequent OUD treatment engagement was estimated using hierarchical generalized linear models.ResultsThis analysis included 464 ED patients with OUD. Their median age was 36.0 (IQR, 29.0-38.7) years, and most were men (343 [73.9%]). With regard to race and ethnicity, 64 patients (13.8%) self-identified as non-Hispanic Black, 183 (39.4%) as Hispanic, and 185 as non-Hispanic White (39.9%). Most patients (396 [85.3%]) had Medicaid insurance, and more than half (262 [57.8%]) had unstable housing. Self-reported fentanyl use (242 [52.2%]) and a comorbid mental health condition (328 [71.5%]) were common. Interest in buprenorphine treatment was high: 398 patients (85.8%) received buprenorphine treatment; 269 (58.0%) were administered buprenorphine in the ED and 339 (73.1%) were prescribed buprenorphine. With regard to OUD treatment engagement at 30 days after the ED visit, 198 participants (49.7%) who received ED buprenorphine treatment remained engaged compared with 15 participants (22.7%) who did not receive ED buprenorphine treatment. An association of ED buprenorphine treatment with subsequent OUD treatment engagement at 30 days was observed (adjusted risk ratio, 1.97 [95% CI, 1.27-3.07]).Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this cohort study suggest that among patients with OUD presenting to EDs implementing low-threshold access to medications for OUD, buprenorphine treatment was associated with a substantially higher likelihood of follow-up treatment engagement 1 month later. Future research should investigate techniques to optimize both the uptake and effectiveness of buprenorphine initiation in low-threshold settings such as the ED.
| S-EPMC10825722 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionOpioid addiction and misuse constitute a public health crisis in the United States. Recent research supports buprenorphine induction in the emergency department (ED) setting for patients with opioid use disorder (OUD). However, education regarding buprenorphine induction for emergency medicine (EM) physicians, residents, and students is still limited.MethodsWe created a 1-hour introductory workshop for the identification and treatment of opioid withdrawal and OUD in the ED for medical students going into EM and for EM interns. The workshop consisted to two distinct curricular sections: (1) a didactic session providing an overview of the basic knowledge and skills to identify and treat patients with OUD in the ED and (2) a case-based session in which students worked through the identification of opioid withdrawal; discussion of opioid use with the patient, going through the steps of SBIRT (screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment); and considerations when starting buprenorphine. The workshop was evaluated using a pre- and posttest examining medical knowledge around buprenorphine use in the ED.ResultsA total of 48 students and interns participated in the curriculum. The students showed a significant improvement in medical knowledge between the pre- and posttests, with an average 45% higher score on the posttest (p < .001).DiscussionOur workshop resulted in a short-term improvement in medical students' and interns' knowledge of the identification and treatment of patients with OUD in the ED.
| S-EPMC7331957 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceEmergency department (ED)-initiated buprenorphine for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) is underused.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether provision of ED-initiated buprenorphine with referral for OUD increased after implementation facilitation (IF), an educational and implementation strategy.Design, setting, and participantsThis multisite hybrid type 3 effectiveness-implementation nonrandomized trial compared grand rounds with IF, with pre-post 12-month baseline and IF evaluation periods, at 4 academic EDs. The study was conducted from April 1, 2017, to November 30, 2020. Participants were ED and community clinicians treating patients with OUD and observational cohorts of ED patients with untreated OUD. Data were analyzed from July 16, 2021, to July 14, 2022.ExposureA 60-minute in-person grand rounds was compared with IF, a multicomponent facilitation strategy that engaged local champions, developed protocols, and provided learning collaboratives and performance feedback.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were the rate of patients in the observational cohorts who received ED-initiated buprenorphine with referral for OUD treatment (primary implementation outcome) and the rate of patients engaged in OUD treatment at 30 days after enrollment (effectiveness outcome). Additional implementation outcomes included the numbers of ED clinicians with an X-waiver to prescribe buprenorphine and ED visits with buprenorphine administered or prescribed and naloxone dispensed or prescribed.ResultsA total of 394 patients were enrolled during the baseline evaluation period and 362 patients were enrolled during the IF evaluation period across all sites, for a total of 756 patients (540 [71.4%] male; mean [SD] age, 39.3 [11.7] years), with 223 Black patients (29.5%) and 394 White patients (52.1%). The cohort included 420 patients (55.6%) who were unemployed, and 431 patients (57.0%) reported unstable housing. Two patients (0.5%) received ED-initiated buprenorphine during the baseline period, compared with 53 patients (14.6%) during the IF evaluation period (P < .001). Forty patients (10.2%) were engaged with OUD treatment during the baseline period, compared with 59 patients (16.3%) during the IF evaluation period (P = .01). Patients in the IF evaluation period who received ED-initiated buprenorphine were more likely to be in treatment at 30 days (19 of 53 patients [35.8%]) than those who did not 40 of 309 patients (12.9%; P < .001). Additionally, there were increases in the numbers of ED clinicians with an X-waiver (from 11 to 196 clinicians) and ED visits with provision of buprenorphine (from 259 to 1256 visits) and naloxone (from 535 to 1091 visits).Conclusions and relevanceIn this multicenter effectiveness-implementation nonrandomized trial, rates of ED-initiated buprenorphine and engagement in OUD treatment were higher in the IF period, especially among patients who received ED-initiated buprenorphine.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03023930.
| S-EPMC10077107 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction: Despite widespread recognition of the opioid crisis, opioid overdose remains a common reason for Emergency Department (ED) utilization. Treatment for these patients after stabilization often involves the provision of information for outpatient treatment options. Ideally, an ED visit for overdose would present an opportunity to start treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) immediately. Although widely recognized as effective, opioid agonist therapy with methadone and buprenorphine commonly referred to as "medication-assisted therapy" but more correctly as "medication for addiction treatment" (MAT), can be difficult to access even for motivated individuals due to shortages of prescribers and treatment programs. Moreover, opioid agonist therapy may not be appropriate for all patients, as many patients who present after overdose are not opioid dependent. More treatment options are required to successfully match patients with diverse needs to an optimal treatment plan in order to avoid relapse. Naltrexone, a long-acting opioid antagonist, available orally and as a monthly extended-release intramuscular injection, may represent another treatment option. Methods: We conducted a literature search of MEDLINE and PubMed. We aimed to capture references related to naltrexone and is use as MAT for OUD, as well as manuscripts that discussed naltrexone in comparison toother agents used for MAT, opioid detoxification, and naltrexone metabolism. Our initial search logic returned a total of 618 articles. Following individual evaluation for relevance, we selected 65 for in-depthreview. Manuscripts meeting criteria were examined for citations meriting further review, leading to the addition of 30 manuscripts Conclusions: Here, we review the pharmacology of naltrexone as it relates to OUD, its history of use, and highlight recent studies and new approaches for use of the drug as MAT including its potential initiation after ED visit for opioid overdose.
| S-EPMC6908461 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSubstance use patterns are diverse, and multiple substances are often involved in fatal and nonfatal overdoses. Additionally, polysubstance use is associated with greater difficulty accessing and remaining in substance use disorder (SUD) treatment. The aim of this study was to identify substance use patterns and determine their association with SUD treatment engagement among emergency department (ED) patients at risk of opioid overdose.MethodsThis was a sub-analysis of a randomized controlled trial comparing two behavioral interventions for individuals at two EDs in Rhode Island from 2018 to 2021. Past six-month substance use frequency for eight substances plus injection drug use was self-reported at trial enrollment, and SUD treatment engagement within 90 days after enrollment was obtained using administrative data linkages. Latent class analysis identified substance use patterns and multivariable log-binomial models estimated the association with SUD treatment engagement.ResultsAmong 607 participants, there were four substance use patterns: 1) low reported use (n = 295), 2) frequent injection and heroin use (n = 131), 3) high frequency broad polysubstance use (n = 62), and 4) low frequency broad polysubstance use (n = 119). Compared to participants with the low reported use pattern, those with the frequent injection and heroin pattern had a greater likelihood of SUD treatment engagement (adjusted risk ratio = 1.28; 95% confidence interval = 1.02-1.61).ConclusionsDistinct and meaningful polysubstance use patterns showed differential SUD treatment engagement after ED discharge. Nuanced relationships between substance use patterns and treatment highlight the necessity for tailored harm reduction, treatment, and recovery services.
| S-EPMC10450842 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionWe aimed to characterize emergency department (ED) utilization and clinical characteristics of patients with substance use disorder (SUD) seeking emergency care for all reasons.MethodsUsing 2016-2017 ED data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, we investigated demographics, ED resource utilization, and clinical characteristics of patients with SUD vs those without SUD.ResultsOf all adult ED visits (N = 27,609) in the US in 2016-2017, 11.1% of patients had SUD. Among ED patients with SUD, they were mostly non-Hispanic White (62.5%) and were more likely to be male (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.80 confidence interval [CI], 1.66-1.95). Emergency department patients with SUD were also more likely to return to the ED within 72 hours (aOR 1.32, CI, 1.09-1.61) and more likely to be admitted to the hospital (aOR 1.28, CI, 1.14-1.43) and intensive care unit (aOR 1.40, CI, 1.05-1.85).ConclusionPatients with SUD have specific demographic, socioeconomic, and clinical characteristics associated with their ED visits. These findings highlight the importance of recognizing co-existing SUD as risk factors for increasing morbidity in acutely ill and injured patients, and the potential role of the ED as a site for interventions aimed at reducing harm from SUD.
| S-EPMC8463055 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Homelessness and substance use often coexist, resulting in high morbidity. Emergency department (ED) patients have disproportionate rates of both homelessness and substance use, yet little research has examined the overlap of these issues in the ED setting. We aimed to characterize alcohol and drug use in a sample of homeless vs. non-homeless ED patients. METHODS:A random sample of urban hospital ED patients were invited to complete an interview regarding housing, substance use, and other health and social factors. We compared substance use characteristics among patients who did vs. did not report current literal (streets/shelter) homelessness. Additional analyses were performed using a broader definition of homelessness in the past 12-months. RESULTS:Patients who were currently homeless (n = 316, 13.7%) versus non-homeless (n = 1,993, 86.3%) had higher rates of past year unhealthy alcohol use (44.4% vs. 30.5%, p < .0001), any drug use (40.8% vs. 18.8%, p < .0001), heroin use (16.7% vs. 3.8%, p < .0001), prescription opioid use (12.5% vs. 4.4%, p < .0001), and lifetime opioid overdose (15.8% vs. 3.7%, p < .0001). In multivariable analyses, current homelessness remained significantly associated with unhealthy alcohol use, AUDIT scores among unhealthy alcohol users, any drug use, heroin use, and opioid overdose; past 12-month homelessness was additionally associated with DAST-10 scores among drug users and prescription opioid use. CONCLUSIONS:Patients experiencing homelessness have higher rates and greater severity of alcohol and drug use than other ED patients across a range of measures. These findings have implications for planning services for patients with concurrent substance use and housing problems.
| S-EPMC6478031 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceEmergency departments (EDs) sporadically use a high-dose buprenorphine induction strategy for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) in response to the increasing potency of the illicit opioid drug supply and commonly encountered delays in access to follow-up care.ObjectiveTo examine the safety and tolerability of high-dose (>12 mg) buprenorphine induction for patients with OUD presenting to an ED.Design, setting, and participantsIn this case series of ED encounters, data were manually abstracted from electronic health records for all ED patients with OUD treated with buprenorphine at a single, urban, safety-net hospital in Oakland, California, for the calendar year 2018. Data analysis was performed from April 2020 to March 2021.InterventionsED physicians and advanced practice practitioners were trained on a high-dose sublingual buprenorphine induction protocol, which was then clinically implemented.Main outcomes and measuresVital signs; use of supplemental oxygen; the presence of precipitated withdrawal, sedation, and respiratory depression; adverse events; length of stay; and hospitalization during and 24 hours after the ED visit were reported according to total sublingual buprenorphine dose (range, 2 to >28 mg).ResultsAmong a total of 391 unique patients (median [interquartile range] age, 36 [29-48] years), representing 579 encounters, 267 (68.3%) were male and 170 were (43.5%) Black. Homelessness (88 patients [22.5%]) and psychiatric disorders (161 patients [41.2%]) were common. A high dose of sublingual buprenorphine (>12 mg) was administered by 54 unique clinicians during 366 (63.2%) encounters, including 138 doses (23.8%) greater than or equal to 28 mg. No cases of respiratory depression or sedation were reported. All 5 (0.8%) cases of precipitated withdrawal had no association with dose; 4 cases occurred after doses of 8 mg of buprenorphine. Three serious adverse events unrelated to buprenorphine were identified. Nausea or vomiting was rare (2%-6% of cases). The median (interquartile range) length of stay was 2.4 (1.6-3.75) hours.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that high-dose buprenorphine induction, adopted by multiple clinicians in a single-site urban ED, was safe and well tolerated in patients with untreated OUD. Further prospective investigations conducted in multiple sites would enhance these findings.
| S-EPMC8283555 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionTo date, there is limited literature to guide emergency providers (EPs) on the proper dosing of prescription opioids. Our study aims to assess the self-reported opioid use, storage, and disposal practices of patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with acute pain.MethodsThis prospective cohort study employed a validated, cross-sectional survey of subjects identified using electronic medical records. The survey link was e-mailed to a continuous sample of eligible participants 3-4 weeks following ED discharge. Nonrespondents were surveyed through telephone after 1 week. We used descriptive and nonparametric statistics to report survey results.ResultsOf 500 eligible subjects, 97 completed the questionnaire. Only 28% of respondents reported that they took all of the prescribed pills. Of the remaining responses, 20% stated that they did not take any pills, 33% took about one-fourth, 7.2% took about half, and 12.4% took about three-fourths of the pills. Among those who did not take any pills, 42% filled the prescription. Most (71.2%) reported storing their leftover pills; among those who stored their pills, less than one-fourth (23.8%) used a locked storage location.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that less than one-third of patients who receive prescriptions in the ED for acute pain use all of their prescribed pills, suggesting that many patients are unnecessarily prescribed opioids for acute conditions. The findings of this study also suggest that many patients with unused prescription opioids do not practice safe storage or proper disposal of leftover pills. This represents a potential opportunity for EPs to improve medication safety by educating patients on proper storage and disposal practices. Limitations include low response rate and the use of self-reporting.
| S-EPMC10824224 | biostudies-literature