Explore the vast range of titles available.

The United States is amidst an opioid epidemic, including synthetic opioids that may result in rapid death, leaving minimal opportunity for bystander rescue. We pilot tested a behavioral intervention to reduce the occurrence of opioid overdose among opioid dependent persons at high-risk for subsequent overdose. We conducted a single-blinded randomized-controlled trial of a repeated dose motivational interviewing intervention (REBOOT) to reduce overdose versus treatment as usual, defined as information and referrals, over 16 months at the San Francisco Department of Public Health from 2014-2016. Participants were 18-65 years of age, had opioid use disorder by Structured Clinical Interview, active opioid use, opioid overdose within 5 years, and prior receipt of naloxone kits. The intervention was administered at months 0, 4, 8, and 12, preceded by the assessment which was also administered at month 16. Dual primary outcomes were any overdose event and number of events, collected by computer-assisted personal interview, as well as any fatal overdose events per vital records. A total of 78 persons were screened and 63 enrolled. Mean age was 43 years, 67% were born male, 65% White, 17% African-American, and 14% Latino. Ninety-two percent of visits and 93% of counseling sessions were completed. At baseline, 33.3% of participants had experienced an overdose in the past four months, with a similar mean number of overdoses in both arms (p = 0.95); 29% overdosed during follow-up. By intention-to-treat, participants assigned to REBOOT were less likely to experience any overdose (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.62 [95%CI 0.41-0.92, p = 0.019) and experienced fewer overdose events (IRR 0.46, 95%CI 0.24-0.90, p = 0.023), findings that were robust to sensitivity analyses. There were no differences between arms in days of opioid use, substance use treatment, or naloxone carriage. REBOOT reduced the occurrence of any opioid overdose and the number of overdoses. clinicaltrials.gov NCT02093559.

To determine if men who have sex with men (MSM) with cocaine use disorder (CUD) and actively-using cocaine could be enrolled and retained in a pharmacologic intervention trial of lorcaserin-a novel 5-HT2cR agonist-and determine the degree to which participants would adhere to study procedures. This was a phase II randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot study with 2:1 random parallel group assignment to daily extended-release oral lorcaserin 20 mg versus placebo (clinicaltrials.gov identifier-NCT03192995). Twenty-two of a planned 45 cisgender MSM with CUD were enrolled and had weekly follow-up visits during a 12-week treatment period, with substance use counseling, urine specimen collection, and completion of audio-computer assisted self-interview (ACASI) behavioral risk assessments. Adherence was measured by medication event monitoring systems (MEMS) caps and self-report. This study was terminated early because of an FDA safety alert for lorcaserin's long-term use. Eighty-six percent completed the trial, with 82% of weekly study follow-up visits completed. Adherence was 55.3% (lorcaserin 51.6% vs. placebo 66.2%) by MEMS cap and 56.9% (56.5% vs. placebo 57.9%) by self-report and did not differ significantly by treatment assignment. Intention-to-treat analyses (ITT) did not show differences in cocaine positivity by urine screen between the lorcaserin and placebo groups by 12 week follow-up (incidence risk ratio [IRR]: 0.96; 95%CI = 0.24-3.82, P = 0.95). However, self-reported cocaine use in timeline follow-back declined more significantly in the lorcaserin group compared to placebo (IRR: 0.66; 95%CI = 0.49-0.88; P = 0.004). We found that it is feasible, acceptable, and tolerable to conduct a placebo-controlled pharmacologic trial for MSM with CUD who are actively using cocaine. Lorcaserin was not associated with significant reductions in cocaine use by urine testing, but was associated with significant reductions in self-reported cocaine use. Future research may be needed to continue to explore the potential utility of 5-HT2cR agonists.

The advent of direct-acting antivirals for hepatitis C virus (HCV) and limited effectiveness of prevention have generated interest in \"Treatment as Prevention\" (TasP), in which those most likely to transmit HCV (i.e. people who inject drugs [PWID]) are treated to reduced secondary transmission. However, there are scant data regarding the feasibility of treating PWID at high risk for secondary transmission or the optimal approach to treatment delivery. We conducted a 2:1 randomized trial of modified directly-observed (mDOT) versus unobserved HCV treatment with ledipasvir-sofosbuvir daily for 8 weeks among PWID with 36 weeks of follow-up in San Francisco from 2015-2017. We evaluated recruitment-enrollment, treatment completion, end-of-treatment and 12-week response, and reinfection rate. Of 83 individuals eligible for screening, 72 (87.6%) attended the screening visit, 33 were eligible, and 31 enrolled; mean age was 42 years, 81% were male, 74% white. All but one participant (in the mDOT arm) completed treatment and 89.4% of mDOT and 96.6% of unobserved arm visits were attended. HCV was undetectable for 96.8% (30/31) at end of treatment and 89.7% (26/29) 12 weeks later (1 relapse, 1 reinfection), with no differences by arm. Two additional reinfections were subsequently identified, for a reinfection rate of 16.3 (95% CI 5.3-50.5) per 100 person-years of observation. It was feasible to recruit active PWID for HCV treatment and achieve high retention, viral response, and satisfaction with either mDOT or unobserved protocols, supporting treatment of PWID at risk of transmitting HCV to others. The reinfection rate suggests we successfully reached a high-risk population and that successful HCV TasP initiatives may aim to be sufficient in scope to significantly lower prevalence in the community. clinicaltrials.gov NCT02609893.

Background Rates of cocaine use disorder (CUD) among men who have sex with men (MSM) are high and rising. Among MSM, cocaine use is associated with negative socioeconomic, medical, and psychological outcomes. There are no FDA-approved pharmacotherapy options to treat CUD, and psychosocial interventions demonstrate limited efficacy. While there have been numerous trials evaluating possible medications for CUD, there is a scarcity of qualitative data on the barriers and facilitators of medication-assisted treatment. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 participants enrolled in a phase II randomized control trial evaluating extended-release lorcaserin among MSM with CUD. Participants were asked about their motivations for enrolling in the study, attitudes towards taking a medication for CUD, barriers and facilitators of study pill adherence, and their general study experience. Interviews were analyzed using an inductive and exploratory approach to thematic analysis. Results Participants were highly motivated to reduce cocaine use and viewed pharmacotherapy as a viable and desirable treatment option. Pharmacotherapy was seen as having fewer access and adherence structural barriers compared to existing psychosocial therapies. Medication reminders facilitated pill taking, while side effects, travel, and active substance use presented barriers to study pill adherence. Disclosure of study participation within social networks was variable pointing to anticipated substance use and treatment stigma. Conclusions Our study highlights important factors affecting the acceptability and uptake of medication-assisted treatment for CUD among a diverse sample of MSM. These findings can help guide the development and implementation of future pharmacotherapy options for CUD and other substance use disorders in this key population.

Background People with substance use disorders are vulnerable to acquiring HIV. Testing is fundamental to diagnosis, treatment, and prevention; however, in the past decade, there has been a decline in the number of substance use disorder (SUD) treatment programs offering on-site HIV testing. Fewer than half of SUDs in the USA offer on-site HIV testing. In addition, nearly a quarter of newly diagnosed cases have AIDS at the time of diagnosis. Lack of testing is one of the main reasons that annual HIV incidences have remained constant over time. Integration of HIV testing with testing for HCV, an infection prevalent among persons vulnerable to HIV infection, and in settings where they receive health services, including opioid treatment programs (OTPs), is of great public health importance. Methods/design In this 3-arm cluster-RCT of opioid use disorders treatment programs, we test the effect of two evidence-based “practice coaching” (PC) interventions on the provision and sustained implementation of on-site HIV testing, on-site HIV/HCV testing, and linkage to care. Using the National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services data available from SAMHSA, 51 sites are randomly assigned to one of the three conditions: practice coach facilitated structured conversations around implementing change, with provision of resources and documents to support the implementation of (1) HIV testing only, or (2) HIV/HCV testing, and (3) a control condition that provides a package with information only. We collect quantitative (e.g., HIV and HCV testing at 6-month-long intervals) and qualitative site data near the time of randomization, and again approximately 7–12 months after randomization. Discussion Innovative and comprehensive approaches that facilitate and promote the adoption and sustainability of HIV and HCV testing in opioid treatment programs are important for addressing and reducing HIV and HCV infection rates. This study is one of the first to test organizational approaches (practice coaching) to increase HIV and HIV/HCV testing and linkage to care among individuals receiving treatment for opioid use disorder. The study may provide valuable insight and knowledge on the multiple levels of intervention that, if integrated, may better position OTPs to improve and sustain testing practices and improve population health. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03135886. Registered on 2 May 2017.

Background Hospitalizations for acute bacterial and fungal infections related to injection drug use are increasing in the background of the United States drug overdose crisis. These infections are a significant contributor to morbidity and mortality among people who inject drugs (PWID). Currently, limited comprehensive approaches to caring for PWID hospitalized with severe injection-related infections (SIRIs) exist. We developed a multidisciplinary model integrating infectious disease (ID), substance use disorder (SUD), harm reduction, and patient navigation treatment approaches to help improve outcomes for PWID hospitalized with SIRIs. Methods The Holistic Intervention for Severe Injection-Related Infections (HI-SIRI) trial is a multicenter, randomized controlled trial conducted at six academic hospitals across the United States with two parallel treatment arms. Participants ( N = 480) hospitalized with confirmed or suspected SIRI and injection drug use in the past year will be randomized to either the “SIRI team” intervention or treatment as usual (TAU) arm. Randomization will be stratified by site, primary drug (opioid vs. non-opioid), and ICU admission. The primary trial outcome is the difference in the proportion of participants alive with no hospital readmissions at 4 months post-randomization between the two arms. Secondary outcomes include SUD and ID treatment initiation, antibiotic treatment completion, all-cause and substance use related mortality, and overall healthcare utilization, assessed at 8 and 12 months post-randomization. A cost-effectiveness analysis and implementation evaluation will also be performed. Discussion The HI-SIRI trial will be one of the first to test a comprehensive treatment approach for the syndemic of PWID hospitalized with acute bacterial and fungal infections. The trial will integrate ID and SUD treatment, built on principles of harm reduction. This innovative model, incorporating evidence-based methods, will address several multi-level barriers to care by offering low-barrier, patient-centered interventions for infection management and substance use treatment. The HI-SIRI trial seeks to transform the current standards of care for PWID hospitalized with SIRI to reduce readmissions, prevent death, and reduce healthcare costs. Registry ClinicalTrials.gov, TRN: NCT05688423, Registration date: 17 January, 2023 Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05688423 (https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05688423). Trial registry name: CTN-0121: Integrated Care and Treatment for SevereInfectious Diseases and Substance Use Disorders (SUD) among HospitalizedPatients. Trial Sponsor: Landhing Moran, PhD, landhing.moran@nih.gov,National Institute on Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network. Registration date:January 17, 2023. Protocol Version 4.0.

Background:Drug overdose mortality continues to increase, now driven by fentanyl. Prevention tools such as naloxone and medications to treat opioid use disorder are not sufficient to control overdose rates; additional strategies are urgently needed.Objective:We sought to adapt a behavioral intervention to prevent opioid overdose (repeated-dose behavioral intervention to reduce opioid overdose [REBOOT]) that had been successfully piloted in San Francisco, California, United States, to the setting of Boston, Massachusetts, United States, and the era of fentanyl for a full efficacy trial.Methods:We used the assessment, decision, adaptation, production, topical experts, integration, training, and testing (ADAPT-ITT) framework for intervention adaptation. We first identified opioid overdose survivors who were actively using opioids as the population of interest and REBOOT as the intervention to be adapted. We then performed theater testing and elicited feedback with 2 focus groups (n=10) in Boston in 2018. All participants had used opioids that were not prescribed to them in the past year and experienced an opioid overdose during their lifetime. We incorporated focus group findings into our initial draft of the adapted REBOOT intervention. The adapted intervention was reviewed by 3 topical experts, and their feedback was integrated into a subsequent draft. We trained study staff on the intervention and made final refinements based on internal piloting. This paper describes the overall ADAPT-ITT process for intervention adaptation, as well as a qualitative analysis of the focus groups. Working independently, 2 authors (VMM and JA) reviewed the focus group transcripts and coded them for salient and common themes using the constant comparison method, meeting to discuss any discrepancies until consensus was reached. Codes and themes were then mapped onto the REBOOT counseling steps.Results:Focus group findings contributed to substantial changes in the counseling intervention to better address fentanyl overdose risk. Participants described the widespread prevalence of fentanyl and said that, although they tried to avoid it, avoidance was becoming impossible. Using alone and lower opioid tolerance were identified as contributors to overdose risk. Slow shots or tester shots were acceptable and considered effective to reduce risk. Naloxone was considered an effective reversal strategy. Although calling emergency services was not ruled out, participants described techniques to prevent the arrival of police on the scene. Expert review and internal piloting improved the intervention manual through increased participant centeredness, clarity, and usability.Conclusions:We successfully completed the ADAPT-ITT approach for an overdose prevention intervention, using theater testing with people who use opioids to incorporate the perspectives of people who use drugs into a substance use intervention. In the current crisis, overdose prevention strategies must be adapted to the context of fentanyl, and innovative strategies must be deployed, including behavioral interventions.Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03838510; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03838510

Background Interventions are needed to improve viral suppression rates among persons with HIV and substance use. A 3-arm randomized multi-site study (Metsch et al. in JAMA 316:156–70, 2016 ) was conducted to evaluate the effect on HIV outcomes of usual care referral to HIV and substance use services (N = 253) versus patient navigation delivered alone (PN: N = 266) or together with contingency management (PN + CM; N = 271) that provided financial incentives targeting potential behavioral mediators of viral load suppression. Aims This secondary analysis evaluates the effects of financial incentives on attendance at PN sessions and the relationship between session attendance and viral load suppression at end of the intervention. Methods Frequency of sessions attended was analyzed over time and by distribution of individual session attendance frequency (PN vs PN + CM). Percent virally suppressed (≤200 copies/mL) at 6 months was compared for low, medium and high rate attenders. In PN + CM a total of $220 could be earned for attendance at 11 PN sessions over the 6-month intervention with payments ranging from $10 to $30 under an escalating schedule. Results The majority (74%) of PN-only participants attended 6 or more sessions but only 28% attended 10 or more and 16% attended all eleven sessions. In contrast, 90% of PN + CM attended 6 or more visits, 69% attended 10 or more and 57% attended all eleven sessions (attendance distribution χ 2 [11] = 105.81; p < .0001). Overall (PN and PN + CM participants combined) percent with viral load suppression at 6-months was 15, 38 and 54% among those who attended 0–5, 6–9 and 10–11 visits, respectively (χ 2 (2) = 39.07, p < .001). Conclusion In this secondary post hoc analysis, contact with patient navigators was increased by attendance incentives. Higher rates of attendance at patient navigation sessions was associated with viral suppression at the 6-month follow-up assessment. Study results support use of attendance incentives to improve rates of contact between service providers and patients, particularly patients who are difficult to engage in care. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.govIdentifier: NCT01612169.

Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is a viable HIV prevention strategy but risk compensation could undermine potential benefits. There are limited data that examine this phenomenon outside of clinical trials. We conducted a qualitative analysis of counseling notes from the San Francisco site of the US PrEP demonstration project to assess how men who have sex with men used PrEP as a prevention strategy and its impact on their sexual practices. Four major themes emerged from our analysis of 130 distinct notes associated with 26 participants. Prevention strategy decision-making was dynamic, often influenced by the context and perceived risk of a sexual encounter. Counselors noted that participants used PrEP in conjunction with other health promotion strategies like condoms, asking about HIV status of their sex partners, and seroadaptation. With few exceptions, existing risk reduction strategies were not abandoned upon initiation of PrEP. Risk-taking behavior was ‘seasonal’ and fluctuations were influenced by various personal, psychosocial, and health-related factors. PrEP also helped relieve anxiety regarding sex and HIV, particularly among serodiscordant partners. Understanding sexual decision-making and how PrEP is incorporated into existing prevention strategies can help inform future PrEP implementation efforts.

Objectives. We examined the effectiveness of risk reduction counseling and the role of on-site HIV testing in drug treatment. Methods. Between January and May 2009, we randomized 1281 HIV-negative (or status unknown) adults who reported no past-year HIV testing to (1) referral for off-site HIV testing, (2) HIV risk-reduction counseling with on-site rapid HIV testing, or (3) verbal information about testing only with on-site rapid HIV testing. Results. We defined 2 primary self-reported outcomes a priori: receipt of HIV test results and unprotected anal or vaginal intercourse episodes at 6-month follow-up. The combined on-site rapid testing participants received more HIV test results than off-site testing referral participants (P < .001; Mantel-Haenszel risk ratio = 4.52; 97.5% confidence interval [CI] = 3.57, 5.72). At 6 months, there were no significant differences in unprotected intercourse episodes between the combined on-site testing arms and the referral arm (P = .39; incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.04; 97.5% CI = 0.95, 1.14) or the 2 on-site testing arms (P = .81; IRR = 1.03; 97.5% CI = 0.84, 1.26). Conclusions. This study demonstrated on-site rapid HIV testing’s value in drug treatment centers and found no additional benefit from HIV sexual risk-reduction counseling.