Explore the vast range of titles available.

Evidence-based practices for reducing opioid-related overdose deaths include overdose education and naloxone distribution, the use of medications for the treatment of opioid use disorder, and prescription opioid safety. Data are needed on the effectiveness of a community-engaged intervention to reduce opioid-related overdose deaths through enhanced uptake of these practices. In this community-level, cluster-randomized trial, we randomly assigned 67 communities in Kentucky, Massachusetts, New York, and Ohio to receive the intervention (34 communities) or a wait-list control (33 communities), stratified according to state. The trial was conducted within the context of both the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic and a national surge in the number of fentanyl-related overdose deaths. The trial groups were balanced within states according to urban or rural classification, previous overdose rate, and community population. The primary outcome was the number of opioid-related overdose deaths among community adults. During the comparison period from July 2021 through June 2022, the population-averaged rates of opioid-related overdose deaths were similar in the intervention group and the control group (47.2 deaths per 100,000 population vs. 51.7 per 100,000 population), for an adjusted rate ratio of 0.91 (95% confidence interval, 0.76 to 1.09; P = 0.30). The effect of the intervention on the rate of opioid-related overdose deaths did not differ appreciably according to state, urban or rural category, age, sex, or race or ethnic group. Intervention communities implemented 615 evidence-based practice strategies from the 806 strategies selected by communities (254 involving overdose education and naloxone distribution, 256 involving the use of medications for opioid use disorder, and 105 involving prescription opioid safety). Of these evidence-based practice strategies, only 235 (38%) had been initiated by the start of the comparison year. In this 12-month multimodal intervention trial involving community coalitions in the deployment of evidence-based practices to reduce opioid overdose deaths, death rates were similar in the intervention group and the control group in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic and the fentanyl-related overdose epidemic. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; HCS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04111939.).

An analysis of 2016–2019 Medicare claims data for patients with opioid use disorder showed that receipt of medications to treat OUD was more frequent among White patients than among Black and Hispanic patients.

Background The HEALing Communities Study was a multi-site cluster randomized waitlist-controlled trial evaluating a community-engaged, data-driven intervention to select and deploy evidence-based practices (EBPs) including overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND), medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD), and safer opioid prescribing. The trial was conducted in 67 highly impacted communities in 4 states, including 8 Rural and 8 urban communities in New York State (NYS). To inform future community-level decision making, we estimated the implementation costs of the EBPs selected by NYS communities. Methods The study was implemented between January 2020-June 2022 (Wave 1, 30 months duration including the peak COVID-19 emergency period) and July 2022-December 2023 (Wave 2, 18 months); each wave included 4 Rural and 4 urban NYS communities. We collected cost data prospectively using invoices, administrative records, and interviews with program staff and stakeholders. We then conducted a micro-costing analysis from the community perspective and compared costs from Waves 1 and 2. Results In both Waves, each community deployed on average 15 EBPs (range 8–25). EBP costs averaged $705,000 (range $320,000-$1.3 million) and $312,000 (range $39,200-$686,300) in Waves 1 and 2, respectively. In Wave 1, 25% of costs were allocated for OEND, 71% for MOUD, and 4% for safer prescribing, compared to 38% for OEND, 60% for MOUD, and 2% for safer prescribing in Wave 2. Average EBP costs per community were $147,600 (range $20,900-$374,000) for those in the OEND category, $345,400 (range $4,100-$1.1 million) for MOUD, and $16,400 (range $360-$105,500) for safer prescribing. Total EBP cost per capita in urban communities was $0.32 compared to $2.65 in Rural communities in Wave 1, and $0.41 urban communities compared to $0.65 in Rural communities in Wave 2. Conclusions The lower EBP costs in Wave 2 resulted from differences in EBP categories and specific EBPs selected and may also reflect differences in the duration of the intervention and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic over time. Higher per capita costs in rural communities indicate that many costs were not directly related to the number of individuals served.

A compound has been discovered that increases the potency and duration of action of naloxone, a drug used to reverse the effects of opioid overdoses — possibly opening up another way to save lives. A compound that boosts the effects of a therapy for opioid overdoses.

RationaleMinocycline, a tetracycline antibiotic, inhibits activation of microglia. In preclinical studies, minocycline prevented development of opioid tolerance and opioid-induced hyperalgesia (OIH). The goal of this study was to determine if minocycline changes pain threshold and tolerance in individuals with opioid use disorder who are maintained on agonist treatment.MethodsIn this double-blind, randomized human laboratory study, 20 participants were randomized to either minocycline (200 mg/day) or placebo treatment for 15 days. The study had three test sessions (days 1, 8, and 15 of treatment) and one follow-up visit 1 week after the end of treatment. In each test session, participants were assessed on several subjective and cognitive measures, followed by assessment of pain sensitivity using the Cold Pressor Test (CPT). Daily surveys and cognitive measures using Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) were also collected four times a day on days 8 through 14 of treatment, and proinflammatory serum cytokines were assessed before and on the last day of treatment.ResultsMinocycline treatment did not change pain threshold or tolerance on the CPT. Similarly, minocycline did not change severity of pain, opioid craving, withdrawal, or serum cytokines. Minocycline treatment increased accuracy on a Go/No-Go task.ConclusionsWhile these findings do not support minocycline’s effects on OIH, minocycline may have a potential use as a cognitive enhancer for individuals with opioid use disorder, a finding that warrants further systematic studies.

In 2019, seven county correctional facilities (jails) in Massachusetts initiated pilot programs to provide all Food and Drug Administration-approved medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD). This observational study used linked state data to examine postrelease MOUD receipt, overdose, death, and reincarceration among persons with probable opioid use disorder (OUD) in carceral settings who did or did not receive MOUD from these programs from September 1, 2019, through December 31, 2020. Log-binomial and proportional-hazards models were adjusted for propensity-score weights and baseline covariates that remained imbalanced after propensity-score weighting. The study cohort included 6400 persons with probable OUD: 2711 (42.4%) received MOUD in jail and 3689 (57.6%) did not. Among persons treated with MOUD in jail, 67.9% received buprenorphine, 25.7% received methadone, and 6.5% received naltrexone. Treated persons were more likely than those not treated to be White (75.4% vs. 58.1%), to be sentenced (31.6% vs. 13.2%), to be receiving MOUD at jail entry (73.7% vs. 17.1%), and to receive MOUD during the first 30 days after community release (60.2% vs. 17.6%; adjusted relative risk, 1.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.38 to 1.50). Only 50.4% of MOUD recipients engaged in MOUD treatment for 75% of the first 90 days after release, and 57.5% were receiving MOUD at 180 days. Receipt of MOUD in jail, as compared with no such receipt, was associated with lower postrelease risks of fatal overdose (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.64), nonfatal overdose (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.85), death from any cause (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.56), and reincarceration (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.81 to 0.94). The incidence of hospitalizations did not differ substantially between the two groups. Receipt of MOUD in jail was associated with an increased likelihood of postrelease MOUD initiation and decreased risks of overdose, death from any cause, and reincarceration. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and others.).

Substance use is disproportionately high among people who are homeless or vulnerably housed. We performed a systematic overview of reviews examining the effects of selected harm reduction and pharmacological interventions on the health and social well-being of people who use substances, with a focus on homeless populations. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Joanna Briggs Institute EBP, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and DARE for systematic reviews from inception to August 2019. We conducted a grey literature search and hand searched reference lists. We selected reviews that synthesized evidence on supervised consumption facilities, managed alcohol programs and pharmacological interventions for opioid use disorders. We abstracted data specific to homeless or vulnerably housed populations. We assessed certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Our search identified 483 citations and 30 systematic reviews met all inclusion criteria, capturing the results from 442 primary studies. This included three reviews on supervised consumption facilities, 24 on pharmacological interventions, and three on managed alcohol programs. Supervised consumption facilities decreased lethal overdoses and other high risk behaviours without any significant harm, and improved access to care. Pharmaceutical interventions reduced mortality, morbidity, and substance use, but the impact on retention in treatment, mental illness and access to care was variable. Managed alcohol programs reduced or stabilized alcohol consumption. Few studies on managed alcohol programs reported deaths. Substance use is a common chronic condition impacting homeless populations. Supervised consumption facilities reduce overdose and improve access to care, while pharmacological interventions may play a role in reducing harms and addressing other morbidity. High quality evidence on managed alcohol programs is limited.

Background Addicted patients undergoing methadone maintenance treatment are prone to several complications and the risk of relapse. Objective The present study aims to investigate the effect of cranial electrotherapy stimulation on depression, anxiety, and craving in addicted male people undergoing methadone maintenance treatment. Methods This randomized controlled trial study was conducted on 60 male patients referred to Persia addiction treatment center between 2021 and 2022. Patients were randomly divided into two equal treatment and placebo groups. The treatment group received cranial electrotherapy stimulation intervention for 48 sessions of 30 min. Depression and anxiety were evaluated using the Hamilton questionnaire before and after the intervention, and the level of craving was also evaluated with the Federdi 2008 questionnaire. Results Comparing the level of depression and anxiety before and after the intervention in both treatment and placebo groups did not show any significant difference ( p  < 0.05). Craving after the intervention was significantly different in both groups and was lower in the treatment group compared to the placebo group (33.43 versus 42.17, p  = 0.004). In the placebo group, the level of anxiety and depression, and in the treatment group, the level of depression, anxiety and craving for consumption decreased significantly after the intervention compared to before the intervention ( p  < 0.05). Conclusion Cranial electrotherapy stimulation did not have a significant effect on reducing the level of depression and anxiety of patients, but it is effective in the reduction of craving in addicted people undergoing methadone maintenance treatment. Trial registration This randomized clinical trial was registered on 2022/5/13 with clinical trial code of IRCT20210523051367N1.

BackgroundEmergency department (ED)-initiated buprenorphine/naloxone with continuation in primary care was found to increase engagement in addiction treatment and reduce illicit opioid use at 30 days compared to referral only or a brief intervention with referral.ObjectiveTo evaluate the long-term outcomes at 2, 6 and 12 months following ED interventions.DesignEvaluation of treatment engagement, drug use, and HIV risk among a cohort of patients from a randomized trial who completed at least one long-term follow-up assessment.ParticipantsA total of 290/329 patients (88% of the randomized sample) were included. The followed cohort did not differ significantly from the randomized sample.InterventionsED-initiated buprenorphine with 10-week continuation in primary care, referral, or brief intervention were provided in the ED at study entry.Main MeasuresSelf-reported engagement in formal addiction treatment, days of illicit opioid use, and HIV risk (2, 6, 12 months); urine toxicology (2, 6 months).Key ResultsA greater number of patients in the buprenorphine group were engaged in addiction treatment at 2 months [68/92 (74%), 95% CI 65–83] compared with referral [42/79 (53%), 95% CI 42–64] and brief intervention [39/83 (47%), 95% CI 37–58; p < 0.001]. The differences were not significant at 6 months [51/92 (55%), 95% CI 45–65; 46/70 (66%) 95% CI 54–76; 43/76 (57%) 95% CI 45–67; p = 0.37] or 12 months [42/86 (49%) 95% CI 39–59; 37/73 (51%) 95% CI 39–62; 49/78 (63%) 95% CI 52–73; p = 0.16]. At 2 months, the buprenorphine group reported fewer days of illicit opioid use [1.1 (95% CI 0.6–1.6)] versus referral [1.8 (95% CI 1.2–2.3)] and brief intervention [2.0 (95% CI 1.5–2.6), p = 0.04]. No significant differences in illicit opioid use were observed at 6 or 12 months. There were no significant differences in HIV risk or rates of opioid-negative urine results at any time.ConclusionsED-initiated buprenorphine was associated with increased engagement in addiction treatment and reduced illicit opioid use during the 2-month interval when buprenorphine was continued in primary care. Outcomes at 6 and 12 months were comparable across all groups.

Despite evidence of the effectiveness of injectable opioid treatment compared with oral methadone for chronic heroin addiction, the additional cost of injectable treatment is considerable, and cost-effectiveness uncertain. To compare the cost-effectiveness of supervised injectable heroin and injectable methadone with optimised oral methadone for chronic refractory heroin addiction. Multisite, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Outcomes were assessed in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Economic perspective included health, social services and criminal justice resources. Intervention costs over 26 weeks were significantly higher for injectable heroin (mean £8995 v. £4674 injectable methadone and £2596 oral methadone; P<0.0001). Costs overall were highest for oral methadone (mean £15 805 v. £13 410 injectable methadone and £10 945 injectable heroin; P = n.s.) due to higher costs of criminal activity. In cost-effectiveness analysis, oral methadone was dominated by injectable heroin and injectable methadone (more expensive and less effective). At willingness to pay of £30 000 per QALY, there is a higher probability of injectable methadone being more cost-effective (80%) than injectable heroin. Injectable opioid treatments are more cost-effective than optimised oral methadone for chronic refractory heroin addiction. The choice between supervised injectable heroin and injectable methadone is less clear. There is currently evidence to suggest superior effectiveness of injectable heroin but at a cost that policy makers may find unacceptable. Future research should consider the use of decision analytic techniques to model expected costs and benefits of the treatments over the longer term.