Betty Tai

The First Decade of the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network: Bridging the Gap Between Research and Practice to Improve Drug Abuse Treatment

The National Institute on Drug Abuse established the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (CTN) in 1999 to improve the quality of addiction treatment using science as the vehicle. The network brings providers from community-based drug abuse treatment programs and scientists from university-based research centers together in an alliance that fosters bidirectional communication and collaboration. Collaboration enhanced the relevance of research to practice and facilitated the development and implementation of evidence-based treatments in community practice settings. The CTNs 20 completed trials tested pharmacological, behavioral, and integrated treatment interventions for adolescents and adults; more than 11,000 individuals participated in the trials. This article reviews the rationale for the CTN, describes the translation of its guiding principles into research endeavors, and anticipates the future evolution of clinical research within the Network.

Electronic health records: essential tools in integrating substance abuse treatment with primary care.

While substance use problems are considered to be common in medical settings, they are not systematically assessed and diagnosed for treatment management. Research data suggest that the majority of individuals with a substance use disorder either do not use treatment or delay treatment-seeking for over a decade. The separation of substance abuse services from mainstream medical care and a lack of preventive services for substance abuse in primary care can contribute to under-detection of substance use problems. When fully enacted in 2014, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 2010 will address these barriers by supporting preventive services for substance abuse (screening, counseling) and integration of substance abuse care with primary care. One key factor that can help to achieve this goal is to incorporate the standardized screeners or common data elements for substance use and related disorders into the electronic health records (EHR) system in the health care setting. Incentives for care providers to adopt an EHR system for meaningful use are part of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act 2009. This commentary focuses on recent evidence about routine screening and intervention for alcohol/drug use and related disorders in primary care. Federal efforts in developing common data elements for use as screeners for substance use and related disorders are described. A pressing need for empirical data on screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) for drug-related disorders to inform SBIRT and related EHR efforts is highlighted.

Treatment for Substance Use Disorder: Opportunities and Challenges under the Affordable Care Act

Addiction is a chronic brain disease with consequences that remain problematic years after discontinuation of use. Despite this, treatment models focus on acute interventions and are carved out from the main health care system. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (2010) brings the opportunity to change the way substance use disorder (SUD) is treated in the United States. The treatment of SUD must adapt to a chronic care model offered in an integrated care system that screens for at-risk patients and includes services needed to prevent relapses. The partnering of the health care system with substance abuse treatment programs could dramatically expand the benefits of prevention and treatment of SUD. Expanding roles of health information technology and nonphysician workforces, such as social workers, are essential to the success of a chronic care model.

From research to the real world: buprenorphine in the decade of the Clinical Trials Network.

The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) established the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (CTN) in 1999 to bring researchers and treatment providers together to develop a clinically relevant research agenda. Initial CTN efforts addressed the use of buprenorphine, a mu-opioid partial agonist, as treatment for opioid dependence. Strong evidence of buprenorphines therapeutic efficacy was demonstrated in clinical trials involving several thousand opioid-dependent participants, and in 2002, the Food and Drug Administration approved buprenorphine for the treatment of opioid dependence. With the advent of a sublingual tablet containing both buprenorphine and naloxone to mitigate abuse and diversion (Suboxone), buprenorphine appeared poised to be the first-line treatment for opioid addiction. Notwithstanding its many attributes, certain implementation barriers remained to be addressed in CTN studies, and these efforts have brought a body of knowledge on buprenorphine to frontline clinicians. The purpose of this article is to review CTN-based buprenorphine research and related efforts to overcome challenges to the implementation of buprenorphine therapy in mainstream practice. Furthermore, this article explores current issues and future challenges that may require additional CTN efforts.

Challenges and Opportunities for Integrating Preventive Substance-Use-Care Services in Primary Care through the Affordable Care Act

Undertreated or untreated substance use disorders (SUD) remain a pervasive, medically-harmful public health problem in the United States, particularly in medically underserved and low-income populations lacking access to appropriate treatment. The need for greater access to SUD treatment was expressed as policy in the Final Rule on standards related to essential health benefits, required to be covered through the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA) health insurance exchanges. SUD treatment services have been included as an essential health benefit, in a manner that complies with the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) of 2008. Consequently, with the ACA, a vast expansion of SUD-care services in primary care is looming. This commentary discusses challenges and opportunities under the ACA for equipping health care professionals with appropriate workforce training, infrastructure, and resources to support and guide science-based Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) for SUD in primary care.

Preventing deaths from rising opioid overdose in the US – the promise of naloxone antidote in community-based naloxone take-home programs

The opioid overdose epidemic is an alarming and serious public health problem in the United States (US) that has been escalating for 11 years. The 2011 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) demonstrated that 1 in 20 persons in the US aged 12 or older reported nonmedical use of prescription painkillers in the past year. Prescription drug overdose is now the leading cause of accidental death in the United States – surpassing motor vehicle accidents. Great efforts have been initiated to curb the overdose crisis. Notable examples of these efforts are (1) the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) National Take-Back Initiative instituted in 2010; (2) the Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMPs) implemented in most US states to provide practitioners with point-of-care information regarding a patient’s controlled substance use; (3) the naloxone rescue programs initiated in the community to avert mortality resulting from overdose. The use of naloxone rescue strategies has gained traction as an effective measure to prevent fatal opioid overdose. Many US federal-government agencies are working to make these strategies more accessible to first responders and community participants. This new approach faces many challenges, such as accessibility to naloxone and the equipment and training needed to administer it, but none is more challenging than the fear of legal repercussions. US federal-government agencies, local governments, health care institutions, and community-based organizations have begun to tackle these barriers, and naloxone take-home programs have gained recognition as a feasible and sensible preventive strategy to avoid a fatal result from opioid overdose. Although many challenges still need to be overcome, it is important for federal government research agencies to initiate and support independent and rigorous evaluation of these programs to inform policymakers how effective these programs can be to save lives and curb the opioid overdose public health crisis.

Can substance use disorders be managed using the Chronic Care Model? Review and recommendations from a NIDA Consensus Group.

Brain imaging and genetic studies over the past two decades suggest that substance use disorders are best considered chronic illnesses. The passing of the Affordable Care Act in the United States has set the occasion for integrating treatment of substance use disorders into mainstream healthcare; and for using the proactive, team-oriented Chronic Care Model (CCM). This paper systematically examines and compares whether and how well the CCM could be applied to the treatment of substance use disorders, using type 2 diabetes as a comparator. The chronic illness management approach is still new in the field of addiction and research is limited. However comparative findings suggest that most proactive, team treatment-oriented clinical management practices now used in diabetes management are applicable to the substance use disorders; capable of being implemented by primary care teams; and should offer comparable potential benefits in the treatment of substance use disorders. Such care should also improve the quality of care for many illnesses now negatively affected by unaddressed substance abuse.

Improving drug abuse treatment delivery through adoption of harmonized electronic health record systems

A great divide currently exists between mainstream health care and specialty substance use disorders (SUD) treatment, concerning the coordination of care and sharing of medical information. Improving the coordination of SUD treatment with other disciplines of medicine will benefit SUD patients. The development and use of harmonized electronic health record systems (EHR) containing standardized person-level information will enable improved coordination of healthcare services. We attempt here to illuminate the urgent public health need to develop and implement at the national level harmonized EHR including data fields containing standardized vocabulary/terminologies relevant to SUD treatment. The many advantages and barriers to harmonized EHR implementation in SUD treatment service groups, and pathways to their successful implementation, are also discussed. As the US Federal Government incentivizes Medicare and Medicaid Service providers nationwide for “meaningful use” of health information technology (HIT) systems, relevant stakeholders may face relatively large and time-consuming processes to conform their local practices to meet the federal government’s “meaningful use” criteria unless they proactively implement data standards and elements consistent with those criteria. Incorporating consensus-based common data elements and standards relevant to SUD screening, diagnosis, and treatment into the federal government’s “meaningful use” criteria is an essential first step to develop necessary infrastructure for effective coordination of HIT systems among SUD treatment and other healthcare service providers to promote collaborative-care implementation of cost-effective, evidence-based treatments and to support program evaluations.

Summary of NIH Medical-Surgical Emergency Research Roundtable Held on April 30 to May 1, 2009

STUDY OBJECTIVE In 2003, the Institute of Medicine Committee on the Future of Emergency Care in the United States Health System convened and identified a crisis in emergency care in the United States, including a need to enhance the research base for emergency care. As a result, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) formed an NIH Task Force on Research in Emergency Medicine to enhance NIH support for emergency care research. Members of the NIH Task Force and academic leaders in emergency care participated in 3 roundtable discussions to prioritize current opportunities for enhancing and conducting emergency care research. The objectives of these discussions were to identify key research questions essential to advancing the scientific underpinnings of emergency care and to discuss the barriers and best means to advance research by exploring the role of research networks and collaboration between the NIH and the emergency care community. METHODS The Medical-Surgical Research Roundtable was convened on April 30 to May 1, 2009. Before the roundtable, the emergency care domains to be discussed were selected and experts in each of the fields were invited to participate in the roundtable. Domain experts were asked to identify research priorities and challenges and separate them into mechanistic, translational, and clinical categories. After the conference, the lists were circulated among the participants and revised to reach a consensus. RESULTS Emergency care research is characterized by focus on the timing, sequence, and time sensitivity of disease processes and treatment effects. Rapidly identifying the phenotype and genotype of patients manifesting a specific disease process and the mechanistic reasons for heterogeneity in outcome are important challenges in emergency care research. Other research priorities include the need to elucidate the timing, sequence, and duration of causal molecular and cellular events involved in time-critical illnesses and injuries, and the development of treatments capable of halting or reversing them; the need for novel animal models; and the need to understand why there are regional differences in outcome for the same disease processes. Important barriers to emergency care research include a limited number of trained investigators and experienced mentors, limited research infrastructure and support, and regulatory hurdles. The science of emergency care may be advanced by facilitating the following: (1) training emergency care investigators with research training programs; (2) developing emergency care clinical research networks; (3) integrating emergency care research into Clinical and Translational Science Awards; (4) developing emergency care-specific initiatives within the existing structure of NIH institutes and centers; (5) involving emergency specialists in grant review and research advisory processes; (6) supporting learn-phase or small, clinical trials; and (7) performing research to address ethical and regulatory issues. CONCLUSION Enhancing the research base supporting the care of medical and surgical emergencies will require progress in specific mechanistic, translational, and clinical domains; effective collaboration of academic investigators across traditional clinical and scientific boundaries; federal support of research in high-priority areas; and overcoming limitations in available infrastructure, research training, and access to patient populations.

Integrating information on substance use disorders into electronic health record systems

For reasons of safety and effectiveness, many forces in health care, especially the Affordable Care Act of 2010, are pressing for improved identification and management of substance use disorders within mainstream health care. Thus, standard information about patient substance use will have to be collected and used by providers within electronic health record systems (EHRS). Although there are many important technical, legal, and patient confidentiality issues that must be dealt with to achieve integration, this article focuses upon efforts by the National Institute on Drug Abuse and other federal agencies to develop a common set of core questions to screen, diagnose, and initiate treatment for substance use disorders as part of national EHRS. This article discusses the background and rationale for these efforts and presents the work to date to identify the questions and to promote information sharing among health care providers.