Emily C. Williams

Effectiveness of the AUDIT-C as a Screening Test for Alcohol Misuse in Three Race/Ethnic Groups

SummaryBackgroundThe Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test—Consumption (AUDIT-C) is a brief validated screen for risky drinking and alcohol abuse and dependence (alcohol misuse). However, the AUDIT-C was validated in predominantly White populations, and its performance in different racial/ethnic groups is unclear.ObjectiveTo evaluate the validity of the AUDIT-C among primary care patients from the predominant racial/ethnic subgroups within the United States: White, African American, and Hispanic.DesignCross-sectional interview validation study.Participants1,292 outpatients from an academic family practice clinic in Texas (90% of randomly sampled eligible).Measurements and Main ResultsRace/ethnicity was self-reported. Areas under the receiver operating curve (AuROCs) evaluated overall AUDIT-C performance in the 3 racial/ethnic groups compared to diagnostic interviews for alcohol misuse. AUDIT-C sensitivities and specificities at recommended screening thresholds were compared across racial/ethnic groups. AuROCs were greater than 0.85 in all 3 groups, with no significant differences across racial/ethnic groups in men (P = .43) or women (P = .12). At previously recommended cut points, there were statistically significant differences by race in AUDIT-C sensitivities but not specificities. In women, the sensitivity was higher in Hispanic (85%) than in African-American (67%; P = .03) or White (70%; P = .04) women. In men, the sensitivity was higher in White (95%) than in African-American men (76%; P = .01), with no significant difference from Hispanic men (85%; P = .11).ConclusionsThe overall performance of the AUDIT-C was excellent in all 3 racial/ethnic groups as reflected by high AuROCs. At recommended cut points, there were significant differences in the AUDIT-C’s sensitivity but not in specificity across the 3 racial/ethnic groups.

Alcohol Screening Scores and Medication Nonadherence

Context Is alcohol misuse associated with medication nonadherence? Contribution This study of primary care patients attending 7 Veterans Affairs clinics found a graded, linear decrease in adherence to statins and hypertension medications with increasing levels of alcohol misuse. Caution Alcohol misuse was measured with a brief screening questionnaire that was mailed to patients. Adherence was measured by pharmacy refills. Implication Alcohol misuse may be associated with increased risk for medication nonadherence. The Editors Daily medications are the cornerstone of chronic disease management. Medications to treat hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetespotent risk factors for cardiovascular diseaseare common and are often prescribed for asymptomatic patients to prevent future disease. However, nonadherence to medications is common (1) and is associated with poor outcomes, increased health care costs (2, 3), and death (4). Many studies have examined patient characteristics associated with nonadherence, but most identified risk factors for nonadherence are not modifiable. Alcohol misuse is common, has been associated with medication nonadherence, and is modifiable (57). However, research on alcohol misuse and medication adherence has been largely limited to patients with HIV (811) and a few studies of diabetes (3, 12, 13). One recent study found both a temporal and a doseresponse relationship between alcohol consumption and medication adherence (8) but used a lengthy interview measure of alcohol use that is not practical for busy clinical settings. Therefore, it remains unclear whether brief validated alcohol screening questionnaires used in clinical practice could identify patients at risk for nonadherence due to alcohol misuse. We examined whether primary care outpatient scores on a brief, scaled, alcohol screening questionnairethe Alcohol Use Disorder Identification TestConsumption (AUDIT-C)were associated with medication nonadherence. Specifically, we evaluated the association between increasing scores on the AUDIT-C (score range, 0 to 12) and adherence to oral medications commonly used for hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes. We hypothesized that higher AUDIT-C scores would be associated with an increased risk for medication nonadherence. Methods Participants and Setting We used data collected from the Ambulatory Care Quality Improvement Project (ACQUIP) cohort in this study (14). In brief, ACQUIP enrolled 36821 active patients from the general internal medicine clinics of 7 Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers nationwide, including facilities in Seattle, Washington; West Los Angeles, California; Birmingham, Alabama; Little Rock, Arkansas; San Francisco, California; Richmond, Virginia; and White River Junction, Vermont. The ACQUIP initially surveyed all VA sites and selected these 7 sites (from 60 respondents) on the basis of geographic diversity; well-established systems for assigning patients to firms; and an experienced, interested investigator to lead the study. The ACQUIP was a randomized trial testing the effect of an audit and feedback quality-improvement intervention; there was no detectable effect of the intervention on primary outcomes, including alcohol misuse (14). Patients were eligible for ACQUIP if they had at least 1 visit to a primary care facility in the past year and had a primary care provider. The ACQUIP sent questionnaires (ACQUIP Health Checklist) at enrollment (1997 to 2000), and the institutional review board considered participant response to the survey to be consent for study participation. The survey assessed demographic characteristics, alcohol misuse, other health behaviors, and psychiatric and medical conditions. Patients who did not respond were mailed up to 3 additional surveys. The date the survey was received by the study team was considered the index date for all participants. Survey data were linked to electronic records, including pharmacy, diagnosis, and death records. Participants who died during follow-up were excluded. The institutional review board at each participating VA site approved ACQUIP, and the University of Washington Division of Human Subjects approved the secondary analyses that we present in this article. Pharmacy Data and Medication Cohorts Pharmacy data were retrieved electronically as part of the ACQUIP protocol from December 1995 to May 2000. Each prescription filled generated 1 record containing the drug name, the quantity and date dispensed, and the number of days supplied. These data are nearly identical to national VA pharmacy data (15), which have been used in several studies of medication adherence and pharmacoepidemiology (16, 17). We identified 3 nonexclusive cohorts of patients with increasing medication regimen complexity: a statin cohort, consisting of all patients prescribed a statin medication for hypercholesterolemia; an oral hypoglycemic cohort, with all patients who were prescribed either a sulfonylurea or metformin for blood glucose control; and a hypertension treatment cohort, consisting of all patients with self-reported hypertension who were prescribed at least 1 of 6 classes of antihypertensive drugs (-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, -blockers, calcium-channel blockers, thiazide-type diuretics, or nonthiazide diuretics) and a group consisting of other antihypertension medications usually used as fourth- or fifth-line agents (such as hydralazine). We considered patients medication users and included them in 1 of the cohorts if they received both 1 or more fills of the drug class within 2 years before the index date and 1 or more fills in the year after the index date. We used these criteria to minimize potential dropout bias by ensuring that patients were still engaged in care and obtaining medications from the VA. We excluded glitazones and angiotensin-receptor blockers from analyses because few patients were prescribed these medications, which were on a restricted formulary at the time of the study. In addition, we excluded patients in the oral hypoglycemic cohort if they had an active prescription for insulin other than neutral protamine Hagedorn, in order to remove patients who transitioned from oral medication to insulin during the study. Alcohol Misuse and AUDIT-C We assessed alcohol misuse with the AUDIT-C from the ACQUIP Health Checklist. The AUDIT-C assesses frequency and typical quantity of drinking during the past year, as well as the frequency of heavy episodic drinking (6 drinks per occasion) by using 3 questions (18). Each of the 3 questions is scored 0 to 4, for a total combined score of 0 to 12. The AUDIT-C is reliable (19) and has been validated as a screening test for the spectrum of alcohol misuse, including risky drinking and alcohol-use disorders on the basis of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, criteria (18, 20, 21). A score of 4 or more is considered positive for alcohol misuse in male VA patients, but the AUDIT-C score has also been shown to be a scaled measure of risk for alcohol-related symptoms (22) and medical complications often associated with alcohol misuse (2326). To provide adequate precision in estimates and allow comparison with previous analyses (23, 24), we grouped AUDIT-C scores into 5 categories: nondrinkers (score, 0); low-level alcohol use (score range, 1 to 3); and mild (score range, 4 to 5), moderate (score range, 6 to 7), and severe (score range, 8 to 12) alcohol misuse. Medication Adherence We created an individual measure of refill adherence, which was previously validated within the VA and ACQUIP, for each patient and medication class. This measure is similar to a medicationpossession ratio, and it accounts for overstocking and medication gaps, correlates better with physiologic outcomes when compared with previous measures, and is described in detail elsewhere (27). From this measure, we derived a proportion of days covered that reflected the number of days during the observation period that medication was available (17). We considered all medications within a medication type (statin, oral hypoglycemics, and antihypertensive medications) to be equivalent for purposes of adherence. We calculated adherence separately for 2 different periods: 90 days and 1 year starting from the index date. We assessed at 1 year because it is a traditional measurement of adherence (16, 17). We also assessed at 90 days because refill adherence for this period has been correlated with outcomes (27). On the basis of previous medication adherence literature (16, 17), we considered patients in all medication cohorts to be adherent if they had medication available for at least 80% of the observation period. In other words, for the 90-day observation period, nonadherent patients would not have medication available for at least 18 days; for the 1 year-period, they would be without medication for at least 73 days. When more than 1 medication was used (for example, for diabetes or hypertension), the proportions of days covered were averaged, and we considered patients to be adherent if they had at least 80% of the drug regimen for diabetes or hypertension available for the observation period. A person who met the definition of a user for 2 drug classes but only maintained complete fills of 1 drug with no fills of the other drug therefore would have an average adherence of 0.5 and would be considered nonadherent to the overall regimen. Covariates Race was based on a combination of self-report from the ACQUIP Health Checklist and the electronic record. We determined sex, education, and marital status from the ACQUIP Health Checklist. We calculated a drug count from the number of oral drugs that patients obtained during the year before the index date to adjust for total medication regimen complexity. We classified smoking status as current, former, or never. We assessed depression with the Mental Health Inventory (score range, 5 to 30); scores gre

Increased documented brief alcohol interventions with a performance measure and electronic decision support.

BackgroundAlcohol screening and brief interventions (BIs) are ranked the third highest US prevention priority, but effective methods of implementing BI into routine care have not been described. ObjectivesThis study evaluated the prevalence of documented BI among Veterans Affairs (VA) outpatients with alcohol misuse before, during, and after implementation of a national performance measure (PM) linked to incentives and dissemination of an electronic clinical reminder (CR) for BI. MethodsVA outpatients were included in this study if they were randomly sampled for national medical record reviews and screened positive for alcohol misuse (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption score ≥5) between July 2006 and September 2008 (N=6788). Consistent with the PM, BI was defined as documented advice to reduce or abstain from drinking plus feedback linking drinking to health. The prevalence of BI was evaluated among outpatients who screened positive for alcohol misuse during 4 successive phases of BI implementation: baseline year (n=3504), after announcement (n=753) and implementation (n=697) of the PM, and after CR dissemination (n=1834), unadjusted and adjusted for patient characteristics. ResultsAmong patients with alcohol misuse, the adjusted prevalence of BI increased significantly over successive phases of BI implementation, from 5.5% (95% CI 4.1%-7.5%), 7.6% (5.6%-10.3%), 19.1% (15.4%-23.7%), to 29.0% (25.0%-33.4%) during the baseline year, after PM announcement, PM implementation, and CR dissemination, respectively (test for trend P<0.001). ConclusionsA national PM supported by dissemination of an electronic CR for BI was associated with meaningful increases in the prevalence of documented brief alcohol interventions.

How primary care providers talk to patients about alcohol

AbstractBACKGROUND: Alcohol misuse is a common and well-documented source of morbidity and mortality. Brief primary care alcohol counseling has been shown to benefit patients with alcohol misuse. OBJECTIVE: To describe alcohol-related discussions between primary care providers and patients who screened positive for alcohol misuse. DESIGN: An exploratory, qualitative analysis of audiotaped primary care visits containing discussions of alcohol use. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were 29 male outpatients at a Veterans Affairs (VA) General Internal Medicine Clinic who screened positive for alcohol misuse and their 14 primary care providers, all of whom were participating in a larger quality improvement trial. MEASUREMENTS: Audiotaped visits with any alcohol-related discussion were transcribed and coded using grounded theory and conversation analysis, both qualitative research techniques. RESULTS: Three themes were identified: (1) patients disclosed information regarding their alcohol use, but providers often did not explore these disclosures; (2) advice about alcohol use was typically vague and/or tentative in contrast to smoking-related advice, which was more common and usually more clear and firm; and (3) discomfort on the part of the provider was evident during alcohol-related discussions. LIMITATIONS: Generalizability of findings from this single-site VA study is unknown. CONCLUSION: Findings from this single site study suggest that provider discomfort and avoidance are important barriers to evidence-based brief alcohol counseling. Further investigation into current alcohol counseling practices is needed to determine whether these patterns extend to other primary care settings, and to inform future educational efforts.

Readiness to Change in Primary Care Patients Who Screened Positive for Alcohol Misuse

PURPOSE Readiness to change drinking may influence the content or effectiveness of brief alcohol counseling. This study was designed to assess readiness to change and its relationship to alcohol misuse severity among primary care patients whose screening questionnaire was positive for alcohol misuse. METHODS This study was a cross-sectional analysis of data collected from 2 consecutive mailed questionnaires. Male outpatients at 7 Veterans Affairs (VA) general medicine clinics were eligible if they returned both questionnaires, screened positive for alcohol misuse (augmented CAGE Questionnaire ≥1 point), responded to 3 readiness-to-change questions, and completed the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT). A validated algorithm based on 3 standardized questions categorized participants into 3 readiness groups (precontemplation, contemplation, action). Measures of alcohol misuse severity included AUDIT, CAGE, and the 3 consumption questions from the AUDIT (AUDIT-C). Analyses were descriptive; linear-by-linear associations between alcohol misuse severity and readiness were tested with χ2 statistics. RESULTS Response rates to the first and second surveys were 59% and 55%, respectively. Of the 6,419 eligible outpatients who screened positive for alcohol misuse, 4,797 (75%) reported any readiness to change (contemplation 24%, action 51%). Among patients with AUDIT scores >8, more than 90% indicated that they drank more than they should and/or had contemplated drinking less. Greater readiness was significantly associated with greater alcohol misuse severity (P <.001 for all measures). CONCLUSIONS Most primary care patients who screen positive for alcohol misuse indicate some readiness to change. Contrary to stereotypes of denial, those with greater alcohol misuse severity are more likely to report readiness to change.

Risk of mortality and physiologic injury evident with lower alcohol exposure among HIV infected compared with uninfected men.

BACKGROUND HIV infected (HIV+) individuals may be more susceptible to alcohol-related harm than uninfected individuals. METHODS We analyzed data on HIV+ and uninfected individuals in the Veterans Aging Cohort Study (VACS) with an Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption AUDIT-C score from 2008 to 2012. We used Cox proportional hazards models to examine the association between alcohol exposure and mortality through July, 2014; and linear regression models to assess the association between alcohol exposure and physiologic injury based on VACS Index Scores. Models were adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, smoking, and hepatitis C infection. RESULTS The sample included 18,145 HIV+ and 42,228 uninfected individuals. Among HIV+ individuals, 76% had undetectable HIV-1 RNA (<500 copies/ml). The threshold for an association of alcohol use with mortality and physiologic injury differed by HIV status. Among HIV+ individuals, AUDIT-C score ≥4 (hazard ratio [HR] 1.25, 95% CI 1.09-1.44) and ≥30 drinks per month (HR, 1.30, 95% CI 1.14-1.50) were associated with increased risk of mortality. Among uninfected individuals, AUDIT-C score ≥5 (HR, 1.19, 95% CI 1.07-1.32) and ≥70 drinks per month (HR 1.13, 95% CI 1.00-1.28) were associated with increased risk. Similarly, AUDIT-C threshold scores of 5-7 were associated with physiologic injury among HIV+ individuals (beta 0.47, 95% CI 0.22, 0.73) and a score of 8 or more was associated with injury in uninfected (beta 0.29, 95% CI 0.16, 0.42) individuals. CONCLUSIONS Despite antiretroviral therapy, HIV+ individuals experienced increased mortality and physiologic injury at lower levels of alcohol use compared with uninfected individuals. Alcohol consumption limits should be lower among HIV+ individuals.

Alcohol Use and Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Infection: Current Knowledge, Implications, and Future Directions

Alcohol use is common among people living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). In this narrative review, we describe literature regarding alcohols impact on transmission, care, coinfections, and comorbidities that are common among people living with HIV (PLWH), as well as literature regarding interventions to address alcohol use and its influences among PLWH. This narrative review identifies alcohol use as a risk factor for HIV transmission, as well as a factor impacting the clinical manifestations and management of HIV. Alcohol use appears to have additive and potentially synergistic effects on common HIV-related comorbidities. We find that interventions to modify drinking and improve HIV-related risks and outcomes have had limited success to date, and we recommend research in several areas. Consistent with Office of AIDS Research/National Institutes of Health priorities, we suggest research to better understand how and at what levels alcohol influences comorbid conditions among PLWH, to elucidate the mechanisms by which alcohol use is impacting comorbidities, and to understand whether decreases in alcohol use improve HIV-relevant outcomes. This should include studies regarding whether state-of-the-art medications used to treat common coinfections are safe for PLWH who drink alcohol. We recommend that future research among PLWH include validated self-report measures of alcohol use and/or biological measurements, ideally both. Additionally, subgroup variation in associations should be identified to ensure that the risks of particularly vulnerable populations are understood. This body of research should serve as a foundation for a next generation of intervention studies to address alcohol use from transmission to treatment of HIV. Intervention studies should inform implementation efforts to improve provision of alcohol-related interventions and treatments for PLWH in healthcare settings. By making further progress on understanding how alcohol use affects PLWH in the era of HIV as a chronic condition, this research should inform how we can mitigate transmission, achieve viral suppression, and avoid exacerbating common comorbidities of HIV and alcohol use and make progress toward the 90-90-90 goals for engagement in the HIV treatment cascade.

Examining Quality Issues in Alcohol Misuse Screening

SUMMARY The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has successfully implemented evidence-based alcohol misuse screening with the AUDIT-C. The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical alcohol screening during the first year after implementation. Using medical record review and mailed patient surveys collected during 2004 by VHA Office of Quality and Performance, this study analyzed concordance of screening results among patients with AUDIT-Cs in both data sources. Among 1,637 patients with AUDIT-C from both sources within 90 days, the medical record screening prevalence rate of alcohol misuse, 24.6% (95% CI: 22.5% to 26.7%), was significantly lower than the survey rate, 33.4% (31.1% to 35.7%). Of 8,312 patients identified as nondrinkers in medical records, 24% reported past year alcohol use and 5% screened positive for alcohol misuse on surveys. Lower rates of alcohol use and misuse documented in medical records compared to mailed surveys suggest further investigation and standardization of clinical screening are necessary.

Factors Underlying Quality Problems with Alcohol Screening Prompted by a Clinical Reminder in Primary Care: A Multi-site Qualitative Study

ABSTRACTBACKGROUNDPopulation-based alcohol screening is recommended in primary care, and increasingly incentivized by policies, yet is challenging to implement. The U.S. Veterans Health Administration (VA) achieved high rates of screening using a national performance measure and associated electronic clinical reminder to prompt and facilitate screening and document results. However, the sensitivity of alcohol screening for identifying unhealthy alcohol use is low in VA clinics.OBJECTIVEWe aimed to understand factors that might contribute to low sensitivity of alcohol screening.DESIGNThis was an observational, qualitative study.PARTICIPANTSParticipants included clinical staff responsible for conducting alcohol screening and nine independently managed primary care clinics of a single VA medical center in the Northwestern U.S.APPROACHFour researchers observed clinical staff as they conducted alcohol screening. Observers took handwritten notes, which were transcribed and coded iteratively. Template analysis identified a priori and emergent themes.KEY RESULTSWe observed 72 instances of alcohol screening conducted by 31 participating staff. Observations confirmed known challenges to implementation of care using clinical reminders, including workflow and flexibility limitations. Three themes specific to alcohol screening emerged. First, most observed screening was conducted verbally, guided by the clinical reminder, although some variability in approaches to screening (e.g., paper-based or laminate-based screening) was observed. Second, specific verbal screening practices that might contribute to low sensitivity of clinical screening were identified, including conducting non-verbatim screening and making inferences, assumptions, and/or suggestions to input responses. Third, staff introduced and adapted screening questions to enhance patient comfort.CONCLUSIONSThis qualitative study in nine clinics found that implementation of alcohol screening facilitated by a clinical reminder resulted primarily in verbal screening in which questions were not asked vertbatim and were otherwise adapted. Non-verbal approaches to screening, or patient self-administration, may enhance validity and standardization of screening while simultaneously addressing limitations of the clinical reminder and issues related to perceived discomfort.

An early evaluation of implementation of brief intervention for unhealthy alcohol use in the US Veterans Health Administration

AIMS The US Veterans Health Administration [Veterans Affairs (VA)] used performance measures and electronic clinical reminders to implement brief intervention for unhealthy alcohol use. We evaluated whether documented brief intervention was associated with subsequent changes in drinking during early implementation. DESIGN Observational, retrospective cohort study using secondary clinical and administrative data. SETTING Thirty VA facilities. PARTICIPANTS Outpatients who screened positive for unhealthy alcohol use [Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test Consumption (AUDIT-C ≥ 5)] in the 6 months after the brief intervention performance measure (n = 22 214) and had follow-up screening 9-15 months later (n = 6210; 28%). MEASUREMENTS Multi-level logistic regression estimated the adjusted prevalence of resolution of unhealthy alcohol use (follow-up AUDIT-C <5 with ≥2 point reduction) for patients with and without documented brief intervention (documented advice to reduce or abstain from drinking). FINDINGS Among 6210 patients with follow-up alcohol screening, 1751 (28%) had brief intervention and 2922 (47%) resolved unhealthy alcohol use at follow-up. Patients with documented brief intervention were older and more likely to have other substance use disorders, mental health conditions, poor health and more severe unhealthy alcohol use than those without (P-values < 0.05). Adjusted prevalences of resolution were 47% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 42-52%] and 48% (95% CI = 42-54%) for patients with and without documented brief intervention, respectively (P = 0.50). CONCLUSIONS During early implementation of brief intervention in the US Veterans Health Administration, documented brief intervention was not associated with subsequent changes in drinking among outpatients with unhealthy alcohol use and repeat alcohol screening.