Susan H. Busch

A brief intervention reduces hazardous and harmful drinking in emergency department patients.

STUDY OBJECTIVE Brief interventions have been shown to reduce alcohol use and improve outcomes in hazardous and harmful drinkers, but evidence to support their use in emergency department (ED) patients is limited. The use of research assessments in studies of brief interventions may contribute to uncertainty about their effectiveness. Therefore we seek to determine (1) if an emergency practitioner-performed Brief Negotiation Interview or a Brief Negotiation Interview with a booster reduces alcohol consumption compared with standard care; and (2) the impact of research assessments on drinking outcomes using a standard care-no-assessment group. METHODS We randomized 889 adult ED patients with hazardous and harmful drinking. A total of 740 received an emergency practitioner-performed Brief Negotiation Interview (n=297), a Brief Negotiation Interview with a 1-month follow-up telephone booster (Brief Negotiation Interview with booster) (n=295), or standard care (n=148). We also included a standard care with no assessments (n=149) group to examine the effect of assessments on drinking outcomes. Primary outcomes analyzed with mixed-models procedures included past 7-day alcohol consumption and 28-day binge episodes at 6 and 12 months, collected by interactive voice response. Secondary outcomes included negative health behaviors and consequences collected by telephone surveys. RESULTS The reduction in mean number of drinks in the past 7 days from baseline to 6 and 12 months was significantly greater in the Brief Negotiation Interview with booster (from 20.4 [95% confidence interval {CI} 18.8 to 22.0] to 11.6 [95% CI 9.7 to 13.5] to 13.0 [95% CI 10.5 to 15.5]) and Brief Negotiation Interview (from 19.8 [95% CI 18.3 to 21.4] to 12.7 [95% CI 10.8 to 14.6] to 14.3 [95% CI 11.9 to 16.8]) than in standard care (from 20.9 [95% CI 18.7 to 23.2] to 14.2 [95% CI 11.2 to 17.1] to 17.6 [95% CI 14.1 to 21.2]). The reduction in 28-day binge episodes was also greater in the Brief Negotiation Interview with booster (from 7.5 [95% CI 6.8 to 8.2] to 4.4 [95% CI 3.6 to 5.2] to 4.7 [95% CI 3.9 to 5.6]) and Brief Negotiation Interview (from 7.2 [95% CI 6.5 to 7.9] to 4.8 [95% CI 4.0 to 5.6] to 5.1 [95% CI 4.2 to 5.9]) than in standard care (from 7.2 [95% CI 6.2 to 8.2] to 5.7 [95% CI 4.5 to 6.9] to 5.8 [95% CI 4.6 to 7.0]). The Brief Negotiation Interview with booster offered no significant benefit over the Brief Negotiation Interview alone. There were no differences in drinking outcomes between the standard care and standard care-no assessment groups. The reductions in rates of driving after drinking more than 3 drinks from baseline to 12 months were greater in the Brief Negotiation Interview (38% to 29%) and Brief Negotiation Interview with booster (39% to 31%) groups than in the standard care group (43% to 42%). CONCLUSION Emergency practitioner-performed brief interventions can reduce alcohol consumption and episodes of driving after drinking in hazardous and harmful drinkers. These results support the use of brief interventions in ED settings.

Emergency Department–Initiated Buprenorphine/Naloxone Treatment for Opioid Dependence: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE Opioid-dependent patients often use the emergency department (ED) for medical care. OBJECTIVE To test the efficacy of 3 interventions for opioid dependence: (1) screening and referral to treatment (referral); (2) screening, brief intervention, and facilitated referral to community-based treatment services (brief intervention); and (3) screening, brief intervention, ED-initiated treatment with buprenorphine/naloxone, and referral to primary care for 10-week follow-up (buprenorphine). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A randomized clinical trial involving 329 opioid-dependent patients who were treated at an urban teaching hospital ED from April 7, 2009, through June 25, 2013. INTERVENTIONS After screening, 104 patients were randomized to the referral group, 111 to the brief intervention group, and 114 to the buprenorphine treatment group. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Enrollment in and receiving addiction treatment 30 days after randomization was the primary outcome. Self-reported days of illicit opioid use, urine testing for illicit opioids, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) risk, and use of addiction treatment services were the secondary outcomes. RESULTS Seventy-eight percent of patients in the buprenorphine group (89 of 114 [95% CI, 70%-85%]) vs 37% in the referral group (38 of 102 [95% CI, 28%-47%]) and 45% in the brief intervention group (50 of 111 [95% CI, 36%-54%]) were engaged in addiction treatment on the 30th day after randomization (P < .001). The buprenorphine group reduced the number of days of illicit opioid use per week from 5.4 days (95% CI, 5.1-5.7) to 0.9 days (95% CI, 0.5-1.3) vs a reduction from 5.4 days (95% CI, 5.1-5.7) to 2.3 days (95% CI, 1.7-3.0) in the referral group and from 5.6 days (95% CI, 5.3-5.9) to 2.4 days (95% CI, 1.8-3.0) in the brief intervention group (P < .001 for both time and intervention effects; P = .02 for the interaction effect). The rates of urine samples that tested negative for opioids did not differ statistically across groups, with 53.8% (95% CI, 42%-65%) in the referral group, 42.9% (95% CI, 31%-55%) in the brief intervention group, and 57.6% (95% CI, 47%-68%) in the buprenorphine group (P = .17). There were no statistically significant differences in HIV risk across groups (P = .66). Eleven percent of patients in the buprenorphine group (95% CI, 6%-19%) used inpatient addiction treatment services, whereas 37% in the referral group (95% CI, 27%-48%) and 35% in the brief intervention group (95% CI, 25%-37%) used inpatient addiction treatment services (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among opioid-dependent patients, ED-initiated buprenorphine treatment vs brief intervention and referral significantly increased engagement in addiction treatment, reduced self-reported illicit opioid use, and decreased use of inpatient addiction treatment services but did not significantly decrease the rates of urine samples that tested positive for opioids or of HIV risk. These findings require replication in other centers before widespread adoption. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00913770.

Measuring quality of pharmacotherapy for depression in a national health care system.

Objectives:This article examines the use of antidepressant medication in the treatment of major depression in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) during the 2001 fiscal year and considers the relationship of patient, drug, provider, and facility to adherence to medication treatment guidelines. Methods:Prescription drug records for all VA outpatients diagnosed with major depression (International Classification of Diseases, 9th edition, code 296.2 or 296.3) were collected for October 2000 through September 2001. Indicators were constructed that noted whether patients newly treated with antidepressants (ie, with no prescription in the previous 8 weeks) received at least 180 days (continuation phase) of antidepressant drug treatment (84- and 140-day measures were also considered). Logistic regression with and without center fixed effects and generalized estimation equations were used to identify patient, drug, and facility characteristics that were associated with these treatment quality indicators. Results:Of the 27,713 patients in the final sample, 54% received at least 181 days of treatment. This is higher than recent rates reported by Health Employer Data and Information Set (HEDIS) for the general population, although our measures and those used by HEDIS are not exactly the same. Women, married patients, older patients, and whites were more likely than others to have higher-quality antidepressant drug treatment. Contrary to previous research, we find few significant differences among specific antidepressant agents prescribed in this large sample. Comorbid substance abuse was associated with fewer days of treatment, whereas other psychiatric comorbidities increased the length of treatment. We found few differences resulting from provider type. Although significant differences among facilities were found in the unadjusted rates (similar to those used by HEDIS), these diminished greatly after controlling for relevant covariates. Conclusions:In the nations largest mental health system, quality of pharmacotherapy for depression, at least by one standard measure, is relatively good. We found the specific antidepressant drug used has little impact on quality. In considering differences among facilities, we found that it is critical to control for relevant patient characteristics.

Opioid use disorder in the United States: Insurance status and treatment access

BACKGROUND In the United States, insurance status and rates of treatment for individuals with opioid use disorder are unknown. METHODS Cross-sectional survey: 2002-2004 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH). Bivariate and multivariate associations between demographics, treatment and insurance status and presence or absence of opioid use disorder were investigated. RESULTS On unadjusted analysis, young respondents, respondents of Hispanic ethnicity (OR 1.5; 95% CI 1.1-2.2), unemployed respondents (OR 2.6; 95% CI 1.8-3.8) and respondents with Medicaid (OR 4.5; 95% CI 2.5-8.3) or lack of insurance (OR 3.2; 95% CI 1.8-5.9) were more likely to have opioid use disorder. On unadjusted analysis among those with any substance use disorder, 12-16 year olds were more likely to have opioid use disorder (OR 3.4; 95% CI 2.0-5.8) than a non-opioid substance use disorder, as were women (OR for men 0.6; 95% CI 0.5-0.7) and unemployed respondents (OR 1.5; 95% CI 1.02-2.1). Only 15.2% of those with past-year opioid use disorder received treatment in the past year. Respondents treated for opioid use had higher rates of Medicaid (p<0.01), Medicare (p<0.01) and other public assistance (p=0.01) compared with those treated for other substances. Treatments for opioid use were more likely to be hospital (p=0.04) and inpatient rehabilitation (p=0.02) settings compared to treatment for other substance use. Among those with opioid use disorder, not being employed was independently associated with receiving treatment (AOR 3.5; 95% CI 1.4-8.5). CONCLUSIONS In the U.S., high rates of unemployment, Medicaid and uninsurance among those with opioid use disorder and low rates of treatment suggest that efforts to expand treatment must include policy strategies to help reach a population with significant barriers to treatment access.

Does exposure to conflict of interest policies in psychiatry residency affect antidepressant prescribing

Background:Academic medical institutions have instituted conflict of interest (COI) policies in response to concerns about pharmaceutical industry influence. Objective:To determine whether exposure to COI policies during psychiatry residency training affects psychiatrists’ antidepressant prescribing patterns after graduation. Research Design:We used 2009 physician-level national administrative prescribing data from IMS Health for 1652 psychiatrists from 162 residency programs. We used difference-in-differences estimation to compare antidepressant prescribing based on graduation before (2001) or after (2008) COI policy adoption across residency program groups with maximally, moderately, and minimally restrictive COI policies. The primary outcomes were shares of psychiatrists’ prescribing of heavily promoted, brand reformulated, and brand antidepressants. Results:Rates of prescribing heavily promoted, brand reformulated, and brand antidepressants in 2009 were lower among post-COI graduates than pre-COI graduates at all levels of COI restrictiveness. However, differences between pre-COI and post-COI graduates’ prescribing of heavily promoted medications were larger for maximally restrictive programs than both minimally restrictive programs [−4.3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval (CI), −7.0, −1.6] and moderately restrictive programs (−3.6 percentage points; 95% CI, −6.2, −1.1). The difference in prescribing reformulations was larger for maximally restrictive programs than minimally restrictive programs (−3.0 percentage points; 95% CI, −5.3, −0.7). Results were consistent for prescribing of brand drugs. Conclusions:This study provides the first empirical evidence of the effects of COI policies. Our results suggest that COI policies can help inoculate physicians against persuasive aspects of pharmaceutical promotion. Further research should assess whether these policies affect other drug classes and physician specialties similarly.

Antidepressants and suicide risk: how did specific information in FDA safety warnings affect treatment patterns?

OBJECTIVE From June 2003 through October 2004, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released five safety warnings related to antidepressant use and the increased risk of suicidality for children. Although researchers have documented a decline in antidepressant use among children over this period, less is known about whether specific safety information conveyed in individual warnings was reflected in treatment patterns. METHODS Thomson Reuters MarketScan claims data (2001-2005) for a national sample of privately insured children were used to construct treatment episodes (N=22,689). For each new episode of major depressive disorder, it was determined whether treatment followed specific recommendations included in warnings released by the FDA. Treatment recommendations pertained to the use of the antidepressants paroxetine and fluoxetine and to patient monitoring. Treatment patterns were expected to change as the risk information conveyed by the FDA changed over time. RESULTS The timing of FDA recommendations was associated with trends in the use of paroxetine and fluoxetine by children with major depressive disorder who were initiating antidepressant treatment. However, no evidence of increases in outpatient visits (indicative of monitoring) among depressed children initiating antidepressant use was found. CONCLUSIONS Release of specific risk and benefit information by the FDA was associated with changes in prescribing but not in outpatient follow-up. These results suggest that the FDA plays an important role in communicating information to the public and providers. Yet, although public health safety warnings were associated with changes in some practice patterns, not all recommendations conveyed in warnings were followed.

Value to smokers of improved cessation products: Evidence from a willingness-to-pay survey

The present study demonstrated the use of willingness to pay to value hypothetical new smoking cessation products. Data came from a baseline survey of participants in a clinical trial of medications for smoking cessation (N=356) conducted in New Haven, Connecticut. We analyzed individual willingness to pay for a hypothetical tobacco cessation treatment that is (a) more effective than those currently available and then (b) more effective and attenuates the weight gain often associated with smoking cessation. A majority of the respondents (n=280; 84%) were willing to pay for the more effective treatment, and, of those, 175 (63%) were willing to pay more if the increased effectiveness was accompanied by attenuation of the weight gain associated with smoking cessation. The present study suggests the validity of using willingness-to-pay surveys in assessing the value of new smoking cessation products and products with multifaceted improvements. From these data, we calculated estimates of the value of a quit. For the population studied, this survey suggests a substantial market for more effective smoking cessation treatments.

Burning a hole in the budget: tobacco spending and its crowd-out of other goods.

Smoking is an expensive habit. Smoking households spend, on average, more than

Health Literacy and Health Care Spending and Utilization in a Consumer-Driven Health Plan

US1000 annually on cigarettes. When a family member quits, in addition to the former smoker’s improved long-term health, families benefit because savings from reduced cigarette expenditures can be allocated to other goods. For households in which some members continue to smoke, smoking expenditures crowd-out other purchases, which may affect other household members, as well as the smoker. We empirically analyse how expenditures on tobacco crowd-out consumption of other goods, estimating the patterns of substitution and complementarity between tobacco products and other categories of household expenditure. We use the Consumer Expenditure Survey data for the years 1995–2001, which we complement with regional price data and state cigarette prices. We estimate a consumer demand system that includes several main expenditure categories (cigarettes, food, alcohol, housing, apparel, transportation, medical care) and controls for socioeconomic variables and other sources of observable heterogeneity. Descriptive data indicate that, comparing smokers to nonsmokers, smokers spend less on housing. Results from the demand system indicate that as the price of cigarettes rises, households increase the quantity of food purchased, and, in some samples, reduce the quantity of apparel and housing purchased.

Specialty Health Care, Treatment Patterns, and Quality: The Impact of a Mental Health Carve-Out on Care for Depression

We examined health literacy and health care spending and utilization by linking responses of three health literacy questions to 2006 claims data of enrollees new to consumer-driven health plans (n = 4,130). Better health literacy on all four health literacy measures (three item responses and their sum) was associated with lower total health care spending, specifically, lower emergency department and inpatient admission spending (p < .05). Similarly, fewer inpatient admissions and emergency department visits were associated with higher adequate health literacy scores and better self-reports of the ability to read and learn about medical conditions (p-value <.05). Members with lower health literacy scores appear to use services more appropriate for advanced health conditions, although office visit rates were similar across the range of health literacy scores.