Students

Background. Opioid-related harms are increasing among older adults. Until we better understand the factors contributing to this trend, we will be unable to design and implement effective interventions to optimally manage opioid use and its potential harms among older adults. Although considerable research has been done in younger or mixed-age populations, the degree to which it is directly applicable to older adults is uncertain.

Objectives. To provide a framework for understanding how to reduce adverse outcomes of opioid use among older adults, and to describe the evidence available for different factors associated with and interventions to reduce adverse outcomes related to opioid use in this population.

Approach. With input from a diverse panel of content experts and other stakeholders, we developed a conceptual framework and evidence map to characterize empirical studies of factors associated with opioid-related outcomes and interventions to reduce opioid-related harms in older adults. We identified relevant literature among older adults (age ≥60 years) for an evidence map by systematically searching PubMed, PsycINFO, and CINAHL for studies published in English between 2000 and May 6, 2020.

Findings. We identified 5,933 citations, from which we identified 41 studies with multivariable models of factors associated with opioid-related outcomes and 16 studies of interventions in older adults. More than half (22/41) of the multivariable analysis studies evaluated factors associated with long-term opioid use (which, though not a harm per se, may increase the risk of harms if not appropriately managed). Prior or early postoperative opioid use, or greater amounts of prescribed opioids (high number of opioid prescriptions or higher opioid dose), were consistently (100% agreement) and strongly (measure of association ≥2.0) associated with long-term opioid use. Back pain, depression, concomitant use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and fibromyalgia also had consistent, but weaker, associations with long-term opioid use. Several factors were mostly associated (>75% agreement) with long-term opioid use, including benzodiazepine use, comorbidity scores, (generally undefined) substance misuse, tobacco use, and low income. However, studies were mostly consistent that alcohol abuse and healthcare utilization were not associated with long-term opioid use. Gender, age among older adults, Black race, dementia, rural/nonurban residence, prescription of long-acting opioids, unmarried status, and use of muscle relaxants were variably associated (<75% agreement) with long-term opioid use.

Six studies examined factors associated with opioid-related disorders, although only one study evaluated factors associated with opioid use disorder. Alcohol misuse and gender were variably associated with opioid misuse (examined by three studies each).

All other evaluations of specific pairs of associated factors and outcomes of interest were evaluated by only one or two studies each. These included analyses of factors associated with multiple opioid prescribers, mental health outcomes, physical health outcomes, all-cause hospitalization, opioid-related hospitalization, nonopioid-specific hospitalization, emergency department visits, opioid overdose, all-cause death, opioid-related death, and nonopioid-related death.

The evidence on interventions directed at older adults is sparse. Of the 16 studies of opioid-related interventions in older adults, six examined screening tools to predict opioid-related harms, but none of these tools was tested in clinical practice to assess real-world results. Two studies found that prescription drug monitoring programs are associated with less opioid use in communities. Other studied interventions include multidisciplinary pain education for patients, an educational pamphlet for patients, implementation of an opioid safety initiative, provision of patient information and pain management training for clinicians, a bundle of educational modalities for clinicians, free prescription acetaminophen, a nationally mandated tamper-resistant opioid formulation, and motivational interview training for nursing students. Few intervention studies evaluated pain or other patient-centered outcomes such as disability and functioning.

Conclusions. The evidence base that is directly applicable to older adults who are prescribed opioids or have opioid-related disorders is limited. Fundamental research is necessary to determine which factors may predict clinically important, patient-centered, opioid-related outcomes. Studies to date have identified numerous possible factors associated with long-term opioid use (whether appropriate or not), but analyses of other opioid-related outcomes in older adults are relatively sparse. Research is also needed to identify interventions to reduce opioid prescribing where harms outweigh benefits (including screening tools), reduce opioid-related harms and disorders, and treat existing misuse or opioid use disorder among older adults.

Author/s:

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

Interventions for Substance Use Disorders in Adolescents: A Systematic Review

Brian Desmarais — Fri, 05 Jun 2020 18:28:32 +0000

Date Added:

June 5, 2020

Journal/Publication:

Comparative Effectiveness Review

Publisher:

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

Publication Date:

May 21, 2020

Volume:

225

URL:

Interventions for Substance Use Disorders in Adolescents: A Systematic Review

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

https://doi.org/10.23970/AHRQEPCCER225

Keywords

MeSH

Family Characteristics

An AHRQ systematic review of substance abuse disorders in adolescents. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

Structured Abstract

Objectives. This systematic review (SR) synthesizes the literature on behavioral, pharmacologic, and combined interventions for adolescents ages 12 to 20 years with problematic substance use or substance use disorder. We included interventions designed to achieve abstinence, reduce use quantity and frequency, improve functional outcomes, and reduce substance-related harms.

Data sources. We conducted literature searches in MEDLINE, the Cochrane CENTRAL Trials Registry, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO to identify primary studies meeting eligibility criteria through November 1, 2019.

Review methods. Studies were extracted into the Systematic Review Data Repository. We categorized interventions into seven primary intervention components: motivational interviewing (MI), family focused therapy (Fam), cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), psychoeducation, contingency management (CM), peer group therapy, and intensive case management. We conducted meta-analyses of comparative studies and evaluated the strength of evidence (SoE). The PROSPERO protocol registration number is CRD42018115388 .

Results. The literature search yielded 33,272 citations, of which 118 studies were included. Motivational interviewing reduced heavy alcohol use days by 0.7 days/month, alcohol use days by 1.2 days/month, and overall substance use problems by a standardized mean difference of 0.5, compared with treatment as usual. Brief MI did not reduce cannabis use days (net mean difference of 0). Across multiple intensive interventions, Fam was most effective, reducing alcohol use days by 3.5 days/month compared with treatment as usual. No intensive interventions reduced cannabis use days. Pharmacologic treatment of opioid use disorder led to a more than 4 times greater likelihood of abstinence with extended courses (2 to 3 months) of buprenorphine compared to short courses (14 to 28 days).

Conclusions. Brief interventions: MI reduces heavy alcohol use (low SoE), alcohol use days (moderate SoE), and substance use–related problems (low SoE) but does not reduce cannabis use days (moderate SoE). Nonbrief interventions: Fam may be most effective in reducing alcohol use (low SoE). More research is needed to identify other effective intensive behavioral interventions for alcohol use disorder. Intensive interventions did not appear to decrease cannabis use (low SoE). Some interventions (CBT, CBT+MI, and CBT+MI+CM) were associated with increased cannabis use (low SoE). Both MI and CBT reduce combined alcohol and other drug use (low SoE). Combined CBT+MI reduces illicit drug use (low SoE). Subgroup analyses of interest (male vs. female, racial and ethnic minorities, socioeconomic status, and family characteristics) were sparse, precluding conclusions regarding differential effects. Pharmacological interventions: longer courses of buprenorphine (2–3 months) are more effective than shorter courses (14–28 days) to reduce opioid use and achieve abstinence (low SoE). SRs in the college settings support use of brief interventions for students with any use, heavy or problematic use. More research is needed to identify the most effective combinations of behavioral and pharmacologic treatments for opioid, alcohol, and cannabis use disorders.

Citation

Suggested citation: Steele DW, Becker SJ, Danko KJ, Balk EM, Saldanha IJ, Adam GP, Bagley SM, Friedman C, Spirito A, Scott K, Ntzani EE, Saeed I, Smith B, Popp J, Trikalinos TA. Interventions for Substance Use Disorders in Adolescents: A Systematic Review. Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 225. (Prepared by the Brown Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2015-00002-I.) AHRQ Publication No. 20-EHC014. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. May 2020. Posted final reports are located on the Effective Health Care Program search page. DOI: https://doi.org/10.23970/AHRQEPCCER225 .

Author/s:

Steele, D.W., Becker, S.J., Danko, K.J., Balk, E.M., Saldanha, I.J., Adam, G.P., Bagley, S.M., Friedman, C., Spirito, A., Scott, K., Ntzani, E.E., Saeed, I., Smith, B., Popp J., Trikalinos, T.A.

Adolescent Opioid Misuse Attributable to Adverse Childhood Experiences

Brian Desmarais — Mon, 11 May 2020 15:45:07 +0000

Date Added:

May 11, 2020

Journal/Publication:

The Journal of Pediatrics

Publication Date:

May 1, 2020

Volume:

Online ahead of print.

URL:

Adolescent Opioid Misuse Attributable to Adverse Childhood Experiences

Type:

Clinical Research Results

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.05.001

Keywords

adverse childhood experience

MeSH

adolescent

child

Cross-Sectional Studies

adverse childhood experience

Another reason to routines ask about adverse childhood experiences. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Commercial full text (fees may apply)

View

Objectives

To estimate the proportion of opioid misuse attributable to adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) among adolescents.

Study design

A cross-sectional survey was administered to 10,546 7th‒12th grade students in northeastern Ohio in Spring 2018. Study measures included self-reported lifetime exposure to 10 ACEs and past 30 day use of nonmedical prescription opioid or heroin. Using generalized estimating equations, we evaluated associations between recent opioid misuse, individual ACEs, and cumulative number of ACEs. We calculated population attributable fractions (PAF) to determine the proportion of adolescents’ recent opioid misuse attributable to ACEs.

Results

Nearly one in 50 adolescents reported opioid misuse within 30 days (1.9%); ∼60% of youth experienced ≥1 ACE; 10.2% experienced ≥5 ACEs. Cumulative ACE exposure demonstrated a significant graded relationship with opioid misuse. Compared with youth with zero ACEs, youth with 1 ACE (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 1.9, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.9‒3.9), 2 ACEs (AOR: 3.8, CI: 1.9‒7.9), 3 ACEs (AOR: 3.7, CI: 2.2‒6.5), 4 ACEs (AOR: 5.8, CI: 3.1‒11.2), and ≥5 ACEs (AOR: 15.3, CI: 8.8‒26.6) had higher odds of recent opioid misuse. The population attributable fraction of recent opioid misuse associated with experiencing ≥1 ACE was 71.6% (CI: 59.8–83.5).

Conclusions

There was a significant graded relationship between number of ACEs and recent opioid misuse among adolescents. Over 70% of recent adolescent opioid misuse in our study population was attributable to ACEs. Efforts to decrease opioid misuse could include programmatic, policy, and clinical practice interventions to prevent and mitigate the negative effects of ACEs.

Author/s:

Swedo, E.A., Sumner, S.A., Fijter, S., Werhan, L., Norris, K., Beauregard, J.L., Montgomery, M.P., Rose, E.B., Hillis, S. D., Massetti, G.M.

Systole and Diastole, Strength and Openness

Brian Desmarais — Mon, 10 Jun 2019 14:47:33 +0000

Date Added:

June 10, 2019

Journal/Publication:

JAMA

Publication Date:

May 21, 2019

Issue:

Volume:

321

Pages:

1871-1872

URL:

Systole and Diastole, Strength and Openness

Type:

Notifications and Opportunities

DOI (1):

10.1001/jama.2019.5650

Keywords

MeSH

Heart Failure/physiopathology

Internship and Residency

Students

Medical/psychology

This short article is worth reading. It compares diastolic heart failure to the psychological impact of the pressures of training and practice. Very clever and poignant. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Commercial full text (fees may apply)

View

Seize diastole,” my medical school professor said. The words were a clever metaphor for a life well lived. During systole, the powerful myocardium contracts, generating pressure that propels open the aortic valve. Blood flows out into the circulation.

Diastole, the process of letting go and filling up, is not as exciting. It could even be taken for granted, cut shorter and shorter. But without adequate time for diastole, there’s no blood to be thrust forward. Homeostasis crumbles. Just as the myocardium needs time to release and refill, so does the soul...

Author/s:

Farrell, C.M.