This essay describes how a basic scientist was thrust into the epicenter, the political cauldron of our national drug control policy, and how the experience altered her professional trajectory and perspective.

/pdf/office-of-national-drug-control-policy-a-scientist-in-drug-29jsiihzf6.pdf

Office of National Drug Control Policy: a scientist in drug policy in Washington, DC.

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).

/pdf/emergency-department-initiated-buprenorphine-naloxone-1ksvm2aubu.pdf

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

BACKGROUND
Suicide prevention is a public health priority, but no data on the health care individuals receive prior to death are available from large representative United States population samples.

/pdf/health-care-contacts-in-the-year-before-suicide-death-olimhar6t7.pdf

Health Care Contacts in the Year Before Suicide Death

anillegaldrugorusedaprescriptionmedicationfornonmedical reasons?” A response of at least 1 time was considered positive for drug use. They were also asked the 10-item Drug Abuse Screening Test (DAST-10). The reference standard was the presence or absence of current (past year) drug use or a drug use disorder (abuse or dependence) as determined by a standardized diagnostic interview.Drugusewasalsodeterminedbyoralfluidtesting for common drugs of abuse. Results:Of394eligibleprimarycarepatients,286(73%) completedtheinterview.Thesinglescreeningquestionwas 100%sensitive(95%confidenceinterval[CI],90.6%-100%) and 73.5% specific (95% CI, 67.7%-78.6%) for the detection of a drug use disorder. It was less sensitive for the detection of self-reported current drug use (92.9%; 95% CI, 86.1%-96.5%) and drug use detected by oral fluid testing orself-report(81.8%;95%CI,72.5%-88.5%).TestcharacteristicsweresimilartothoseoftheDAST-10andwereaffectedverylittlebyparticipantdemographiccharacteristics. Conclusion: The single screening question accurately identified drug use in this sample of primary care patients, supporting the usefulness of this brief screen in primary care. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(13):1155-1160

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/articlepdf/225770/ioi05041_1155_1160.pdf

A single-question screening test for drug use in primary care.

Importance The United States has invested substantially in screening and brief intervention for illicit drug use and prescription drug misuse, based in part on evidence of efficacy for unhealthy alcohol use. However, it is not a recommended universal preventive service in primary care because of lack of evidence of efficacy. Objective To test the efficacy of 2 brief counseling interventions for unhealthy drug use (any illicit drug use or prescription drug misuse)—a brief negotiated interview (BNI) and an adaptation of motivational interviewing (MOTIV)—compared with no brief intervention. Design, Setting, and Participants This 3-group randomized trial took place at an urban hospital-based primary care internal medicine practice; 528 adult primary care patients with drug use (Alcohol, Smoking, and Substance Involvement Screening Test [ASSIST] substance-specific scores of ≥4) were identified by screening between June 2009 and January 2012 in Boston, Massachusetts. Interventions Two interventions were tested: the BNI is a 10- to 15-minute structured interview conducted by health educators; the MOTIV is a 30- to 45-minute intervention based on motivational interviewing with a 20- to 30-minute booster conducted by master’s-level counselors. All study participants received a written list of substance use disorder treatment and mutual help resources. Main Outcomes and Measures Primary outcome was number of days of use in the past 30 days of the self-identified main drug as determined by a validated calendar method at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included other self-reported measures of drug use, drug use according to hair testing, ASSIST scores (severity), drug use consequences, unsafe sex, mutual help meeting attendance, and health care utilization. Results At baseline, 63% of participants reported their main drug was marijuana, 19% cocaine, and 17% opioids. At 6 months, 98% completed follow-up. Mean adjusted number of days using the main drug at 6 months was 12 for no brief intervention vs 11 for the BNI group (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.97; 95% CI, 0.77-1.22) and 12 for the MOTIV group (IRR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.84-1.32; P  = .81 for both comparisons vs no brief intervention). There were also no significant effects of BNI or MOTIV on any other outcome or in analyses stratified by main drug or drug use severity. Conclusions and Relevance Brief intervention did not have efficacy for decreasing unhealthy drug use in primary care patients identified by screening. These results do not support widespread implementation of illicit drug use and prescription drug misuse screening and brief intervention. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier:NCT00876941

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/articlepdf/1892250/joi140093.pdf

Screening and brief intervention for drug use in primary care: the ASPIRE randomized clinical trial.

Screening, brief interventions, referral to treatment (SBIRT) for illicit drug and alcohol use at multiple healthcare sites: Comparison at intake and 6 months later

The Internet and World Wide Web are increasingly used to accelerate progress in a variety of fields. These applications go beyond the traditional technology- or computer-related fields and have expanded to nontechnical fields, which have benefited greatly from the use of the Web as a data-gathering and management support tool. The purpose of this article is to examine the Web’s use by a federal funding agency and its grantees for performance measurement and program monitoring. The analysis is based on the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment’s (CSAT) implementation of a Web-based data entry and reporting system. This system is used both as a mechanism for monitoring CSAT’s grant portfolios and as a tool to manage performance. The authors conclude with a discussion of the issues surrounding the effectiveness and efficiency of using the Web to measure and monitor program performance.

Deepa Avula

Papers

Screening, brief interventions, referral to treatment (SBIRT) for illicit drug and alcohol use at multiple healthcare sites: Comparison at intake and 6 months later

Using the Internet to Measure Program Performance.