BackgroundThe syndemic of injection drug use and serious injection-related infections is leading to increasing mortality in the USA. Although outpatient treatment with medications for opioid use disorder reduces overdose risk and recurrent infections, hospitalisation remains common. We evaluated the clinical impact, costs, and costeffectiveness of hospital-based strategies to address the US opioid epidemic. MethodsWe developed a microsimulation model to compare the cost-effectiveness of: standard hospital caredetoxification for opioids, no addiction consult service (status quo); expanded inpatient prescribing of medications for opioid use disorder, including bridge prescriptions (ie, medication until they can see an outpatient provider) when possible (medications for opioid use disorder with bridge); implementation of addiction consult services within the hospital (addiction consult services alone); and a combined medication for opioid use disorder with addiction consult services strategy (combined). We used clinical trials and observational cohorts to inform model inputs. Outcomes were life-years, discounted costs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, hospitalisations, and deaths. We did deterministic sensitivity analyses on key model inputs related to costs and sequelae of drug use and probabilistic sensitivity analysis to further address uncertainty. Findings Among people who inject opioids in the USA, we estimated that expanding medications for opioid use disorder with bridge prescriptions would reduce hospitalisations and overdose deaths by 3•2% and 3•6%, respectively, and the combination of expanded medications with opioid use disorder along with addiction consult sevices would reduce hospitalisations and overdoses by 5•2% and 6•6%, respectively, compared with the status quo. Mean lifetime costs ranged from US$731 400 (95% credible interval 447 911-859 189 for the medications for opioid use disorder strategy) to $741 200 (470 930-868 551 for the combined strategy) per person. Assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per life-year gained, medications for opioid use disorder with bridge and combined strategies were cost-effective ($7600 and $14 300, respectively). A scenario that assumed ideal access to harm reduction services came to the same conclusions as the base case and our results were robust in deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.Interpretation The combined interventions of expanding hospital-based prescribing of medications for opioid use disorder and implementing addiction consult services could improve life expectancy, be cost-effective, and could be the basis for a comprehensive hospital-based strategy for addressing the opioid epidemic in the USA and countries with similar opioid epidemics.

Background: Skin and soft tissue infections (SSTI) are common complications of injection drug use. We aimed to determine if rehospitalization and recurrent SSTI differ among persons with opioid use disorder (OUD) hospitalized for SSTI who are initiated on MOUD within 30 days of discharge and those who are not. Methods:We performed a retrospective analysis of commercially insured adults aged 18 years and older in the U.S. with OUD and hospitalization for injection-related SSTI from 2010-2017. The primary exposure was initiation of MOUD in the 30 days following hospitalization for SSTI. The primary outcomes included 30-day and 1-year 1) all-cause rehospitalization and 2) recurrent SSTI. We calculated the incidence rates for the two groups: MOUD group and no MOUD group for the primary outcomes. We developed Cox models to determine if rehospitalization and recurrent SSTI differ between the two groups.Results: Only 5.5% (357/6538) of people received MOUD in the month following their index SSTI hospitalization. 30-day rehospitalization incidence was higher in the MOUD group compared to no MOUD (35.9 vs 27.5 per 100 person-30 days) and one-year SSTI recurrence was lower (10.3 vs 18.7 per 100 person-years). In multivariable modeling, the MOUD group remained at significantly higher risk of 30-day rehospitalization compared to the no MOUD group and at lower risk for one-year SSTI recurrence.

Introduction: Opioid overdose is a growing problem in the US. Often, residents are first responders to community and in-hospital opioid overdoses, and so, hands-on naloxone administration education is necessary. While residents get a brief algorithm on suspected opioid overdose during their mandatory American Heart Association basic life support training, there is a lack of hands-on standardized curricula on how to administer this lifesaving medication. Methods: To fill this gap, we developed a hands-on workshop for medical trainees on how to respond to an opioid overdose. Trainees who completed our workshop left with a first-responder naloxone kit using the Massachusetts statewide open prescription. All attendees were asked to take a voluntary pre-and posttraining survey. Results: A total of 80 trainees from a variety of specialties and training levels participated in this workshop. We were able to successfully link the pre-and postdata of 29 participants. Trainees were assessed on comfort in administering naloxone as a first responder and in teaching patients how to administer naloxone (via a 5-point Likert scale) and on percentage of time they prescribed naloxone to high-risk patient populations. We saw statistically significant increases in comfort in using naloxone and comfort in teaching patients to administer naloxone. Discussion: This innovative curriculum provides an adaptable, short, and effective workshop with hands-on practice for medical trainees at a variety of training levels. The workshop can efficiently train future health care professionals how to approach an opioid overdose.

ImportanceUS primary care practitioners (PCPs) are the largest clinical workforce, but few provide addiction care. Primary care is a practical place to expand addiction services, including buprenorphine and harm reduction kits, yet the clinical outcomes and health care sector costs are unknown.ObjectiveTo estimate the long-term clinical outcomes, costs, and cost-effectiveness of integrated buprenorphine and harm reduction kits in primary care for people who inject opioids.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsIn this modeling study, the Reducing Infections Related to Drug Use Cost-Effectiveness (REDUCE) microsimulation model, which tracks serious injection-related infections, overdose, hospitalization, and death, was used to examine the following treatment strategies: (1) PCP services with external referral to addiction care (status quo), (2) PCP services plus onsite buprenorphine prescribing with referral to offsite harm reduction kits (BUP), and (3) PCP services plus onsite buprenorphine prescribing and harm reduction kits (BUP plus HR). Model inputs were derived from clinical trials and observational cohorts, and costs were discounted annually at 3%. The cost-effectiveness was evaluated over a lifetime from the modified health care sector perspective, and sensitivity analyses were performed to address uncertainty. Model simulation began January 1, 2021, and ran for the entire lifetime of the cohort.Main Outcomes and MeasuresLife-years (LYs), hospitalizations, mortality from sequelae (overdose, severe skin and soft tissue infections, and endocarditis), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).ResultsThe simulated cohort included 2.25 million people and reflected the age and gender of US persons who inject opioids. Status quo resulted in 6.56 discounted LYs at a discounted cost of $203 500 per person (95% credible interval, $203 000-$222 000). Each strategy extended discounted life expectancy: BUP by 0.16 years and BUP plus HR by 0.17 years. Compared with status quo, BUP plus HR reduced sequelae-related mortality by 33%. The mean discounted lifetime cost per person of BUP and BUP plus HR were more than that of the status quo strategy. The dominating strategy was BUP plus HR. Compared with status quo, BUP plus HR was cost-effective (ICER, $34 400 per LY). During a 5-year time horizon, BUP plus HR cost an individual PCP practice approximately $13 000.Conclusions and RelevanceThis modeling study of integrated addiction service in primary care found improved clinical outcomes and modestly increased costs. The integration of addiction service into primary care practices should be a health care system priority.

There is a lack of standardized education on topic of harm reduction for graduate medical students. In order to fill this curricular gap, we delivered a two-hour pilot training introducing local community harm reduction organizations and harm reduction ideology and strategies for people who inject drugs to graduate medical students at Boston University. We used pre-post survey design to evaluate attendee demographic characteristics and training efficacy. We matched 29 attendees responses, 69% were first and second year medical students, and found that our training positively reinforced comfort and knowledge surrounding harm reduction ideology, safer injection techniques, and naloxone administration. Delivering trainings covering harm reduction early in graduate medical schools may be beneficial in giving students initial exposure to practical risk mitigation tools they can utilize later in their clinical careers.

IMPORTANCEEmerging evidence supports the use of outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) and, in many cases, partial oral antibiotic therapy for the treatment of injection drug use-associated infective endocarditis (IDU-IE); however, long-term outcomes and cost-effectiveness remain unknown. OBJECTIVE To compare the added value of inpatient addiction care services and the costeffectiveness and clinical outcomes of alternative antibiotic treatment strategies for patients with IDU-IE. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This decision analytical modeling study used a validated microsimulation model to compare antibiotic treatment strategies for patients with IDU-IE. Model inputs were derived from clinical trials and observational cohort studies. The model included all patients with injection opioid drug use (N = 5 million) in the US who were eligible to receive OPAT either in the home or at a postacute care facility. Costs were annually discounted at 3%. Costeffectiveness was evaluated from a health care sector perspective over a lifetime starting in 2020. Probabilistic sensitivity, scenario, and threshold analyses were performed to address uncertainty. INTERVENTIONS The model simulated 4 treatment strategies: (1) 4 to 6 weeks of inpatient intravenous (IV) antibiotic therapy along with opioid detoxification (usual care strategy), (2) 4 to 6 weeks of inpatient IV antibiotic therapy along with inpatient addiction care services that offered medication for opioid use disorder (usual care/addiction care strategy), (3) 3 weeks of inpatient IV antibiotic therapy along with addiction care services followed by OPAT (OPAT strategy), and (4) 3 weeks of inpatient IV antibiotic therapy along with addiction care services followed by partial oral antibiotic therapy (partial oral antibiotic strategy). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Mean percentage of patients completing treatment for IDU-IE, deaths associated with IDU-IE, life expectancy (measured in life-years [LYs]), mean cost per person, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTSAll modeled scenarios were initialized with 5 million individuals (mean age, 42 years; range, 18-64 years; 70% male) who had a history of injection opioid drug use. The usual care strategy resulted in 18.63 LYs at a cost of $416 570 per person, with 77.6% of hospitalized patients completing treatment. Life expectancy was extended by each alternative strategy. The partial oral antibiotic strategy yielded the highest treatment completion rate (80.3%) compared with the OPAT strategy (78.8%) and the usual care/addiction care strategy (77.6%). The OPAT strategy was the least expensive at $412 150 per person. Compared with the OPAT strategy, the partial oral antibiotic (continued) Key Points Question What is the most clinically beneficial and cost-effective antibiotic treatment strategy for injection drug use-associated infective endocarditis (IDU-IE)? Findings In this decision analytical modeling study simulating 4 treatment strategies among 5 million individuals with IDU-IE in the US, a va...

No abstract

No abstract