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.