Jeffery, Molly Moore

1592 Background: While ongoing efforts to decrease opioid use have dramatically altered the prescribing landscape, the impact on patients with cancer is not well understood. We examined trends in new and persistent opioid use in opioid-naïve older patients with and without cancer in the United States. Methods: This retrospective cohort study used SEER-Medicare linked data for patients with solid tumors malignancies diagnosed from 2012 through 2017, and a random sample of patients without cancer. We included patients who did not receive opioids for 3 months prior to the diagnosis or randomly assigned index date. We identified new opioid use (claim in 0-90 days after diagnosis/index date), early persistent opioid use (claims in days 0-90 and 91-180), and long-term persistent opioid use (claims in days 0-90 and 91-180 and months 13-15). Further analysis focused on 4 clinical strata: non-cancer, metastatic cancer, cancer treated with surgery alone, and cancer treated with surgery plus chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy ("surgery+"). We calculated relative changes in the predicted probability of opioid use from 2012 to 2017 based on a logit model adjusted for patient demographics. Results: We identified 238,470 eligible patients with cancer (mean age 76.3 years). Among patients with cancer, 46.4% had new opioid use; use was higher among those receiving surgery+ (70.6%), those treated with surgery alone (58.8%) and those with metastatic cancer (50.0%), compared to patients without cancer (6.9%). From 2012 to 2017, the predicted probability of new opioid use declined in all groups, with lower relative decline in the cancer subgroups (6.8% surgery+; 9.5% surgery alone; 10.2% metastatic cancer) compared to the non-cancer comparator (24.7%). For instance, in patients with metastatic cancer, predicted probability of new use decreased from 52.4 to 47.1% (10.2%) vs. 8.0 to 6.0% (24.7%) in patients without cancer. Relative decline in predicted probability of long-term persistent opioid use was lower in the surgical cancer strata (44.2% surgery+; 46.1% surgery alone) vs. the non-cancer comparator (54.0%). Conclusions: While opioid use remains common in patients with cancer, new and persistent opioid use declined over time in all patients, though with steeper relative declines in non-cancer compared to cancer populations. Our study suggests important but tempered effects of the changing opioid climate on patients with cancer.[Table: see text]

AbstractBackgroundOpioid overdose deaths have disproportionately impacted Black and Hispanic populations, in part due to disparities in treatment access. Emergency departments (EDs) serve as a resource for patients with opioid use disorder (OUD), many of whom have difficulty accessing outpatient addiction programs. However, inequities in ED treatment for OUD remain poorly understood.MethodsThis secondary analysis examined racial and ethnic differences in buprenorphine access using data from EMBED, a study of 21 EDs across five health care systems evaluating a clinical decision support system for initiating ED buprenorphine. The primary outcome was receipt of buprenorphine, ED administered or prescribed. Hospital type (academic vs. community) was evaluated as an effect modifier. Hierarchical models with cluster effects for site and clinician were used to assess buprenorphine receipt by race and ethnicity.ResultsBlack patients were less likely to receive buprenorphine (6.4% [51/801] vs. White patients 8.5% [268/3154], odds ratio [OR] 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45–0.78). This association persisted after adjusting for age, insurance, gender, clinician X‐waiver, hospital type, and urbanicity (adjusted OR [aOR] 0.64, 95% CI 0.48–0.84) but not when discharge diagnosis was included (aOR 0.75, 95% CI 0.56–1.02). Hispanic patients were more likely to receive buprenorphine (14.8% [122/822] vs. non‐Hispanic patients, 11.6% [475/4098]) in unadjusted (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.09–1.83) and adjusted models (aOR 1.41, 95% CI 1.08–1.83) but not including discharge diagnosis (aOR 1.32, 95% CI 0.99–1.77). Odds of buprenorphine were similar in academic and community EDs by race (interaction p = 0.97) and ethnicity (interaction p = 0.64).ConclusionsBlack patients with OUD were less likely to receive buprenorphine whereas Hispanic patients were more likely to receive buprenorphine in academic and community EDs. Differences were attenuated with discharge diagnosis, as fewer Black and non‐Hispanic patients were diagnosed with opioid withdrawal. Barriers to medication treatment are heterogenous among patients with OUD; research must continue to address the multiple drivers of health inequities at the patient, clinician, and community level.

Introduction Cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) is effective at treating chronic insomnia, yet in-person CBT-I can often be challenging to access. Prior studies have used technology to bridge barriers but have been unable to extensively assess the impact of the digital therapeutic on real-world patient experience and multidimensional outcomes. Among patients with insomnia, our aim is to determine the impact of a prescription digital therapeutic (PDT) (PEAR-003b, FDA-authorised as Somryst; herein called PDT) that provides mobile-delivered CBT-I on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and healthcare utilisation. Methods and analysis We are conducting a pragmatically designed, prospective, multicentre randomised controlled trial that leverages Hugo, a unique patient-centred health data-aggregating platform for data collection and patient follow-up from Hugo Health. A total of 100 participants with insomnia from two health centres will be enrolled onto the Hugo Health platform, provided with a linked Fitbit (Inspire 2) to track activity and then randomised 1:1 to receive (or not) the PDT for mobile-delivered CBT-I (Somryst). The primary outcome is a change in the insomnia severity index score from baseline to 9-week postrandomisation. Secondary outcomes include healthcare utilisation, health utility scores and clinical outcomes; change in sleep outcomes as measured with sleep diaries and a change in individual PROs including depressive symptoms, daytime sleepiness, health status, stress and anxiety. For those allocated to the PDT, we will also assess engagement with the PDT. Ethics and dissemination The Institutional Review Boards at Yale University and the Mayo Clinic have approved the trial protocol. This trial will provide important data to patients, clinicians and policymakers about the impact of the PDT device delivering CBT-I on PROs, clinical outcomes and healthcare utilisation. Findings will be disseminated to participants, presented at professional meetings and published in peer-reviewed journals. Trial registration number NCT04909229 .

Objectives Evaluate the associations between patients taking ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and their clinical outcomes after an acute viral respiratory illness (AVRI) due to COVID-19. Design Retrospective cohort. Setting The USA; 2017–2018 influenza season, 2018–2019 influenza season, and 2019–2020 influenza/COVID-19 season. Participants People with hypertension (HTN) taking an ACEi, ARB or other HTN medications, and experiencing AVRI. Main outcome measures Change in hospital admission, intensive care unit (ICU) or coronary care unit (CCU), acute respiratory distress (ARD), ARD syndrome (ARDS) and all-cause mortality, comparing COVID-19 to pre-COVID-19 influenza seasons. Results The cohort included 1 059 474 episodes of AVRI (653 797 filled an ACEi or ARB, and 405 677 other HTN medications). 58.6% were women and 72.9% with age ≥65. The ACEi/ARB cohort saw a larger increase in risk in the COVID-19 influenza season than the other HTN medication cohort for four out of five outcomes, with an additional 1.5 percentage point (pp) increase in risk of an inpatient stay (95% CI 1.2 to 1.9 pp) and of ICU/CCU use (95% CI 0.3 to 2.7 pp) as well as a 0.7 pp (0.1 to 1.2 pp) additional increase in risk of ARD and 0.9 pp (0.4 to 1.3 pp) additional increase in risk of ARDS. There was no statistically significant difference in the absolute risk of death (−0.2 pp, 95% CI −0.4 to 0.1 pp). However, the relative risk of death in 2019/2020 versus 2017/2018 for the ACEi/ARB group was larger (1.40 (1.36 to 1.44)) than for the other HTN medication cohort (1.24 (1.21 to 1.28)). Conclusions People with AVRI using ACEi/ARBs for HTN had a greater increase in poor outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic than those using other medications to treat HTN. The small absolute magnitude of the differences likely does not support changes in clinical practice.

Introduction Opioid analgesics are often used to treat moderate-to-severe acute non-cancer pain; however, there is little high-quality evidence to guide clinician prescribing. An essential element to developing evidence-based guidelines is a better understanding of pain management and pain control among individuals experiencing acute pain for various common diagnoses. Methods and analysis This multicentre prospective observational study will recruit 1550 opioid-naïve participants with acute pain seen in diverse clinical settings including primary/urgent care, emergency departments and dental clinics. Participants will be followed for 6 months with the aid of a patient-centred health data aggregating platform that consolidates data from study questionnaires, electronic health record data on healthcare services received, prescription fill data from pharmacies, and activity and sleep data from a Fitbit activity tracker. Participants will be enrolled to represent diverse races and ethnicities and pain conditions, as well as geographical diversity. Data analysis will focus on assessing patients’ patterns of pain and opioid analgesic use, along with other pain treatments; associations between patient and condition characteristics and patient-centred outcomes including resolution of pain, satisfaction with care and long-term use of opioid analgesics; and descriptive analyses of patient management of leftover opioids. Ethics and dissemination This study has received approval from IRBs at each site. Results will be made available to participants, funders, the research community and the public. Trial registration number NCT04509115 .

Abstract Objective To determine the effect of a user centered clinical decision support tool versus usual care on rates of initiation of buprenorphine in the routine emergency care of individuals with opioid use disorder. Design Pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial (EMBED). Setting 18 emergency department clusters across five healthcare systems in five states representing the north east, south east, and western regions of the US, ranging from community hospitals to tertiary care centers, using either the Epic or Cerner electronic health record platform. Participants 599 attending emergency physicians caring for 5047 adult patients presenting with opioid use disorder. Intervention A user centered, physician facing clinical decision support system seamlessly integrated into user workflows in the electronic health record to support initiating buprenorphine in the emergency department by helping clinicians to diagnose opioid use disorder, assess the severity of withdrawal, motivate patients to accept treatment, and complete electronic health record tasks by automating clinical and after visit documentation, order entry, prescribing, and referral. Main outcome measures Rate of initiation of buprenorphine (administration or prescription of buprenorphine) in the emergency department among patients with opioid use disorder. Secondary implementation outcomes were measured with the RE-AIM (reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance) framework. Results 1 413 693 visits to the emergency department (775 873 in the intervention arm and 637 820 in the usual care arm) from November 2019 to May 2021 were assessed for eligibility, resulting in 5047 patients with opioid use disorder (2787 intervention arm, 2260 usual care arm) under the care of 599 attending physicians (340 intervention arm, 259 usual care arm) for analysis. Buprenorphine was initiated in 347 (12.5%) patients in the intervention arm and in 271 (12.0%) patients in the usual care arm (adjusted generalized estimating equations odds ratio 1.22, 95% confidence interval 0.61 to 2.43, P=0.58). Buprenorphine was initiated at least once by 151 (44.4%) physicians in the intervention arm and by 88 (34.0%) in the usual care arm (1.83, 1.16 to 2.89, P=0.01). Conclusions User centered clinical decision support did not increase patient level rates of initiating buprenorphine in the emergency department. Although streamlining and automating electronic health record workflows can potentially increase adoption of complex, unfamiliar evidence based practices, more interventions are needed to look at other barriers to the treatment of addiction and increase the rate of initiating buprenorphine in the emergency department in patients with opioid use disorder. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03658642 .