Working with HIV clinics to adopt addiction treatment using implementation facilitation (WHAT-IF?): Rationale and design for a hybrid type 3 effectiveness-implementation study

Interventions for tobacco use cessation in people living with HIV

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of tobacco use among people living with HIV (PLWH) is up to four times higher than in the general population. Unfortunately, tobacco use increases the risk of progression to AIDS and death. Individual- and group-level interventions, and system-change interventions that are effective in helping PLWH stop using tobacco can markedly improve the health and quality of life of this population. However, clear evidence to guide policy and practice is lacking, which hinders the integration of tobacco use cessation interventions into routine HIV care. This is an update of a review that was published in 2016. We include 11 new studies.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits, harms and tolerability of interventions for tobacco use cessation among people living with HIV. To compare the benefits, harms and tolerability of interventions for tobacco use cessation that are tailored to the needs of people living with HIV with that of non-tailored cessation interventions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO in December 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of individual-/group-level behavioural or pharmacological interventions, or both, for tobacco use cessation, delivered directly to PLWH aged 18 years and over, who use tobacco. We also included RCTs, quasi-RCTs, other non-randomised controlled studies (e.g. controlled before and after studies), and interrupted time series studies of system-change interventions for tobacco use cessation among PLWH. For system-change interventions, participants could be PLWH receiving care, or staff working in healthcare settings and providing care to PLWH; but studies where intervention delivery was by research personnel were excluded. For both individual-/group-level interventions, and system-change interventions, any comparator was eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods, and used GRADE to assess certainty of the evidence. The primary measure of benefit was tobacco use cessation at a minimum of six months. Primary measures for harm were adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). We also measured quit attempts or quit episodes, the receipt of a tobacco use cessation intervention, quality of life, HIV viral load, CD4 count, and the incidence of opportunistic infections.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 17 studies (16 RCTs and one non-randomised study) with a total of 9959 participants; 11 studies are new to this update. Nine studies contributed to meta-analyses (2741 participants). Fifteen studies evaluated individual-/group-level interventions, and two evaluated system-change interventions. Twelve studies were from the USA, two from Switzerland, and there were single studies for France, Russia and South Africa. All studies focused on cigarette smoking cessation. All studies received funding from independent national- or institutional-level funding. Three studies received study medication free of charge from a pharmaceutical company. Of the 16 RCTs, three were at low risk of bias overall, five were at high risk, and eight were at unclear risk. Behavioural support or system-change interventions versus no or less intensive behavioural support Low-certainty evidence (7 studies, 2314 participants) did not demonstrate a clear benefit for tobacco use cessation rates in PLWH randomised to receive behavioural support compared with brief advice or no intervention: risk ratio (RR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 1.42, with no evidence of heterogeneity. Abstinence at six months or more was 10% (n = 108/1121) in the control group and 11% (n = 127/1193) in the intervention group. There was no evidence of an effect on tobacco use cessation on system-change interventions: calling the quitline and transferring the call to the patient whilst they are still in hospital ('warm handoff') versus fax referral (RR 3.18, 95% CI 0.76 to 13.99; 1 study, 25 participants; very low-certainty evidence). None of the studies in this comparison assessed SAE. Pharmacological interventions versus placebo, no intervention, or another pharmacotherapy Moderate-certainty evidence (2 studies, 427 participants) suggested that varenicline may help more PLWH to quit smoking than placebo (RR 1.95, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.62) with no evidence of heterogeneity. Abstinence at six months or more was 7% (n = 14/215) in the placebo control group and 13% (n = 27/212) in the varenicline group. There was no evidence of intervention effects from individual studies on behavioural support plus nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) versus brief advice (RR 8.00, 95% CI 0.51 to 126.67; 15 participants; very low-certainty evidence), behavioural support plus NRT versus behavioural support alone (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.36; 560 participants; low-certainty evidence), varenicline versus NRT (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.83; 200 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and cytisine versus NRT (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.11; 200 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Low-certainty evidence (2 studies, 427 participants) did not detect a difference between varenicline and placebo in the proportion of participants experiencing SAEs (8% (n = 17/212) versus 7% (n = 15/215), respectively; RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.22) with no evidence of heterogeneity. Low-certainty evidence from one study indicated similar SAE rates between behavioural support plus NRT and behavioural support only (1.8% (n = 5/279) versus 1.4% (n = 4/281), respectively; RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.34 to 4.64). No studies assessed SAEs for the following: behavioural support plus NRT versus brief advice; varenicline versus NRT and cytisine versus NRT.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no clear evidence to support or refute the use of behavioural support over brief advice, one type of behavioural support over another, behavioural support plus NRT over behavioural support alone or brief advice, varenicline over NRT, or cytisine over NRT for tobacco use cessation for six months or more among PLWH. Nor is there clear evidence to support or refute the use of system-change interventions such as warm handoff over fax referral, to increase tobacco use cessation or receipt of cessation interventions among PLWH who use tobacco. However, the results must be considered in the context of the small number of studies included. Varenicline likely helps PLWH to quit smoking for six months or more compared to control. We did not find evidence of difference in SAE rates between varenicline and placebo, although the certainty of the evidence is low.

Integrated and collaborative care across the spectrum of alcohol-associated liver disease and alcohol use disorder

The public health impact of alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD), a serious consequence of problematic alcohol use, and alcohol use disorder (AUD) is growing, with ALD becoming a major cause of alcohol-associated death overall and the leading indication for liver transplantation in the United States. Comprehensive care for ALD often requires treatment of AUD. Although there is a growing body of evidence showing that AUD treatment is associated with reductions in liver-related morbidity and mortality, only a minority of patients with ALD and AUD receive this care. Integrated and collaborative models that streamline both ALD and AUD care for patients with ALD and AUD are promising approaches to bridge this treatment gap and rely on multidisciplinary and interprofessional teams and partnerships. Here, we review the role of AUD care in ALD treatment, the effects of AUD treatment on liver-related outcomes, the impact of comorbid conditions such as other substance use disorders, obesity, and metabolic syndrome, and the current landscape of integrated and collaborative care for ALD and AUD in various treatment settings. We further review knowledge gaps and unmet needs that remain, including the role of precision medicine, the application of harm reduction approaches, the impact of health disparities, and the need for additional AUD treatment options, as well as further efforts to support implementation and dissemination.

Prevalence and Correlates of Physical Inactivity Among Individuals with HIV During the First COVID-19 Wave: A Cross-sectional Survey

Physical activity is associated with improved health outcomes among people with HIV (PWH). In the recent pandemic context, policies designed to mitigate COVID-19 transmission may result in an increase in sedentary lifestyle and decreased physical activity. In this study, we aimed to characterize self-reported physical activity and factors associated with physical inactivity during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic among a sample of PWH engaged in care. We also described whether psychological coping strategies measured by the Brief COPE differed based on physical activity levels. Among 260 surveyed PWH in two HIV clinics in the US Northeast, 28.5% (n = 74) met the criteria for being physically active according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)'s physical activity guidelines. Receiving care in New Haven, CT, presence of a detectable HIV viral load, every day tobacco use, and unhealthy alcohol use were associated with physical inactivity. Problem-focused coping, emotion-focused coping, and avoidance-focused coping strategies were found to be protective against physical inactivity. In adjusted analysis, only problem-focused coping continued to be significantly associated with lower odds of reporting physical inactivity. Efforts are urgently needed to promote physical activity among PWH, including among those without problem-focused coping strategies.

Facilitation and Preferred Models for Delivering Substance Use Disorder Treatment in HIV Clinics: Results From a Multisite Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Integrated addiction treatment in HIV clinics is associated with improved outcomes, yet it is offered inconsistently and with variable models of care. We sought to evaluate the impact of Implementation Facilitation ("Facilitation") on clinician and staff preference for provision of addiction treatment in HIV clinics with on-site resources (all trained or designated on-site specialist) versus outside resources (outside specialist or refer out).

METHODS

From July 2017 to July 2020, surveys assessed clinician and staff preferences for addiction treatment models during control (ie, baseline), intervention, evaluation, and maintenance phases in 4 HIV clinics in the Northeast United States.

RESULTS

During the control phase, among 76 respondents (response rate, 58%), the proportions who preferred treatment with on-site resources for opioid use disorder (OUD), alcohol use disorder (AUD), and tobacco use disorder (TUD) were 63%, 55%, and 63%, respectively. Compared with control, there were no significant differences in preferred model during the intervention and evaluation phases except for AUD where there was an increased preference for treatment with on-site resources in the intervention versus control phase. Compared with control, during the maintenance phase, a higher proportion of clinicians and staff preferred providing addiction treatment with on-site resources versus outside resources: OUD, 75% (odds ratio [OR; 95% confidence interval {CI}], 1.79 [1.06-3.03]); AUD, 73% (OR [95% CI], 2.23 [1.36-3.65]), and TUD, 76% (OR [95% CI], 1.88 [1.11-3.18]).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings from this study lend support for "Facilitation" as a strategy to enhance clinician and staff preference for integrated addiction treatment in HIV clinics with on-site resources.

Implementing a peer-supported, integrated strategy for substance use disorder care in an outpatient infectious disease clinic is associated with improved patient outcomes

BACKGROUND

Substance use disorder (SUD) and infectious disease (ID) care integration may lead to improvements in SUD and ID outcomes. We assessed implementation of integrating peer-supported SUD care in an outpatient ID setting.

METHODS

In this implementation study, we describe REcovery in Specialty care Through medication and OutREach (RESTORE), a low-threshold SUD program implemented in a Baltimore outpatient ID clinic. Key program components were clinician training and support in SUD care, prescription of SUD treatment medications, and peer-based psychosocial support provided by peer recovery specialists. We assessed clinician adoption of RESTORE and compared patient outcomes from baseline to 6 months.

RESULTS

Between January 2019 and January 2022, the number of ID clinicians (N=61) who prescribed buprenorphine increased eightfold from 3 (5%) to 24 (39%). Of 258 ID patients referred to RESTORE, 182 (71%) engaged, 137 consented to study participation. Mean age in the study sample was 52.1 (SD=10.4), 63% were male, 84% were Black/African-American. Among 127 (93%) who completed 6-month follow-up, fewer participants reported illicit/non-prescribed opioid use in the past 30 days at follow-up (32%) compared to baseline (52%; p<0.001). Similar reductions were noted for cocaine use (47% to 34%; p=0.006), emergency department visits (23% to 9%; p=0.002), and inpatient hospitalizations (15% to 7%; p=0.025).

CONCLUSION

SUD care integration into an outpatient ID care setting using a peer-supported implementation strategy was adopted by clinicians and improved clinical outcomes for patients. This strategy is a promising approach to treating people with infectious diseases and SUD.

Design and management considerations for control groups in hybrid effectiveness-implementation trials: Narrative review & case studies

Hybrid effectiveness-implementation studies allow researchers to combine study of a clinical intervention's effectiveness with study of its implementation with the aim of accelerating the translation of evidence into practice. However, there currently exists limited guidance on how to design and manage such hybrid studies. This is particularly true for studies that include a comparison/control arm that, by design, receives less implementation support than the intervention arm. Lack of such guidance can present a challenge for researchers both in setting up but also in effectively managing participating sites in such trials. This paper uses a narrative review of the literature (Phase 1 of the research) and comparative case study of three studies (Phase 2 of the research) to identify common themes related to study design and management. Based on these, we comment and reflect on: (1) the balance that needs to be struck between fidelity to the study design and tailoring to emerging requests from participating sites as part of the research process, and (2) the modifications to the implementation strategies being evaluated. Hybrid trial teams should carefully consider the impact of design selection, trial management decisions, and any modifications to implementation processes and/or support on the delivery of a controlled evaluation. The rationale for these choices should be systematically reported to fill the gap in the literature.

Effect of Implementation Facilitation to Promote Adoption of Medications for Addiction Treatment in US HIV Clinics: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Medications for addiction treatment (MAT) are inconsistently offered in HIV clinics.

Objective

To evaluate the impact of implementation facilitation (hereafter referred to as "facilitation"), a multicomponent implementation strategy, on increasing provision of MAT for opioid use disorder (MOUD), alcohol use disorder (MAUD), and tobacco use disorder (MTUD).

Design, Setting, and Participants

Conducted from July 26, 2016, through July 25, 2020, the Working with HIV Clinics to adopt Addiction Treatment using Implementation Facilitation (WHAT-IF?) study used an unblinded, stepped wedge design to sequentially assign each of 4 HIV clinics in the northeastern US to cross over from control (ie, baseline practices) to facilitation (ie, intervention) and then evaluation and maintenance periods every 6 months. Participants were adult patients with opioid, alcohol, or tobacco use disorder. Data analysis was performed from August 2020 to September 2022.

Interventions

Multicomponent facilitation.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Outcomes, assessed using electronic health record data, were provision of MAT among patients with opioid, alcohol, or tobacco use disorder during the evaluation (primary outcome) and maintenance periods compared with the control period.

Results

Among 3647 patients, the mean (SD) age was 49 (12) years, 1814 (50%) were Black, 781 (22%) were Hispanic, and 1407 (39%) were female; 121 (3%) had opioid use disorder, 126 (3%) had alcohol use disorder, and 420 (12%) had tobacco use disorder. Compared with the control period, there was no increase in provision of MOUD with facilitation during the evaluation period (243 patients [27%; 95% CI, 22%-32%] vs 135 patients [28%; 95% CI, 22%-35%]; P = .59) or maintenance period (198 patients [29%; 95% CI, 22%-36%]; P = .48). The change in provision of MAUD from the control period to the evaluation period was not statistically significant (251 patients [8%; 95% CI, 5%-12%] vs 112 patients [13%; 95% CI, 8%-21%]; P = .11); however, the difference increased and became significant during the maintenance period (180 patients [17%; 95% CI, 12%-24%]; P = .009). There were significant increases in provision of MTUD with facilitation during both the evaluation (810 patients [33%; 95% CI, 30%-36%] vs 471 patients [40%; 95% CI, 36%-45%]; P = .005) and maintenance (643 patients [38%; 95% CI, 34%-41%]; P = .047) periods.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized clinical trial, facilitation led to increased provision of MTUD, delayed improvements in MAUD, and no improvements in MOUD in HIV clinics. Enhanced strategies, potentially including clinic and patient incentives, especially for MOUD, may be needed to further increase provision of MAT in HIV clinics.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02907944.

Patients' perspectives of medications for addiction treatment in HIV clinics: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

While substance use disorders (SUD) disproportionately impact people with HIV (PWH), HIV clinics inconsistently provide evidence-based medications for addiction treatment (MAT). Patient receptivity to MAT is critical to enhance addiction treatment in these settings. However, we know little from patients about how to best integrate MAT into HIV clinics.

METHODS

This qualitative study used four focus groups informed by the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework to identify barriers and facilitators to receiving opioid, alcohol, and tobacco use disorder care in HIV clinics. The study population included 28 patients with HIV and SUD receiving care at one of four HIV clinics in the northeastern United States. Focus groups were recorded and transcribed for content analysis. The study also performed a brief survey assessing demographics and behaviors.

RESULTS

Focus groups revealed several major themes related to MAT in HIV clinics. Barriers included stigma around MAT, knowledge deficits about available MAT options and the impact of substance use on PWH, concerns about medication side effects, substance use screening without adequate clinician follow-up, and peers who discouraged MAT. Facilitators included recognition of substance use as a threat to overall health, integrated care from HIV clinicians, and support for addiction treatment from peers with lived experience.

CONCLUSIONS

Efforts to enhance MAT in HIV clinics should include patient education to help them recognize addiction as a chronic disease with available medication treatment options; clinician and staff training to promote integrated, multidisciplinary screening and treatment; and thoughtful inclusion of peers with lived experience.

Experiences with Telemedicine for HIV Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Mixed-Methods Study

To characterize perspectives and experiences with telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic, we conducted a mixed-methods study in two HIV clinics in the US Northeast. Among surveyed patients with HIV (PWH) who had a telemedicine appointment (n = 205), 42.4% perceived telemedicine visits as useful during the pandemic. PWH and clinical staff identified benefits of telemedicine: (1) ability to engage and re-engage patients in care; (2) perceived patient-centeredness and flexibility; (3) opportunity to engage family and multidisciplinary care team members; and (4) opportunity to enhance telemedicine use proficiency through practice and support. Identified barriers included: (1) technical challenges; (2) privacy concerns; (3) loss of routine clinical experiences and interactions; (4) limited objective patient remote monitoring; and (5) reimbursement concerns. Efforts to optimize telemedicine for HIV care should consider strategies to improve technology support for PWH, flexible options to access care, additional platforms to allow patient remote monitoring, and appropriate billing and reimbursement methods.

Time–motion analysis of external facilitation for implementing the Collaborative Chronic Care Model in general mental health clinics: Use of an interval-based data collection approach

Background: Facilitation is an effective strategy to implement evidence-based practices, often involving external facilitators (EFs) bringing content expertise to implementation sites. Estimating time spent on multifaceted EF activities is complex. Furthermore, collecting continuous time–motion data for facilitation tasks is challenging. However, organizations need this information to allocate implementation resources to sites. Thus, our objectives were to conduct a time–motion analysis of external facilitation, and compare continuous versus noncontinuous approaches to collecting time–motion data. Methods: We analyzed EF time–motion data from six VA mental health clinics implementing the evidence-based Collaborative Chronic Care Model (CCM). We documented EF activities during pre-implementation (4–6 weeks) and implementation (12 months) phases. We collected continuous data during the pre-implementation phase, followed by data collection over a 2-week period (henceforth, “a two-week interval”) at each of three time points (beginning/middle/end) during the implementation phase. As a validity check, we assessed how closely interval data represented continuous data collected throughout implementation for two of the sites. Results: EFs spent 21.8 ± 4.5 h/site during pre-implementation off-site, then 27.5 ± 4.6 h/site site-visiting to initiate implementation. Based on the 2-week interval data, EFs spent 2.5 ± 0.8, 1.4 ± 0.6, and 1.2 ± 0.6 h/week toward the implementation’s beginning, middle, and end, respectively. Prevalent activities were preparation/planning, process monitoring, program adaptation, problem identification, and problem-solving. Across all activities, 73.6% of EF time involved email, phone, or video communication. For the two continuous data sites, computed weekly time averages toward the implementation’s beginning, middle, and end differed from the interval data’s averages by 1.0, 0.1, and 0.2 h, respectively. Activities inconsistently captured in the interval data included irregular assessment, stakeholder engagement, and network development. Conclusions: Time–motion analysis of CCM implementation showed initial higher-intensity EF involvement that tapered. The 2-week interval data collection approach, if accounting for its potential underestimation of irregular activities, may be promising/efficient for implementation studies collecting time–motion data.

A SMARTTT approach to Treating Tobacco use disorder in persons with HIV (SMARTTT): Rationale and design for a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation study

BACKGROUND

Tobacco use disorder is a leading threat to the health of persons with HIV (PWH) on antiretroviral treatment and identifying optimal treatment approaches to promote abstinence is critical. We describe the rationale, aims, and design for a new study, "A SMART Approach to Treating Tobacco Use Disorder in Persons with HIV (SMARTTT)," a sequential multiple assignment randomized trial.

METHODS

In HIV clinics within three health systems in the northeastern United States, PWH with tobacco use disorder are randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) with or without contingency management (NRT vs. NRT + CM). Participants with response (defined as exhaled carbon monoxide (eCO)-confirmed smoking abstinence at week 12), continue the same treatment for another 12 weeks. Participants with non-response, are re-randomized to either switch medications from NRT to varenicline or intensify treatment to a higher CM reward schedule. Interventions are delivered by clinical pharmacists embedded in HIV clinics. The primary outcome is eCO-confirmed smoking abstinence; secondary outcomes include CD4 cell count, HIV viral load suppression, and the Veterans Aging Cohort Study (VACS) Index 2.0 score (a validated measure of morbidity and mortality based on laboratory data). Consistent with a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation design and grounded in implementation science frameworks, we will conduct an implementation-focused process evaluation in parallel. Study protocol adaptations related to the COVID-19 pandemic have been made.

CONCLUSIONS

SMARTTT is expected to generate novel findings regarding the impact, cost, and implementation of an adaptive clinical pharmacist-delivered intervention involving medications and CM to promote smoking abstinence among PWH. ClinicalTrials.govidentifier:NCT04490057.

Readiness to Provide Medications for Addiction Treatment in HIV Clinics: A Multisite Mixed-Methods Formative Evaluation

BACKGROUND

We sought to characterize readiness, barriers to, and facilitators of providing medications for addiction treatment (MAT) in HIV clinics.

SETTING

Four HIV clinics in the northeastern United States.

METHODS

Mixed-methods formative evaluation conducted June 2017-February 2019. Surveys assessed readiness [visual analog scale, less ready (0-<7) vs. more ready (≥7-10)]; evidence and context ratings for MAT provision; and preferred addiction treatment model. A subset (n = 37) participated in focus groups.

RESULTS

Among 71 survey respondents (48% prescribers), the proportion more ready to provide addiction treatment medications varied across substances [tobacco (76%), opioid (61%), and alcohol (49%) treatment medications (P values < 0.05)]. Evidence subscale scores were higher for those more ready to provide tobacco [median (interquartile range) = 4.0 (4.0, 5.0) vs. 4.0 (3.0, 4.0), P = 0.008] treatment medications, but not significantly different for opioid [5.0 (4.0, 5.0) vs. 4.0 (4.0, 5.0), P = 0.11] and alcohol [4.0 (3.0, 5.0) vs. 4.0 (3.0, 4.0), P = 0.42] treatment medications. Median context subscale scores ranged from 3.3 to 4.0 and generally did not vary by readiness status (P values > 0.05). Most favored integrating MAT into HIV care but preferred models differed across substances. Barriers to MAT included identification of treatment-eligible patients, variable experiences with MAT and perceived medication complexity, perceived need for robust behavioral services, and inconsistent availability of on-site specialists. Facilitators included knowledge of adverse health consequences of opioid and tobacco use, local champions, focus on quality improvement, and multidisciplinary teamwork.

CONCLUSIONS

Efforts to implement MAT in HIV clinics should address both gaps in perspectives regarding the evidence for MAT and contextual factors and may require substance-specific models.