The ability of single screening questions for unhealthy alcohol and other drug use to identify substance dependence in primary care

Self-reported pain severity and use of cannabis and opioids in persons with HIV in an urban primary care setting in Northern California: A cross-sectional study

Persons with HIV (PWH) experience high levels of pain. We examined the relationship of pain severity with use of cannabis and prescription opioids among PWH. This cross-sectional study evaluated associations between self-reported pain (moderate/severe vs mild/none) and cannabis and prescription opioid use in a primary care sample of PWH enrolled in an alcohol use treatment study at Kaiser Permanente, San Francisco. Prevalence ratios (PR) for moderate/severe pain associated with cannabis, opioid use, or both in the prior 30 days were obtained from Poisson regression models. Adjusted models included race/ethnicity, education, employment, HIV ribonucleic acid levels, depression, and anxiety. Overall, 614 PWH completed baseline questionnaires from May 2013 to May 2015, among whom 182/614 (29.6%) reported moderate/severe pain. The prevalence of moderate/severe pain varied by substances: 19.1% moderate/severe pain among study participants who reported neither cannabis or opioids, 30.2% for cannabis alone, 41.2% for opioids alone, and 60.9% for those reporting both substances. In adjusted models, compared with PWH who reported neither substance (reference), prevalence of moderate/severe pain was higher for those using cannabis alone (PR 1.54; 95% CI 1.13-2.09), opioids alone (PR 1.96; 95% CI 1.31-2.94), and those reporting both (PR 2.66; 95% CI 1.91-3.70). PWH who reported opioid and/or cannabis use were more likely to report moderate/severe pain compared with PWH who did not report use of these substances. To improve patient care, it is vital to assess patients' approaches to pain management including substance use and target appropriate interventions to reduce pain in PWH.

The Spanish language version of the TAPS tool: protocol for a validation and implementation study in primary care

BACKGROUND

The TAPS Tool ("Tobacco, Alcohol, Prescription drug, and illicit Substance use") is a screening and brief assessment for detecting unhealthy substance use in healthcare settings that was developed by the National Institute on Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network and validated in a multisite study. Our team developed a Spanish language version of the TAPS Tool that supports provider- and self-administration screening using a mobile/web-based platform, the TAPS Electronic Spanish Platform (TAPS-ESP).

METHODS

This article describes the protocol and rationale for a study to validate the TAPS-ESP in a sample of Spanish-speaking primary care patients recruited from a network of community-based clinics in Texas (target N = 1,000). The TAPS-ESP will be validated against established substance use disorder diagnostic measures, alternative screening tools, and substance use biomarkers. The study will subsequently examine barriers and facilitators to screening with the TAPS-ESP from a provider workflow perspective using qualitative interviews with providers.

DISCUSSION

Validating a Spanish language version of the TAPS Tool could expand access to evidence-based, linguistically accurate, and culturally relevant substance use screening and brief assessment for an underserved health disparity population.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered with www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov : NCT05476588, 07/22/2022.

ED-Home: Pilot feasibility study of a targeted homelessness prevention intervention for emergency department patients with drug or unhealthy alcohol use

BACKGROUND

Housing insecurity is prevalent among emergency department (ED) patients. Despite a surge of interest in screening for patients' social needs including housing insecurity, little research has examined ED social needs interventions. We worked together with government and community partners to develop and pilot test a homelessness prevention intervention targeted to ED patients with drug or unhealthy alcohol use.

METHODS

We approached randomly sampled patients at an urban public hospital ED, May to August 2019. Adult patients were eligible if they were medically stable, not incarcerated, spoke English, had unhealthy alcohol or any drug use, and were not currently homeless but screened positive for risk of future homelessness using a previously developed risk screening tool. Participants received a three-part intervention: (1) brief counseling and referral to treatment for substance use delivered through a preexisting ED program; (2) referral to Homebase, an evidence-based community homelessness prevention program; and (3) up to three troubleshooting phone calls by study staff. Participants completed surveys at baseline and 6 months.

RESULTS

Of 2183 patients screened, 51 were eligible and 40 (78.4%) participated; one later withdrew, leaving 39 participants. Participants were diverse in age, gender, race, and ethnicity. Of the 32 participants reached at 6 months, most said it was very or extremely helpful to talk to someone about their housing situation (n = 23, 71.9%) at the baseline ED visit. Thirteen (40.6%) said their housing situation had improved in the past 6 months and 16 (50.0%) said it had not changed. Twenty participants (62.5%) had made contact with a Homebase office. Participants shared ideas of how to improve the intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot intervention was feasible and well received by participants though it required a large amount of screening to identify potentially eligible patients. Our findings will inform a larger future trial and may be informative for others seeking to develop similar interventions.

CDC Clinical Practice Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Pain - United States, 2022

This guideline provides recommendations for clinicians providing pain care, including those prescribing opioids, for outpatients aged ≥18 years. It updates the CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain - United States, 2016 (MMWR Recomm Rep 2016;65[No. RR-1]:1-49) and includes recommendations for managing acute (duration of <1 month), subacute (duration of 1-3 months), and chronic (duration of >3 months) pain. The recommendations do not apply to pain related to sickle cell disease or cancer or to patients receiving palliative or end-of-life care. The guideline addresses the following four areas: 1) determining whether or not to initiate opioids for pain, 2) selecting opioids and determining opioid dosages, 3) deciding duration of initial opioid prescription and conducting follow-up, and 4) assessing risk and addressing potential harms of opioid use. CDC developed the guideline using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Recommendations are based on systematic reviews of the scientific evidence and reflect considerations of benefits and harms, patient and clinician values and preferences, and resource allocation. CDC obtained input from the Board of Scientific Counselors of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (a federally chartered advisory committee), the public, and peer reviewers. CDC recommends that persons with pain receive appropriate pain treatment, with careful consideration of the benefits and risks of all treatment options in the context of the patient's circumstances. Recommendations should not be applied as inflexible standards of care across patient populations. This clinical practice guideline is intended to improve communication between clinicians and patients about the benefits and risks of pain treatments, including opioid therapy; improve the effectiveness and safety of pain treatment; mitigate pain; improve function and quality of life for patients with pain; and reduce risks associated with opioid pain therapy, including opioid use disorder, overdose, and death.

Predicting severe alcohol use disorders in primary care using number of heavy drinking days

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Although screening for unhealthy alcohol use is becoming more common, severe alcohol use disorders (AUDs) associated with the most severe medical and socio-economic sequelae still often go unidentified in primary care. To improve identification of severe AUDs and aid clinical decision-making, we aimed to identify a threshold of heavy drinking days (HDDs) associated with severe AUDs.

DESIGN, SETTING AND CASES

This cohort study analyzed electronic health record data of 138 765 adults who reported ≥ 1 HDD (4+ drinks/occasion for women and men aged ≥ 65 years, 5+ for men aged 18-64 years) during a 3-month period at a routine alcohol screening in primary care in a large Northern California, USA health-care system from 2014 to 2017. Our sample was 66.5% male, 59.7% white, 11.0% Asian/Pacific Islander, 5.0% black, 17.4% Latino/Hispanic and 7.0% other/unknown race/ethnicity; the mean age was 40.6 years (standard deviation = 15.2).

MEASUREMENTS

We compared sensitivity and specificity of different thresholds of the reported number of HDDs during a 3-month period for predicting severe AUD diagnoses in the following year, in the full sample and by sex and age.

FINDINGS

The prevalence of severe AUD diagnoses in the year after the screening was 0.6%. The optimal threshold predicting future severe AUD diagnoses in the full sample was ≥ 5 HDDs during a 3-month period [sensitivity = 68.9%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 65.9, 72.0; specificity = 63.2%, 95% CI = 62.9, 63.4], but varied by sex and age. Women had a lower threshold than men (4 versus 6 HDDs), which decreased as women aged (from 5 HDDs among 18-24 years to 4 HDDs ≥ 25 years), but increased as men aged (from 5 HDDs among 18-24 years to 6 HDDs among 25-64 years, to 7 HDDs ≥ 65 years).

CONCLUSIONS

Five or more heavy drinking days in a 3-month period may indicate heightened risk of future severe alcohol use disorder in an adult primary care population. The optimal thresholds are lower for women than for men, and thresholds decrease as women age but increase as men age.

Identifying available addictive disorder screening tests validated in primary care: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Substance use disorders and non-substance addictive behaviors are major, growing health concerns. Efficient screening primary care settings encouraged but its widespread implementation is restricted without an appropriate screening approach for clinical practice or guidance for practitioners choose an appropriate screening test. This study aims to identify addictive disorder screening tests which are validated in primary care and suggest steps to help practitioners select the appropriate test.

METHOD

A systematic review of the literature through Pubmed, PsycINFO and The Cochrane Library was performed from database inception to December 21, 2020. The search strategy included three research topics: screening, addictive disorders, and primary care. Selection criteria included published studies evaluating the validity of an addictive disorder screening test in primary care settings.

RESULTS

8638 papers were selected, and 50 studies were included. Seventeen questionnaires validated in primary care covered the main substance use disorders, but none screened for non-substance addictive behaviors. Tests such as ASSIST, S2BI, SUBS and TAPS screen for a variety of substance use disorders while others such as TICS and CAGE-AID only have a few questions to improve feasibility. However, some shorter tests had weaker psychometric properties.

CONCLUSIONS

Seventeen addictive disorder screening tests validated in primary care are available. The feasibility and acceptability in primary care of the shorter tests needs to be assessed. A transversal screening test, adapted to the constraints of primary care, that enables clinicians to detect substance use disorders and non-substance addictive behaviors is needed.

Cross-sectional Analysis of Food Insecurity and Frequent Emergency Department Use

INTRODUCTION

Emergency department (ED) patients have higher than average levels of food insecurity. We examined the association between multiple measures of food insecurity and frequent ED use in a random sample of ED patients.

METHODS

We completed survey questionnaires with randomly sampled adult patients from an urban public hospital ED (n = 2,312). We assessed food insecurity using four questions from the United States Department of Agriculture Household Food Security Survey. The primary independent variable was any food insecurity, defined as an affirmative response to any of the four items. Frequent ED use was defined as self-report of ≥4 ED visits in the past year. We examined the relationship between patient food insecurity and frequent ED use using bivariate and multivariable analyses and examined possible mediation by anxiety/depression and overall health status.

RESULTS

One-third (30.9%) of study participants reported frequent ED use, and half (50.8%) reported any food insecurity. Prevalence of food insecurity was higher among frequent vs. non-frequent ED users, 62.8% vs 45.4% (P <0.001). After controlling for potential confounders, food insecurity remained significantly associated with frequent ED use (adjusted odds ratio 1.48, 95% confidence interval, 1.20-1.83). This observed association was partially attenuated when anxiety/depression and overall health status were added to models.

CONCLUSION

The high observed prevalence of food insecurity suggests that efforts to improve care of ED patients should assess and address this need. Further research is needed to assess whether addressing food insecurity may play an important role in efforts to reduce frequent ED use for some patients.

A brief web-based screening plus emotional-disorder health education was associated with improvement of mental health awareness and service-seeking attitudes among patients seeking nonpsychiatric clinical services in China

OBJECTIVES

Low recognition and intervention rates of emotional disorders among nonpsychiatric clinical patients are primarily attributable to poor mental health awareness of patients and a paucity of mental health care resources. This study aims to investigate the association of a resource-saving brief web-based emotional-disorder self-screening plus a health self-education program (BWBED-SS + HSE) with improved mental health awareness and service-seeking attitudes among nonpsychiatric clinical patients.

METHOD

A sample of 2065 patients seeking health services in nonpsychiatric clinical settings underwent BWBED-SS + HSE using mobile terminals. Participants were defined as being at high risk of anxiety and/or depression according to the optimal cut-off point of ≥11 on the Huaxi emotional-distress index (HEI).

RESULTS

The rate of participants at high risk of anxiety and/or depression was 6.63%. Following participation in the BWBED-SS + HSE, after controlling for demographics, type of hospital, and test time, the rates of participants considering themselves as having an emotional disorder and willing to seek mental health services among those at high risk of anxiety and/or depression increased from 29.93% to 47.45% (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.28, p = .002) and from 11.68% to 29.93% (aOR = 3.65, p < .001), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The BWBED-SS + HSE were associated with improved mental health awareness and service-seeking attitudes among patients seeking nonpsychiatric clinical services in China.

Using web-based technology to improve depression screening in primary care settings

Background

Given the high rates at which patients present with behavioural health (BH) concerns in primary care (PC), this setting has become the de facto mental health system. As a result, screening for depression and other BH conditions in PC has become a critical target for improving patient outcomes. However, integration of screening into busy PC workflows can be challenging due to barriers such as limited time and resources.

Methodology

A digital, cloud-based BH assessment tool, which included electronic health record enhancements, was developed and implemented in two urban PC practices as a prelude to a planned larger-scale implementation. The implementation strategies included a reorganisation of workflows within the PC setting, comprehensive training for staff and PC physicians, and institution of an incentive programme for PC clinic managers. To examine whether the introduction of the cloud-based BH assessment tool and associated implementation strategies was associated with increased screening rates, we compared rates of screening from January through June 2017 to rates of screening from January through June 2018 (subsequent to implementation). We also examined BH symptomatology reported by patients in PC.

Results

Following the implementation process, rate of BH screening with Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2) increased from 50.5% to 57% (p<0.00000000000000022) and rates of subsequent screening with PHQ-9, for those scoring at risk, defined as a score of ≥1, on PHQ-2, increased from 34.5% to 91.4% (p<0.00000000000000022). Additionally, high rates of ‘moderate’ and ‘severe’ symptoms of depression (40.3%), anxiety (42.6%) and substance use (26.7% alcohol; 31.2% other substance use) were observed among PC patients.

Conclusions

Results suggest that a comprehensive implementation plan, including digitisation of BH assessment, reduced the burden of systematic screening. High rates of BH symptomatology underscore the need for comprehensive BH assessment and systems planning to address the high need for BH services among PC patients.

Development and Feasibility of a Spanish Language Version of the Tobacco, Alcohol, Prescription Drug, and Illicit Substance Use (TAPS) Tool

OBJECTIVES

The Tobacco, Alcohol, Prescription drug, and illicit Substance use (TAPS) Tool is a validated two-stage screening and brief assessment in primary care for unhealthy substance use. We developed a Spanish language version of the TAPS Tool and conducted a small study of its feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary validity.

METHODS

Participants were adult primary care patients ages 18 or older with Spanish as their primary language (N = 10 for development/refinement using qualitative congnitive interviewing; N = 100 for the preliminary validation study). The Spanish language TAPS Tool was administered in both interviewer- and selfadministered tablet format (in random order). We examined disclosure of substance use on the TAPS by administration format, and compared it with established measures for identifying substance use and substance use disorders.

RESULTS

The Spanish language TAPS was feasible to use and participants reported high levels of acceptability. The rates of past 12-month substance use were 11% for tobacco, 28% for risky alcohol, 4% for illicit drugs, 1% for nonmedical prescription drugs and substance use disorders rates were 7% for tobacco, 2% for alcohol, and 1% for other substances. The selfadministered TAPS elicited 1, 3, and 1 additional disclosures of tobacco, risky, alcohol, and marijuana use than the interviewer-administered TAPS, respectively. Rates of disclosure on the TAPS were similar to those on established measures for past 12-month and 3-month time frames.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study represents a starting point for expanding the availability of the TAPS Tool beyond its original English language version into Spanish. The Spanish language TAPS Tool could expand options for substance use screening in primary care settings with Spanish-dominant/preferred populations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The studies were registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03879785, March 19, 2019.

A Telemedicine Approach to Increase Treatment of Alcohol Use Disorder in Primary Care: A Pilot Feasibility Study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Unhealthy drinking is a leading threat to health, yet few people with alcohol use disorder (AUD) receive treatment. This pilot tested the feasibility of addiction medicine video consultations in primary care for improving AUD medication adoption and specialty treatment initiation.

METHODS

Primary care providers (PCPs) received training and access to on-call addiction medicine consultations. Feasibility measures were training attendance, intention to use the service and/or AUD pharmacotherapy, and user feedback. Secondary outcomes were utilization, prescription and treatment initiation rates, and case reports. χ2 tests were used to compare prescription and treatment initiation rates for consult recipients and non-recipients.

RESULTS

Ninety-one PCPs (71.1%) attended a training, and 60 (65.9%) provided feedback. Of those, 37 (64.9%) mentioned pharmacotherapy and 41 (71.9%) intended to use the video consult service. Of 27 users, 19 provided feedback; 12 (63.1%) rated its value at 8 or above, on a scale of 1 to 10 (average 6.9). The most useful aspect was immediacy, and users wanted an easier workflow and increased consultant availability. Of 32 patients who received a consult, 11 (34.4%) were prescribed naltrexone, versus 43 (6.4%) of non-recipients (P < 0.0001); 11 (34.4%) initiated specialty treatment, versus 105 (19.7%) of non-recipients (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

PCP training attendance and feedback suggest that an addiction telemedicine consult service would be valuable to PCPs and might increase AUD medication uptake and specialty addiction treatment initiation. However, future research should include significant modifications to the piloted telemedicine model: robust staffing and simpler, more flexible methods for PCPs to obtain consults.

Health System-Based Unhealthy Alcohol Use Screening and Treatment Comparing Demographically Matched Participants With and Without HIV

BACKGROUND

Unhealthy alcohol use among persons living with HIV (PLWH) is linked to significant morbidity, and use of alcohol services may differ by HIV status. Our objective was to compare unhealthy alcohol use screening and treatment by HIV status in primary care.

METHODS

Cohort study of adult (≥18 years) PLWH and HIV-uninfected participants frequency matched 20:1 to PLWH by age, sex, and race/ethnicity who were enrolled in a large integrated healthcare system in the United States, with information ascertained from an electronic health record. Outcomes included unhealthy alcohol screening, prevalence, provider-delivered brief interventions, and addiction specialty care visits. Other predictors included age, sex, race/ethnicity, neighborhood deprivation index, depression, smoking, substance use disorders, Charlson comorbidity index, prior outpatient visits, insurance type, and medical facility. Cox proportional hazards models were used to compute hazard ratios (HR) for the outcomes of time to unhealthy alcohol use screening and time to first addiction specialty visit. Poisson regression with robust standard errors was used to compute prevalence ratios (PR) for other outcomes.

RESULTS

11,235 PLWH and 227,320 HIV-uninfected participants were included. By 4.5 years after baseline, most participants were screened for unhealthy alcohol use (85% of PLWH and 93% of HIV-uninfected), but with a lower rate among PLWH (adjusted HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.85). PLWH were less likely, compared with HIV-uninfected participants, to report unhealthy drinking among those screened (adjusted PR 0.74, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.79), and among those who screened positive, less likely to receive brief interventions (adjusted PR 0.82, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.90), but more likely (adjusted HR 1.7, 95% CI 1.2 to 2.4) to have an addiction specialty visit within 1 year.

CONCLUSIONS

Unhealthy alcohol use was lower in PLWH, but the treatment approach by HIV status differed. PLWH reporting unhealthy alcohol use received less brief interventions and more addiction specialty care than HIV-uninfected participants.

Screening for Unhealthy Drug Use: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE

Illicit drug use is among the most common causes of preventable morbidity and mortality in the US.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the literature on screening and interventions for drug use to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through September 18, 2018; literature surveillance through September 21, 2019.

STUDY SELECTION

Test accuracy studies to detect drug misuse and randomized clinical trials of screening and interventions to reduce drug use.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Critical appraisal and data abstraction by 2 reviewers and random-effects meta-analyses.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Sensitivity, specificity, drug use and other health, social, and legal outcomes.

RESULTS

Ninety-nine studies (N = 84 206) were included. Twenty-eight studies (n = 65 720) addressed drug screening accuracy. Among adults, sensitivity and specificity of screening tools for detecting unhealthy drug use ranged from 0.71 to 0.94 and 0.87 to 0.97, respectively. Interventions to reduce drug use were evaluated in 52 trials (n = 15 659) of psychosocial interventions, 7 trials (n = 1109) of opioid agonist therapy, and 13 trials (n = 1718) of naltrexone. Psychosocial interventions were associated with increased likelihood of drug use abstinence (15 trials, n = 3636; relative risk [RR], 1.60 [95% CI, 1.24 to 2.13]; absolute risk difference [ARD], 9% [95% CI, 5% to 15%]) and reduced number of drug use days (19 trials, n = 5085; mean difference, -0.49 day in the last 7 days [95% CI, -0.85 to -0.13]) vs no psychosocial intervention at 3- to 4-month follow-up. In treatment-seeking populations, opioid agonist therapy and naltrexone were associated with decreased risk of drug use relapse (4 trials, n = 567; RR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.59 to 0.82]; ARD, -35% [95% CI, -67% to -3%] and 12 trials, n = 1599; RR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.62 to 0.85]; ARD, -18% [95% CI, -26% to -10%], respectively) vs placebo or no medication. While evidence on harms was limited, it indicated no increased risk of serious adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Several screening instruments with acceptable sensitivity and specificity are available to screen for drug use, although there is no direct evidence on the benefits or harms of screening. Pharmacotherapy and psychosocial interventions are effective at improving drug use outcomes, but evidence of effectiveness remains primarily derived from trials conducted in treatment-seeking populations.

Routine Assessment of Symptoms of Substance Use Disorders in Primary Care: Prevalence and Severity of Reported Symptoms

BACKGROUND

Most patients with substance use disorders (SUDs) never receive treatment and SUDs are under-recognized in primary care (PC) where patients can be treated or linked to treatment. Asking PC patients to directly report SUD symptoms on questionnaires might help identify SUDs but to our knowledge, this approach is previously untested.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the prevalence and severity of DSM-5 SUD symptoms reported by PC patients as part of routine care.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study using secondary data.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 241,265 adult patients who visited one of 25 PC sites in an integrated health system in Washington state and had alcohol, cannabis, or other drug use screening documented in their EHRs (March 2015-July 2018) were included in main analyses if they had a positive screen for high-risk substance use defined as AUDIT-C score 7-12 points, or report of past-year daily cannabis use or any other drug use.

MAIN MEASURES

The main outcome was number of SUD symptoms based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, 5th edition (DSM-5), reported on Symptom Checklists (0-11) for alcohol or other drugs: 2-3 mild; 4-5 moderate; 6-11 severe.

RESULTS

Of screened patients, 16,776 (5.7%) reported high-risk use of alcohol (2.4%), cannabis (3.9%), and/or other drugs (1.7%), and 65.0-69.9% of those completed Symptom Checklists. Of those with high-risk alcohol use, 52.5% (95% CI 50.9-54.0%) reported ≥ 2 symptoms consistent with mild-severe alcohol use disorders. Of those reporting daily cannabis use, 29.8% (28.6-30.9%) reported ≥ 2 symptoms consistent with mild-severe SUDs. Of those reporting any other drug use, 37.5% (35.7-39.3%) reported ≥ 2 symptoms consistent with mild-severe SUDs.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Many PC patients who screened positive for high-risk substance use reported symptoms consistent with DSM-5 SUDs on self-report Symptom Checklists. Use of SUD Symptom Checklists could support PC providers in making SUD diagnoses and initiating discussions of substance use.

High-Intensity Drinking in Adult Australian Twins

BACKGROUND

Many adult drinkers consume far beyond the binge threshold. This "high-intensity drinking" (HID), defined as 2 (HID-2) and 3 (HID-3) times the binge threshold, is of public health interest due to its role in acute alcohol-related harms. Research on HID has mostly been limited to college-aged young adults, focused on contextual factors, and neglected the potential role of genetic influences on the propensity to engage in HID.

METHODS

Structured diagnostic interviews assessing past-year alcohol involvement were conducted with 3,785 individuals (1,365 men, 2,420 women; M_age  = 32, range = 21 to 46), including 3,314 twins and 471 nontwin siblings from the Australian Twin Registry. Multinomial logistic regression analyses were conducted to compare HID-2 and HID-3 to binge drinking on demographic correlates, drinking characteristics, and drinking-related consequences. Biometric modeling was conducted to estimate the role of genetic, common, and individual-specific environmental factors in HID propensity.

RESULTS

Among past-year drinkers, the prevalence of HID-2 and HID-3 was both 22%, with men disproportionally represented. The frequencies of drinking, intoxication, and binge drinking significantly increased across the heavier drinking categories, which also evidenced higher average consumption quantities and higher rates of alcohol-related consequences. The propensity to engage in HID was significantly heritable (A = 37% [95% CI: 28 to 46%]), with individual-specific environmental influences accounting for the remainder of the variance.

CONCLUSIONS

This study convincingly demonstrates that HID is not restricted to college-aged young adults, but also can be highly prevalent among those of working age, and that the propensity to engage in HID is partially explained by genetic influences.

Harmful alcohol use among acutely ill hospitalized medical patients in Oslo and Moscow: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

The aim was to estimate the prevalence of harmful alcohol use in relation to socio-demographic characteristics among acutely ill medical patients, and examine identification measures of alcohol use, including the alcohol biomarker phosphatidylethanol 16:0/18:1 (PEth).

METHODS

A cross-sectional study, lasting one year at one hospital in Oslo, Norway and one in Moscow, Russia recruiting acute medically ill patients (≥ 18 years), able to give informed consent. Self-reported data on socio-demographics, mental distress (Symptom Check List-5), alcohol use (Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test-4 (AUDIT-4) and alcohol consumption past 24 h were collected. PEth and alcohol concentration were measured in whole blood.

RESULTS

Of 5883 participating patients, 19.2% in Moscow and 21.1% in Oslo were harmful alcohol users, measured by AUDIT-4, while the prevalence of PEth-positive patients was lower: 11.4% in Oslo, 14.3% in Moscow. Men in Moscow were more likely to be harmful users by AUDIT-4 and PEth compared to men in Oslo, except of those being ≥ 71 years. Women in Oslo were more likely to be harmful users compared to those in Moscow by AUDIT-4, but not by PEth for those aged < 61 years.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of harmful alcohol use was high at both study sites. The prevalence of harmful alcohol use was lower when assessed by PEth compared to AUDIT-4. Thus, self-reporting was the most sensitive measure in revealing harmful alcohol use among all groups except for women in Moscow. Hence, screening and identification with objective biomarkers and self-reporting might be a method for early intervention.

Accuracy of five self-report screening instruments for substance use in pregnancy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The accuracy of current screening instruments for identification of substance use in pregnancy is unclear, particularly given methodological shortcomings in existing research. This diagnostic accuracy study compared five existing instruments for ability to identify illicit drug, opioid and alcohol use, under privacy expectations consistent with applied practice and using a gold standard incorporating toxicological analysis.

DESIGN

Prospective cross-sectional screening accuracy study.

SETTING

Three sites encompassing four prenatal care clinics in the United States.

PARTICIPANTS

Convenience sample of 1220 racially, ethnically and socio-economically diverse pregnant women aged 18 years and over.

MEASUREMENTS

In Phase I, participants completed the five screening instruments in counterbalanced order. Instruments included the Substance Use Risk Profile-Pregnancy (SURP-P), CRAFFT (acronym for five-item screener with items related to car, relax, alone, forget, friends and trouble), 5Ps (parents, peers, partner, pregnancy, past), Wayne Indirect Drug Use Screener (WIDUS) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) Quick Screen. In Phase II, participants provided a urine sample and completed a calendar recall-based interview regarding substance use. These screeners were tested, using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and accuracy statistics, against a reference standard consisting of substance use in three classes (illicit drugs, opioids and alcohol), considered positive if use was evident via 30-day calendar recall or urine analysis.

FINDINGS

Three hundred and fifteen of 1220 participants (26.3%) met reference standard criteria for positivity. The single-item screening questions from the NIDA Quick Screen showed high specificity (0.99) for all substances, but very poor sensitivity (0.10-0.27). The 5Ps showed high sensitivity (0.80-0.88) but low specificity (0.35-0.37). The CRAFFT, SURP-P and 5Ps had the highest area under the curve (AUC) for alcohol (0.67, 0.66 and 0.62, respectively), and the WIDUS had the highest AUC for illicit drugs and opioids (0.70 and 0.69, respectively). Performance of all instruments varied significantly with race, site and economic status.

CONCLUSIONS

Of five screening instruments for substance use in pregnancy tested (Substance Use Risk Profile-Pregnancy (SURP-P), CRAFFT, 5Ps, Wayne Indirect Drug Use Screener (WIDUS) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (Quick Screen), none showed both high sensitivity and high specificity, and area under the curve was low for nearly all measures.

Prevalence and patterns of illicit drug use in people living with HIV in Spain: A cross-sectional study

This study assessed the prevalence and patterns of drug use among people living with HIV (PLHIV) in Spain. We conducted an observational cross-sectional study including 1401 PLHIV. Data were collected through 33 sites across Spain using an online computer-assisted self-administered interview. The survey measured use of illicit drugs and other substances, treatment adherence and health-related variables. To analyse patterns of drug use we performed cluster analysis in two stages. The most frequently consumed substances were: alcohol (86.7%), tobacco (55.0%), illicit drugs (49.5%), other substances (27.1%). The most prevalent illicit drugs used were cannabis (73.8%), cocaine powder (53.9%), and poppers (45.4%). Results found four clusters of PLHIV who used drugs. Two of them were composed mainly of heterosexuals (HTX): Cluster 1 (n = 172) presented the lowest polydrug use and they were mainly users of cannabis, and Cluster 2 (n = 84) grouped mostly men who used mainly heroin and cocaine; which had the highest percentage of people who inject drugs and presented the lowest level of treatment adherence (79.8±14.2; p < .0001). The other two clusters were composed mainly of men who have sex with men (MSM), who were mostly users of recreational drugs. Cluster 3 (n = 285) reported moderate consumption, both regarding frequency and diversity of drugs used, while Cluster 4 (n = 153) was characterized by the highest drug polyconsumption (7.4±2.2; p < .0001), and 4 grouped MSM who injected recreational drugs, and who reported the highest frequency of use of drugs in a sexual context (2.6±0.8; p < .0001) and rates of sexually transmitted infections (1.8±1.1; p < .01). This is the largest multi-centre cross-sectional study assessing the current prevalence and patterns of drug use among PLHIV in Spain. The highest prevalence of drug use was found among MSM, although HTX who used heroin and cocaine (Cluster 2) had the most problems with adherence to HIV treatment and the worst health status.

Rational Urine Drug Monitoring in Patients Receiving Opioids for Chronic Pain: Consensus Recommendations

Objective

To develop consensus recommendations on urine drug monitoring (UDM) in patients with chronic pain who are prescribed opioids.

Methods

An interdisciplinary group of clinicians with expertise in pain, substance use disorders, and primary care conducted virtual meetings to review relevant literature and existing guidelines and share their clinical experience in UDM before reaching consensus recommendations.

Results

Definitive (e.g., chromatography-based) testing is recommended as most clinically appropriate for UDM because of its accuracy; however, institutional or payer policies may require initial use of presumptive testing (i.e., immunoassay). The rational choice of substances to analyze for UDM involves considerations that are specific to each patient and related to illicit drug availability. Appropriate opioid risk stratification is based on patient history (especially psychiatric conditions or history of opioid or substance use disorder), prescription drug monitoring program data, results from validated risk assessment tools, and previous UDM. Urine drug monitoring is suggested to be performed at baseline for most patients prescribed opioids for chronic pain and at least annually for those at low risk, two or more times per year for those at moderate risk, and three or more times per year for those at high risk. Additional UDM should be performed as needed on the basis of clinical judgment.

Conclusions

Although evidence on the efficacy of UDM in preventing opioid use disorder, overdose, and diversion is limited, UDM is recommended by the panel as part of ongoing comprehensive risk monitoring in patients prescribed opioids for chronic pain.

Drug screening and changing marijuana policy: Validation of new single question drug screening tools

BACKGROUND

Illicit drug use is common in U.S. medical settings. A validated Single Drug Screening Question (SDSQ) containing the word "illegal" is widely used. As marijuana policies change, the present wording may not perform as expected in states legalizing use. This study compares the performance of the validated SDSQ with three different SDSQ wordings.

METHODS

Patients, 18 years and older, presenting to a U.S. hospital emergency department were asked to complete a survey containing the existing SDSQ, three new SDSQ versions without the word "illegal," and the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview. Patients were also encouraged to provide a sample for saliva drug testing.

RESULTS

Of 297 eligible patients, 200 (67.3%) completed the survey and 141 (70.5% of interview participants) completed saliva testing. Overlapping confidence intervals on the Area Under the Curve (AUC) analysis confirmed that sensitivities of all SDSQs were statistically similar for detecting self-reported drug use (65-71%). Combining questionnaire and saliva testing increased drug use detection by 2% and resulted in lower SDSQ sensitivity (58-67%). Specificities were 99-100%. The SDSQ with the highest sensitivity was: "In the last twelve months, did you smoke pot (marijuana), use another street drug, or use a prescription medication "recreationally" (just for the feeling, or using more than prescribed)?"

CONCLUSIONS

All four SDSQs demonstrated acceptable sensitivity and high specificity. Removing the term 'illegal' does not result in higher, or lower, reported drug use, though results could vary in states with legalized marijuana. Future research should replicate this study in one or more of these states.

Screening and Behavioral Counseling Interventions to Reduce Unhealthy Alcohol Use in Adolescents and Adults: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE

Unhealthy alcohol use is common, increasing, and a leading cause of premature mortality.

OBJECTIVE

To review literature on the effectiveness and harms of screening and counseling for unhealthy alcohol use to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, PubMed, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through October 12, 2017; literature surveillance through August 1, 2018.

STUDY SELECTION

Test accuracy studies and randomized clinical trials of screening and counseling to reduce unhealthy alcohol use.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Independent critical appraisal and data abstraction by 2 reviewers. Counseling trials were pooled using random-effects meta-analyses.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Sensitivity, specificity, drinks per week, exceeding recommended limits, heavy use episodes, abstinence (for pregnant women), and other health, family, social, and legal outcomes.

RESULTS

One hundred thirteen studies (N = 314 466) were included. No studies examined benefits or harms of screening programs to reduce unhealthy alcohol use. For adolescents (10 studies [n = 171 363]), 1 study (n = 225) reported a sensitivity of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.60 to 0.83) and specificity of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.74 to 0.86) using the AUDIT-C (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption) to detect the full spectrum of unhealthy alcohol use. For adults (35 studies [n = 114 182]), brief screening instruments commonly reported sensitivity and specificity between 0.70 and 0.85. Two trials of the effects of interventions to reduce unhealthy alcohol use in adolescents (n = 588) found mixed results: one reported a benefit in high-risk but not moderate-risk drinkers, and the other reported a statistically significant reduction in drinking frequency for boys but not girls; neither reported health or related outcomes. Across all populations (68 studies [n = 36 528]), counseling interventions were associated with a decrease in drinks per week (weighted mean difference, -1.6 [95% CI, -2.2 to -1.0]; 32 studies [37 effects; n = 15 974]), the proportion exceeding recommended drinking limits (odds ratio [OR], 0.60 [95% CI, 0.53 to 0.67]; 15 studies [16 effects; n = 9760]), and the proportion reporting a heavy use episode (OR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.58 to 0.77]; 12 studies [14 effects; n = 8108]), and an increase in the proportion of pregnant women reporting abstinence (OR, 2.26 [95% CI, 1.43 to 3.56]; 5 studies [n = 796]) after 6 to 12 months. Health outcomes were sparsely reported and generally did not demonstrate group differences in effect. There was no evidence that these interventions could be harmful.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among adults, screening instruments feasible for use in primary care are available that can effectively identify people with unhealthy alcohol use, and counseling interventions in those who screen positive are associated with reductions in unhealthy alcohol use. There was no evidence that these interventions have unintended harmful effects.

Substance Use Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment Among Medicaid Patients in Wisconsin: Impacts on Healthcare Utilization and Costs

Unhealthy substance use in the USA results in significant mortality and morbidity. This study measured the effectiveness of paraprofessional-administered substance use screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) services on subsequent healthcare utilization and costs. The pre-post with comparison group study design used a population-based sample of Medicaid patients 18-64 years receiving healthcare services from 33 clinics in Wisconsin. Substance use screens were completed by 7367 Medicaid beneficiaries, who were compared to 6751 randomly selected treatment-as-usual Medicaid patients. Compared to unscreened patients, those screened changed their utilization over the 24-month follow-up period by 0.143 outpatient days per member per month (PMPM) (p < 0.001), -0.036 inpatient days PMPM (p < 0.05), -0.001 inpatient admissions PMPM (non-significant), and -0.004 emergency department days PMPM (non-significant). The best estimate of net annual savings is $391 per Medicaid adult beneficiary (2014 dollars). SBIRT was associated with significantly greater outpatient visits and significant reductions in inpatient days among working-age Medicaid beneficiaries in Wisconsin.

Influence of mental health and alcohol or other drug use risk on adolescent reported care received in primary care settings

Background

To describe patterns of alcohol and other drug (AOD) use risk and adolescent reported primary care (PC) screening and intervention, and examine associations of AOD risk and mental health with reported care received.

Methods

We analyzed data from cross-sectional surveys collected from April 3, 2013 to November 24, 2015 from 1279 diverse adolescents ages 12–18 who reported visiting a doctor at least once in the past year. Key measures were AOD risk using the Personal Experience Screening Questionnaire; mental health using the 5-item Mental Health Inventory; binary measures of adolescent-reported screening and intervention.

Results

Half (49.2%) of the adolescents reported past year AOD use. Of the 769 (60.1%) of adolescents that reported being asked by a medical provider in PC about AOD use, only 37.2% reported receiving screening/intervention. The odds of reported screening/intervention were significantly higher for adolescents with higher AOD risk and lower mental health scores.

Conclusions

Adolescents at risk for AOD use and poor mental health are most likely to benefit from brief intervention. These findings suggest that strategies are needed to facilitate medical providers identification of need for counseling of both AOD and mental health care for at risk youth.

Trials registration

clinicaltrials.gov, Identifier: NCT01797835, March 2013.

Validation of the TAPS-1: A Four-Item Screening Tool to Identify Unhealthy Substance Use in Primary Care

BACKGROUND

The Tobacco, Alcohol, Prescription Medication, and Other Substance use (TAPS) tool is a combined two-part screening and brief assessment developed for adult primary care patients. The tool's first-stage screening component (TAPS-1) consists of four items asking about past 12-month use for four substance categories, with response options of never, less than monthly, monthly, weekly, and daily or almost daily.

OBJECTIVE

To validate the TAPS-1 in primary care patients.

DESIGN

Participants completed the TAPS tool in self- and interviewer-administered formats, in random order. In this secondary analysis, the TAPS-1 was evaluated against DSM-5 substance use disorder (SUD) criteria to determine optimal cut-points for identifying unhealthy substance use at three severity levels (problem use, mild SUD, and moderate-to-severe SUD).

PARTICIPANTS

Two thousand adult patients at five primary care sites.

MAIN MEASURES

DSM-5 SUD criteria were determined via the modified Composite International Diagnostic Interview. Oral fluid was used as a biomarker of recent drug use.

KEY RESULTS

Optimal frequency-of-use cut-points on the self-administered TAPS-1 for identifying SUDs were ≥ monthly use for tobacco and alcohol (sensitivity = 0.92 and 0.71, specificity = 0.80 and 0.85, AUC = 0.86 and 0.78, respectively) and any reported use for illicit drugs and prescription medication misuse (sensitivity = 0.93 and 0.89, specificity = 0.85 and 0.91, AUC = 0.89 and 0.90, respectively). The performance of the interviewer-administered format was similar. When administered first, the self-administered format yielded higher disclosure rates for past 12-month alcohol use, illicit drug use, and prescription medication misuse. Frequency of use alone did not provide sufficient information to discriminate between gradations of substance use problem severity. Among those who denied drug use on the TAPS-1, less than 4% had a drug-positive biomarker.

CONCLUSIONS

The TAPS-1 can identify unhealthy substance use in primary care patients with a high level of accuracy, and may have utility in primary care for rapid triage.

Comparison of the Substance Use Brief Screen (SUBS) to the AUDIT-C and ASSIST for detecting unhealthy alcohol and drug use in a population of hospitalized smokers

Hospitalized patients have high rates of unhealthy substance use, which has important impacts on health both during and after hospitalization, but is infrequently identified in the absence of screening. The Substance Use Brief Screen (SUBS) was developed as a brief, self-administered instrument to identify use of tobacco, alcohol, illicit drugs, and non-medical use of prescription drugs, and was previously validated in primary care patients. This study assessed the diagnostic accuracy of the SUBS in comparison to longer screening instruments to identify unhealthy and high-risk alcohol and drug use in hospitalized current smokers. Participants were 439 patients, aged 18 and older, who were admitted to either two urban safety-net hospitals in New York City and enrolled in a smoking cessation trial. We measured the performance of the SUBS for identifying illicit drug and non-medical use of prescription drugs in comparison to a modified Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) and its performance for identifying excessive alcohol use in comparison to the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C). At the standard cutoff (response other than 'never' indicates a positive screen), the SUBS had a sensitivity of 98% (95% CI 95-100%) and specificity of 61% (95% CI 55-67%) for unhealthy alcohol use, a sensitivity of 85% (95% CI 80-90%) and specificity of 75% (95% CI 78-87%) for illicit drug use, and a sensitivity of 73% (95% CI 61-83%) and specificity of 83% (95% CI 78-87%) for prescription drug non-medical use. For identifying high-risk use, a higher cutoff (response of '3 or more days' of use indicates a positive screen), the SUBS retained high sensitivity (77-90%), and specificity was 62-88%. The SUBS can be considered as an alternative to longer screening instruments, which may fit more easily into busy inpatient settings. Further study is needed to evaluate its validity using gold standard measures in hospitalized populations.

Alcohol brief intervention in primary care: Blood pressure outcomes in hypertensive patients

BACKGROUND

In clinical trials alcohol brief intervention (BI) in adult primary care has been efficacious in reducing alcohol consumption, but we know little about its impact on health outcomes. Hypertension is a prevalent and costly chronic condition in the U.S. and worldwide, and alcohol use is a modifiable hypertension risk factor.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of receiving BI for unhealthy drinking on blood pressure (BP) control among adult hypertensive patients by analyzing secondary data from a clustered, randomized controlled trial on alcohol screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment (SBIRT) implementation by primary care physicians (PCP intervention arm) and non-physician providers and medical assistants (NPP&MA intervention arm) in a large, integrated health care delivery system.

DESIGN

Observational, prospective cohort study.

SUBJECTS

3811 adult hypertensive primary care patients screening positive for past-year heavy drinking at baseline, of which 1422 (37%) had an electronic health record BP measure at baseline and 18-month follow-up.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Change in BP and controlled BP (systolic/diastolic BP <140/90mmHg).

RESULTS

Overall no significant associations were found between alcohol BI and BP change at 18-month follow-up when analyzing the combined sample of subjects in both intervention arms. However, moderation analyses found that receiving BI for positive past-year unhealthy drinking was positively associated with better BP control at 18months in the PCP intervention arm, and for those with lower heavy drinking frequency and poor BP control at the index screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that hypertensive patients may benefit from receiving physician brief intervention for unhealthy alcohol use in primary care. Findings also highlight potential population-level benefits of alcohol BI if widely applied, suggesting a need for the development of innovative strategies to facilitate SBIRT delivery in primary care settings.

Prevalence and clinical impact of recreational drug consumption in people living with HIV on treatment: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

Drug interactions, poor adherence to medication and high-risk sexual behaviour may occur in individuals with HIV using recreational drugs. Thus, we aimed to assess the prevalence of recreational drugs use and to explore its clinical impact in HIV patients on treatment.

METHODS

Observational, cross sectional, study conducted in a 700 bed university hospital, Barcelona, Spain. A total of 208 adults living with HIV on treatment were included. A questionnaire was administered by clinical pharmacists, including evaluation of sociodemographic variables, past 12-month drug consumption, adherence to antiretrovirals (Simplified Medication Adherence Questionnaire) and high-risk sexual behaviour (condomless sex/multiple partners). Additional data were obtained from clinical records. Recreational drug-antiretroviral interactions were checked in reference databases. Prevalence was calculated for 5% precision and 95% CI. Crude and adjusted binary logistic regressions were performed to identify associations between recreational drug use and adherence problems, and between recreational drug use and high-risk sexual behaviour.

RESULTS

From the overall sample, 92 participants (44.2%) consumed recreational drugs over the past 1 year. Of these, 44 (48.8%) had used different types of recreational drugs in this period. We detected 11 recreational substances, including sildenafil and nitrites. The most consumed drugs were: cannabis (68.5%), cocaine (45.5%), nitrites (31.5%), sildenafil (28.3) and ecstasy (19.6%). Relevant interactions occurred in 46 (50%) of the individuals consuming drugs. Recreational drug consumption was found to be related to adherence problems with antiretrovirals (OR: 2.51 (95% CI 1.32 to 4.77) p=0.005) and high-risk sexual behaviour (OR: 2.81 (95% CI 1.47 to 5.39) p=0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Recreational drugs are frequently used by HIV patients on treatment. Classical drugs and new substances consumed in sexual context are usual. Recreational drug consumption interferes with several clinical outcomes, including potentially relevant interactions between drugs and antiretrovirals, adherence problems and high-risk sexual behaviour. Thus, there is the urgent need of implementing patient-centred care involving recreational drug consumption.

Clinical utility of a single-item test for DSM-5 alcohol use disorder among outpatients with anxiety and depressive disorders

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of studies testing accuracy of fast screening methods for alcohol use disorder in mental health settings. We aimed at estimating clinical utility of a standard single-item test for case finding and screening of DSM-5 alcohol use disorder among individuals suffering from anxiety and mood disorders.

METHODS

We recruited adults consecutively referred, in a 12-month period, to an outpatient clinic for anxiety and depressive disorders. We assessed the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) single-item test, using the Mini- International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), plus an additional item of Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) for craving, as reference standard to diagnose a current DSM-5 alcohol use disorder. We estimated sensitivity and specificity of the single-item test, as well as positive and negative Clinical Utility Indexes (CUIs).

RESULTS

242 subjects with anxiety and mood disorders were included. The NIAAA single-item test showed high sensitivity (91.9%) and specificity (91.2%) for DSM-5 alcohol use disorder. The positive CUI was 0.601, whereas the negative one was 0.898, with excellent values also accounting for main individual characteristics (age, gender, diagnosis, psychological distress levels, smoking status).

DISCUSSION

Testing for relevant indexes, we found an excellent clinical utility of the NIAAA single-item test for screening true negative cases. Our findings support a routine use of reliable methods for rapid screening in similar mental health settings.

Substance Use in Women of Reproductive Age

Using anonymous exit questionnaires in a university OB/GYN clinic, of 165 pregnant women reporting on drinking prior to pregnancy, 26% screened positive for hazardous or harmful drinking. Among 153 non-pregnant women age 50 or younger, 39% screened positive. Of those, 85% had no plans to change their alcohol consumption, as most believed their drinking levels were not risky; 80% had a significant risk of becoming pregnant, but 85% believed pregnancy was unlikely.

CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain - United States, 2016

This guideline provides recommendations for primary care clinicians who are prescribing opioids for chronic pain outside of active cancer treatment, palliative care, and end-of-life care. The guideline addresses 1) when to initiate or continue opioids for chronic pain; 2) opioid selection, dosage, duration, follow-up, and discontinuation; and 3) assessing risk and addressing harms of opioid use. CDC developed the guideline using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework, and recommendations are made on the basis of a systematic review of the scientific evidence while considering benefits and harms, values and preferences, and resource allocation. CDC obtained input from experts, stakeholders, the public, peer reviewers, and a federally chartered advisory committee. It is important that patients receive appropriate pain treatment with careful consideration of the benefits and risks of treatment options. This guideline is intended to improve communication between clinicians and patients about the risks and benefits of opioid therapy for chronic pain, improve the safety and effectiveness of pain treatment, and reduce the risks associated with long-term opioid therapy, including opioid use disorder, overdose, and death. CDC has provided a checklist for prescribing opioids for chronic pain (http://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/38025) as well as a website (http://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/prescribingresources.html) with additional tools to guide clinicians in implementing the recommendations.

Adolescent Alcohol Use in Spain: Connections with Friends, School, and Other Delinquent Behaviors

This study examined the connections between adolescent alcohol use in Alicante, Spain and variables reflecting adolescents' academic problems, potentially delinquent behaviors, friends' alcohol consumption, and friendship quality. Information about alcohol use and a number of school and social variables was collected from adolescent students (N = 567) who completed the National Students School-Based Drug Survey in a classroom setting. Results suggested that gender was not significantly associated with alcohol use, although alcohol use increased with age and was more likely for adolescents enrolled in public schools compared to private. After controlling for age and type of school (public vs. private), academic problems explained 5.1% of the variance in adolescents' alcohol use, potentially delinquent behaviors explained 29.0%, friends' alcohol use 16.8%, and friendship quality 1.6%. When all unique predictors from these four models were included in a comprehensive model, they explained 32.3% of the variance in adolescents' alcohol use. In this final model, getting expelled, participating in a fight, going out at night, the hour at which one returns, and the number of friends who have consumed alcohol were uniquely and positively associated with adolescents' alcohol use. These results provide important information about multi-system influences on adolescent alcohol use in Alicante, Spain and suggest potential areas of focus for intervention research.

Validation of Self-Administered Single-Item Screening Questions (SISQs) for Unhealthy Alcohol and Drug Use in Primary Care Patients

BACKGROUND

Very brief single-item screening questions (SISQs) for alcohol and other drug use can facilitate screening in health care settings, but are not widely used. Self-administered versions of the SISQs could ease barriers to their implementation.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to validate SISQs for self-administration in primary care patients.

DESIGN

Participants completed SISQs for alcohol and drugs (illicit and prescription misuse) on touchscreen tablet computers. Self-reported reference standard measures of unhealthy use, and more specifically of risky consumption, problem use, and substance use disorders, were then administered by an interviewer, and saliva drug tests were collected.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult patients aged 21-65 years were consecutively enrolled from two urban safety-net primary care clinics.

MAIN MEASURES

The SISQs were compared against reference standards to determine sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for alcohol and drug use.

KEY RESULTS

Among the 459 participants, 22 % reported unhealthy alcohol use and 25 % reported drug use in the past year. The SISQ-alcohol had sensitivity of 73.3 % (95 % CI 65.3-80.3) and specificity of 84.7 % (95 % CI 80.2-88.5), AUC = 0.79 (95 % CI 0.75-0.83), for detecting unhealthy alcohol use, and sensitivity of 86.7 % (95 % CI 75.4-94.1) and specificity of 74.2 % (95 % CI 69.6-78.4), AUC = 0.80 (95 % CI 0.76-0.85), for alcohol use disorder. The SISQ-drug had sensitivity of 71.3 % (95 % CI 62.4-79.1) and specificity of 94.3 % (95 % CI 91.3-96.6), AUC = 0.83 (95 % CI 0.79-0.87), for detecting unhealthy drug use, and sensitivity of 85.1 (95 % CI 75.0-92.3) and specificity of 88.6 % (95 % CI 85.0-91.6), AUC = 0.87 (95 % CI 0.83-0.91), for drug use disorder.

CONCLUSIONS

The self-administered SISQs are a valid approach to detecting unhealthy alcohol and other drug use in primary care patients. Although self-administered SISQs may be less accurate than the previously validated interviewer-administered versions, they are potentially easier to implement and more likely to retain their fidelity in real-world practice settings.

Primary Care Management of Alcohol Misuse

More than one in four American adults consume alcohol in quantities exceeding recommended limits. One in 12 have an alcohol use disorder marked by harmful consequences. Both types of alcohol misuse contribute to acute injury and chronic disease, making alcohol the third largest cause of preventable death in the United States. Alcohol misuse alters the management of common conditions from insomnia to anemia. Primary care providers should screen adult patients to identify the full spectrum of alcohol misuse. A range of effective treatments are available - from brief counselling interventions and mutual help groups to medications and behavioral therapies.

Patient perceptions of risky drinking: Knowledge of daily and weekly low-risk guidelines and standard drink sizes

BACKGROUND

Effective intervention for risky drinking requires that clinicians and patients know low-risk daily and weekly guidelines and what constitutes a "standard drink." The authors hypothesized that most patients lack this knowledge, and that education is required.

METHODS

Following primary care visits, patients completed anonymous exit questionnaires that included the 3 Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C) questions, "How many drinks (containing alcohol) can you safely have in one day?" and questions about size, in ounces, of a standard drink of wine, beer, and liquor. Descriptive analyses were done in Stata.

RESULTS

Of 1,331 respondents (60% female, mean age: 49.6, SD = 17.5), 21% screened positive on the AUDIT-C for risky drinking. Only 10% of those accurately estimated daily low-risk limits, with 9% accurate on weekly limits, and half estimated low-risk limits at or below guidelines. Fewer than half who checked "Yes" to "Do you know what a 'standard drink' is?" provided accurate answers for beer, wine, or liquor. Patients with a positive screen were twice as likely to say they knew what a standard drink is, but only a third gave accurate estimates. When asked about plans in the next month regarding change in drinking behavior, 23% with a positive AUDIT-C indicated they were at least considering a change.

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients in primary care don't know specifics of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) guidelines for low-risk drinking. Exploring patient perceptions of low-risk guidelines and current drinking behavior may reveal discrepancies worth discussing. For risky drinkers, most of whom don't know daily and weekly low-risk guidelines or standard drink sizes, education can be vital in intervening. Findings suggest the need for detailed and explicit social marketing and communication on exactly what low-risk drinking entails.

Recreational drug use among primary care patients: implications of a positive self-report

Should recreational drug use raise clinical concern? We examined the association between weekend-only recreational drug use at baseline (yes vs no) and any increase in recreational drug use frequency or severity over 6 months among primary care patients who screen positive for drug use. In the weekend-only recreational drug use group (52/483 [10.8%]), 54% (28/52) started using drugs on weekdays. Compared with use not limited to weekends, weekend-only use was associated with lower odds of increasing drug use frequency (AOR 0.48, P = 0.03) and lower odds (non-significant) of increasing severity (AOR 0.56, P = 0.07). Although weekend-only recreational drug use appears prognostically less severe, the findings nonetheless suggest that continued episodic monitoring may be clinically wise.