Background Unintentional overdose involving opioid analgesics is a leading cause of injury-related death in the United States. Objectives To evaluate the feasibility and impact of implementing naloxone prescription to patients prescribed opioids for chronic pain. Design 2-year non-randomized intervention study. Setting 6 safety net primary care clinics in San Francisco. Participants 1985 adults receiving long-term opioids for pain. Intervention Providers and clinic staff were trained and supported in naloxone prescribing. Measurements Outcomes were proportion of patients prescribed naloxone, opioid-related emergency department (ED) visits, and prescribed opioid dose based on chart review. Results 38.2% of 1,985 patients on long-term opioids were prescribed naloxone. Patients on higher doses of opioids and with a past 12-month opioid-related emergency department (ED) visit were independently more likely to be prescribed naloxone. Patients who received a naloxone prescription had 47% fewer opioid-related ED visits per month six months after the receipt of the prescription (IRR=0.53, 95%CI=0.34–0.83, P=0.005) and 63% fewer visits after one year (IRR=0.37, 95%CI=0.22–0.64, P<0.001), compared to patients who did not receive naloxone. There was no net change over time in opioid dose among those who received naloxone compared to those who did not (IRR 1.03, 95% CI 0.91–1.27, P = 0.61). Limitations Results are observational and may not be generalizable beyond safety net settings. Conclusion Naloxone can be co-prescribed to primary care patients prescribed opioids for pain. When advised to offer naloxone to all patients on opioids, providers may prioritize those with established risk factors. Providing naloxone in primary care settings may have ancillary benefits such as reducing opioid-related adverse events. Funding Source National Institutes of Health grant R21DA036776

Background Clinical, experimental, and ethnographic research suggests that cannabis may be used to help manage pain. Ethnographic research has revealed that some people are using cannabis to temper their illicit opioid use. We seek to learn if there is an association between cannabis use and the frequency of nonmedical opioid use among people who inject drugs (PWID). Methods PWID were recruited using targeted sampling methods in Los Angeles and San Francisco, California, 2011–2013. We limited analysis to people who used opioids in past 30 days (N=653). Outcome variable: number of times used any opioids non-medically in past 30 days. Explanatory variable: any cannabis use past 30 days. Statistics: multivariable linear regression with a log-transformed outcome variable. Results About half reported cannabis use in the past 30 days. The mean and median number of times using opioids in past 30 days were significantly lower for people who used cannabis than those who did not use cannabis (mean: 58.3 vs. 76.4 times; median: 30 vs 60 times, respectively; p<0.003). In multivariable analysis, people who used cannabis used opioids less often than those who did not use cannabis (Beta: −0.346; 95% confidence interval: −0.575, −0.116; p<0.003). Conclusions There is a statistical association between recent cannabis use and lower frequency of nonmedical opioid use among PWID. This may suggest that PWID use cannabis to reduce their pain and/or nonmedical use of opioids. However, more research, including prospective longitudinal studies, is needed to determine the validity of these findings.

BACKGROUND: Naloxone co-prescription is recommended for patients on long-term opioids for pain, yet there are few data on the practice. OBJECTIVE: To explore naloxone co-prescribing acceptability among primary care providers for patients on longterm opioids. DESIGN: We surveyed providers at six safety-net primary care clinics in San Francisco that had initiated naloxone co-prescribing. Providers were encouraged to offer naloxone to patients on long-term opioids or otherwise at risk of witnessing or experiencing an overdose. Surveys were administered electronically 4 to 11 months after coprescribing began. KEY RESULTS: One hundred eleven providers (69 %) responded to the survey, among whom 41.4 % were residents; 40.5 % practiced internal medicine and 55.0 % practiced family medicine. Most (79.3 %) prescribed naloxone, to a mean of 7.7 patients; 99.1 % were likely to prescribe naloxone in the future. Providers reported they were likely to prescribe naloxone to most patients, including those on low doses, defined as <20 morphine equivalent mg daily (59.8 %), ≥65 years old (83.9 %), with no overdose history (80.7 %), and with no substance use disorder (73.6 %). Most providers felt that prescribing naloxone did not affect their opioid prescribing, 22.5 % felt that they might prescribe fewer opioids, and 3.6 % felt that they might prescribe more. Concerns about providing naloxone were largely administrative, relating to time and pharmacy or payer logistics. Internists (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 0.49, 95 % CI = 0.26-0.93, p = 0.029), those licensed for 5-20 years (IRR = 2.10, 95 % CI = 1.35-3.25, p = 0.001), and those with more patients prescribed longterm opioids (IRR = 1.10, 95 % CI = 1.05-1.14, p <0.001) were independently more likely to prescribe a greater number of naloxone compared to participants without these exposures. CONCLUSIONS: Naloxone co-prescription is considered acceptable among primary care providers. Barriers such as time and dispensing logistics may be alleviated by novel naloxone formulations intended for laypersons recently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Background Concomitant use of opioids and promethazine has been reported in various subpopulations, including methadone maintenance patients, injection drug users, and at-risk teenagers. Promethazine is thought to potentiate the “high” from opioids. However, to date, the prevalence of promethazine use has not been determined among patients prescribed opioids for chronic pain. Methods Urine samples from 921 patients prescribed opioids for chronic pain were analyzed for promethazine. Demographic data, toxicology results, and opioid prescription information were obtained through medical record abstraction. We assessed the prevalence and factors associated with promethazine use with bivariable and multivariable statistics. Results The prevalence of promethazine-positive urine samples among chronic pain patients was 9%. Only 50% of promethazine-positive patients had an active prescription for promethazine. Having benzodiazepine-positive urine with no prescription for a benzodiazepine was statistically associated with promethazine use. Also, having a prescription for methadone for pain or being in methadone maintenance for the treatment of opioid dependence were both statistically associated with promethazine use. Chronic pain patients prescribed only a long-acting opioid were more likely to have promethazine-positive urines than patients prescribed a short-acting opioid. Conclusions The study provides compelling evidence of significant promethazine use in chronic pain patients. Promethazine should be considered as a potential drug of abuse that could cause increased morbidity in opioid-using populations.

Across the USA, morbidity and mortality from substance use are rising as reflected by increases in acute care hospitalisations for substance use complications and substance-related deaths. Patients with substance use disorders (SUD) have long and costly hospitalisations and higher readmission rates compared to those without SUD. Hospitalisation presents an opportunity to diagnose and treat individuals with SUD and connect them to ongoing care. However, SUD care often remains unaddressed by hospital providers due to lack of a systems approach and addiction medicine knowledge, and is compounded by stigma. We present a blueprint to launching an interprofessional inpatient addiction care team embedded in the hospital medicine division of an urban, safety-net integrated health system. We describe key factors for successful implementation including: (1) demonstrating the scope and impact of SUD in our health system via a needs assessment; (2) aligning improvement areas with health system leadership priorities; (3) involving executive leadership to create goal and initiative alignment; and (4) obtaining seed funding for a pilot programme from our Medicaid health plan partner. We also present challenges and lessons learnt.