TY - JOUR
T1 - Use of Amphetamine-Type Stimulants Among Emergency Department Patients With Untreated Opioid Use Disorder
AU - Chawarski, Marek C.
AU - Hawk, Kathryn
AU - Edelman, E. Jennifer
AU - O'Connor, Patrick
AU - Owens, Patricia
AU - Martel, Shara
AU - Coupet, Edouard
AU - Whiteside, Lauren
AU - Tsui, Judith I.
AU - Rothman, Richard
AU - Cowan, Ethan
AU - Richardson, Lynne
AU - Lyons, Michael S.
AU - Fiellin, David A.
AU - D'Onofrio, Gail
N1 - Funding Information:
Funding and support: By Annals policy, all authors are required to disclose any and all commercial, financial, and other relationships in any way related to the subject of this article as per ICMJE conflict of interest guidelines (see www.icmje.org ). The authors have stated that no such relationships exist. Funded by National Institute on Drug Abuse grants 5UG1DA015831-15 (CTN-0069) and K12 DA033312-06 .
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 American College of Emergency Physicians
PY - 2020/12
Y1 - 2020/12
N2 - Study objective: Concurrent use of amphetamine-type stimulants among individuals with opioid use disorder can exacerbate social and medical harms, including overdose risk. The study evaluated rates of amphetamine-type stimulant use among patients with untreated opioid use disorder presenting at emergency departments in Baltimore, MD; New York, NY; Cincinnati, OH; and Seattle, WA. Methods: Emergency department (ED) patients with untreated opioid use disorder (N=396) and enrolled between February 2017 and January 2019 in a multisite hybrid type III implementation science study were evaluated for concurrent amphetamine-type stimulant use. Individuals with urine tests positive for methamphetamine, amphetamine, or both were compared with amphetamine-type stimulant–negative patients. Results: Overall, 38% of patients (150/396) were amphetamine-type stimulant positive; none reported receiving prescribed amphetamine or methamphetamine medications. Amphetamine-type stimulant–positive versus –negative patients were younger: mean age was 36 years (SD 10 years) versus 40 years (SD 12 years), 69% (104/150) versus 46% (114/246) were white, 65% (98/150) versus 54% (132/246) were unemployed, 67% (101/150) versus 49 (121/246) had unstable housing, 47% (71/150) versus 25% (61/245) reported an incarceration during 1 year before study admission, 60% (77/128) versus 45% (87/195) were hepatitis C positive, 79% (118/150) versus 47% (115/245) reported drug injection during 1 month before the study admission, and 42% (62/149) versus 29% (70/244) presented to the ED for an injury. Lower proportions of amphetamine-type stimulant–positive patients had cocaine-positive urine test results (33% [50/150] versus 52% [129/246]) and reported seeking treatment for substance use problems as a reason for their ED visit (10% [14/148] versus 19% [46/246]). All comparisons were statistically significant at P<.05 with the false discovery rate correction. Conclusion: Amphetamine-type stimulant use among ED patients with untreated opioid use disorder was associated with distinct sociodemographic, social, and health factors. Improved ED-based screening, intervention, and referral protocols for patients with opioid use disorder and amphetamine-type stimulant use are needed.
AB - Study objective: Concurrent use of amphetamine-type stimulants among individuals with opioid use disorder can exacerbate social and medical harms, including overdose risk. The study evaluated rates of amphetamine-type stimulant use among patients with untreated opioid use disorder presenting at emergency departments in Baltimore, MD; New York, NY; Cincinnati, OH; and Seattle, WA. Methods: Emergency department (ED) patients with untreated opioid use disorder (N=396) and enrolled between February 2017 and January 2019 in a multisite hybrid type III implementation science study were evaluated for concurrent amphetamine-type stimulant use. Individuals with urine tests positive for methamphetamine, amphetamine, or both were compared with amphetamine-type stimulant–negative patients. Results: Overall, 38% of patients (150/396) were amphetamine-type stimulant positive; none reported receiving prescribed amphetamine or methamphetamine medications. Amphetamine-type stimulant–positive versus –negative patients were younger: mean age was 36 years (SD 10 years) versus 40 years (SD 12 years), 69% (104/150) versus 46% (114/246) were white, 65% (98/150) versus 54% (132/246) were unemployed, 67% (101/150) versus 49 (121/246) had unstable housing, 47% (71/150) versus 25% (61/245) reported an incarceration during 1 year before study admission, 60% (77/128) versus 45% (87/195) were hepatitis C positive, 79% (118/150) versus 47% (115/245) reported drug injection during 1 month before the study admission, and 42% (62/149) versus 29% (70/244) presented to the ED for an injury. Lower proportions of amphetamine-type stimulant–positive patients had cocaine-positive urine test results (33% [50/150] versus 52% [129/246]) and reported seeking treatment for substance use problems as a reason for their ED visit (10% [14/148] versus 19% [46/246]). All comparisons were statistically significant at P<.05 with the false discovery rate correction. Conclusion: Amphetamine-type stimulant use among ED patients with untreated opioid use disorder was associated with distinct sociodemographic, social, and health factors. Improved ED-based screening, intervention, and referral protocols for patients with opioid use disorder and amphetamine-type stimulant use are needed.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85089253610&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2020.06.046
DO - 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2020.06.046
M3 - Article
C2 - 32782084
AN - SCOPUS:85089253610
SN - 0196-0644
VL - 76
SP - 782
EP - 787
JO - Annals of Emergency Medicine
JF - Annals of Emergency Medicine
IS - 6
ER -