Unhealthy alcohol use (UAU) is particularly dangerous for people with chronic liver disease. Liver clinics may be an important setting in which to provide effective alcohol-related care by integrating evidence-based strategies, such as brief intervention and medications for alcohol use disorder. We conducted qualitative interviews with clinical stakeholders and patients at liver clinics in four Veterans Health Administration (VA) medical centers to understand barriers and facilitators of integrating alcohol-related care and to support tailoring of a practice facilitation implementation intervention.
Data collection and analysis were guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Interviews were transcribed and qualitatively analyzed using a Rapid Assessment Process (RAP) guided by the CFIR.
We interviewed 46 clinical stakeholders and 41 patient participants and analyzed findings based on the CFIR. Clinical stakeholders described barriers and facilitators that ranged from operations/clinic resource-based (e.g., time and capacity, desire for additional provider types, referral processes) to individual perspective and preference-based (e.g., supportiveness of leadership, individual experiences/beliefs). Patient participants shared barriers and facilitators that ranged from relationship-based (e.g., trusting the provider and feeling judged) to resource and education-based (e.g., connection to a range of treatment options, education about impact of alcohol). Many barriers and facilitators to integrating alcohol-related care in liver clinics were similar to those identified in other clinical settings (e.g., time, resources, role clarity, stigmatizing beliefs). However, some barriers (e.g., fellow-led care and lack of integration of liver clinics with addictions specialists) and facilitators (e.g., presence of quality improvement staff in clinics and integrated pharmacists and behavioral health specialists) were more unique to liver clinics.
These findings support the possibility of integrating alcohol-related care into liver clinics but highlight the importance of tailoring efforts to account for variation in provider beliefs and experiences and clinic resources. The barriers and facilitators identified in these interviews were used to tailor a practice facilitation implementation intervention in each clinic setting.

BACKGROUND: The screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) model is recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force to improve recognition of and intervention for unhealthy alcohol use. How SBIRT implementation differs by demographic characteristics is poorly understood.
METHODS: We analyzed data from the 2015-2019 National Survey on Drug Use and Health from respondents ≥18 years old who used an outpatient clinic and had at least one alcoholic drink within the past year. Respondents were grouped into one of three mutually exclusive groups: \"no binge drinking or alcohol use disorder (AUD),\" \"binge drinking without AUD,\" or \"AUD.\" Outcome variables were likelihood of screening, brief intervention (BI), referral to treatment (RT), and AUD treatment. The demographic predictors on which outcomes were regressed included gender, age, race and ethnicity, sexual orientation, insurance status, and history of military involvement. Consistent with SBIRT guidelines, the entire sample was included in the screening model; screened persons with either binge drinking without AUD or with AUD were included in the BI model; screened persons with AUD were included in the RT model, and persons referred to treatment with AUD were included in the AUD treatment model.
RESULTS: Analyses included 120,804 respondents. Women were more likely than men to be screened, but less likely to receive BI or RT. When referred to treatment, women were more likely than men to receive it. Persons aged ≥50 were least likely to be screened about alcohol, but most likely to receive BI, while persons aged 18-25 were least likely to receive BI or AUD treatment. Racial and ethnic minorities were less likely than White persons to be screened; Asians were less likely to receive RT, and Black persons were less likely to receive treatment than White persons. Persons identifying as gay, lesbian, or bisexual were equally as likely or more likely to receive SBIRT or AUD treatment as those identifying as heterosexual. Persons without insurance were less likely to be screened than those with insurance. Persons with a history of military involvement were more likely to be screened and receive BI and RT than persons who had not served in the military.
CONCLUSIONS: Demographic disparities in SBIRT implementation exist. Addressing the sources of these disparities and minimizing attrition from care could improve outcomes for persons with unhealthy alcohol use.

Anxiety is implicated in the course and prognosis of alcohol use disorder (AUD); however, it is unclear how current AUD treatments affect the joint trajectories of anxiety and alcohol use. We used data from the Combined Pharmacotherapies and Behavioral Interventions for Alcohol Dependence (COMBINE) study to examine the longitudinal relationship between subclinical anxiety symptoms and alcohol use during and following AUD treatment in adults with AUD and no comorbid anxiety disorders.
Univariate and parallel process growth models using five waves of COMBINE study data were analyzed from 865 adults randomized to medication (n = 429) or medication plus psychotherapy (n = 436). Weekly drinking quantity and average weekly anxiety symptoms were measured at baseline, mid-treatment, end-of-treatment, and three follow-up periods.
Significant positive associations of anxiety symptoms and drinking were found at mid-treatment and over time. Temporal associations revealed that higher mid-treatment anxiety predicted decreases in drinking over time. Baseline anxiety and drinking predicted mid-treatment anxiety and drinking. Only baseline anxiety predicted increases in drinking over time. Group differences revealed mid-treatment drinking predicted decreases in anxiety over time in the medication group.
Findings demonstrate the influence of subclinical anxiety on alcohol use during and up to one year after AUD treatment. Baseline anxiety symptoms may influence drinking behavior over the course of treatment. Findings suggest that greater attention to negative affect in AUD treatment is warranted even for those individuals who do have a comorbid anxiety disorder.

Background: Alcohol use disorder (AUD) treatments, including medications, are increasingly offered via telehealth.Objective: This study characterizes 90-day treatment retention and changes in objectively measured blood alcohol concentration (BAC) in a large cohort receiving AUD telehealth.Methods: Patients received AUD treatment through Ria, a virtual (telehealth) program offering AUD treatment that is tailored to patient goals (e.g. abstinence or controlled drinking). Patients were encouraged to complete breathalyzer readings twice daily for measurement-based care. We characterized rates of 90-day treatment retention (i.e. completing a BAC reading or medical/coaching encounter on the 90th day or later) and used growth curve analyses to model changes in daily estimated peak BAC over 90 days.Results: Of 4121 patients (51.5% women), 50.1% had 90-day treatment retention (n = 2066, 52.2% women). Most patients received prescriptions for AUD medications (84.6%) and completed encounters with medical providers (86.7%) and coaches (86.1%). Patients with 90-day retention provided 184,817 BAC readings in the first 90 days. Growth curve analyses revealed significant reductions in daily estimated peak BAC (p < .001) from a mean of 0.092 (day 1) to 0.038 (day 90). Similar magnitudes of BAC reduction were observed for men and women and for patients with abstinence and controlled drinking goals.Conclusion: Telehealth appears to be a viable approach to delivering AUD treatments in a manner that promotes drinking reductions. Telehealth approaches can yield reductions in objectively measured BAC, including for some patient subgroups that have historically faced greater stigma in AUD treatment settings, such as women and people with non-abstinence drinking goals.

The National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) recently released a new definition of recovery from alcohol use disorder (AUD). A patient is considered recovered if they are remitted from DSM-5 AUD and report cessation of heavy drinking. The NIAAA has also recently proposed the Addictions Neuroclinical Assessment (ANA) to guide treatment research. Negative emotionality is one of three domains of the ANA and theory proposes that AUD is maintained by negative reinforcement via the relief of negative affect. The purpose of the current study was to examine: (1) the relationship of end-of-treatment negative emotionality and NIAAA recovery, and (2) the ability of NIAAA recovery at the end of treatment to predict three- and six-month drinking outcomes.
At baseline and end-of-treatment, women and men (n = 181) in treatment for AUD completed measures of negative emotionality, drinking, and were assessed for DSM-5 AUD diagnostic criteria. At three- and six-months post-treatment, drinking was re-assessed.
22.5% (n = 24) of participants met full criteria for NIAAA recovery at end-of-treatment. Lower levels of end of treatment negative emotionality were associated with increased odds of achieving NIAAA recovery. Meeting NIAAA recovery predicted greater percent days abstinent (PDA) and lower percent heavy drinking days (PHDD) at 3-months, but not at 6-months post-treatment.
This study is among the first to report a relationship between the negative emotionality domain of the ANA and NIAAA recovery. Results underscore the importance of addressing negative emotionality in treatment. Findings also suggest that NIAAA recovery predicts positive short term drinking outcomes.

Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is a serious public health problem. Over 3.3 million people worldwide die each year due to alcohol-related causes, which is almost 5.3% of all deaths. This systematic review examines the effectiveness of injectable naltrexone treatment for people with AUD based on randomized clinical trial studies conducted between January 2004 and December 2019. Following PRISMA-P, this review searched PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for relevant studies. The inclusion criteria were AUD treatment, injectable naltrexone, and randomized clinical trials. Only articles written in English, involving human participants, and published in peer-reviewed journals were considered for this review. A total of 11 studies met the inclusion criteria. Ten out of the 11 studies assessed the impact of injectable naltrexone in a 3- to 6-month follow-up period, with one study having a year follow-up. This systematic review indicates that overall, injectable naltrexone therapy produced positive AUD treatment outcomes, including reduced mean time to first drinking day and/or heavy drinking day, decreased number of drinking and/or heavy drinking days, and increased abstinence, frequently at a statistically significant level in the larger studies. However, in all studies, less than half of the participants were completely abstinent after receiving injectable naltrexone. Injectable naltrexone treatment along with psychosocial therapy holds promise for addressing AUD.

Alcohol use is a significant risk factor for disability and death in U.S. adults, and approximately one out of every six Veterans seen in primary care (PC) report unhealthy alcohol use. Unhealthy alcohol use is associated with increased risk for poor medical outcomes, substantial societal costs, and death, including suicide. Based on substantial evidence from randomized controlled trials and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, VA/DoD clinical guidelines stipulate that all Veterans screening positive for unhealthy alcohol use should receive evidence-based alcohol care in PC, including brief counseling interventions (BI) and additional treatment (e.g., pharmacotherapy) for those with alcohol use disorders (AUD). The VA pioneered implementing alcohol screening and BI in PC, yet substantial implementation gaps remain. To improve alcohol-related care, this study will conduct a pilot study to assess whether a multi-faceted evidence-based implementation strategy-practice facilitation-has the potential to improve PC-based alcohol-related care at a single VA clinic.
We will first recruit and conduct qualitative interviews with Veterans with unhealthy alcohol use (n = 20-25) and PC stakeholders (N = 10-15) to understand barriers and facilitators to high-quality alcohol care and use results to refine and hone the multifaceted practice facilitation intervention. Qualitative interviews, analysis, and refinement of the intervention will be guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Focus groups with a small sample of PC providers and staff (n = 5-7) will be used to further refine the practice facilitation intervention and assess its acceptability and feasibility. The refined practice facilitation intervention will then be offered in the PC clinic to assess implementation (e.g., reach) and effectiveness (reduced drinking) outcomes based on the RE-AIM framework.
This research directly addresses one of the largest public health crises of our time, as alcohol kills more people than opioids and is associated with increased risk of suicide. If successful, this pilot may generate an intervention with far-reaching effects on adverse outcomes experienced by Veterans with unhealthy alcohol use, including increased access to care and suicide prevention. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT04565899; Date of registration: 9/25/2020.

Alcohol-involved overdose deaths are increasing and often occur with other substances but have been minimally studied compared to other causes of overdose.
We used national Veterans Health Administration (VHA) records linked to National Death Index data from 2012 to 2018 to examine trends in alcohol-related overdose mortality. Patient characteristics and treatment receipt were compared across categories of alcohol overdose deaths (alcohol-only, alcohol+opioids which may include additional substances, and alcohol+other substances without opioids).
From 2012-2018, 2421 Veterans died from an alcohol-involved overdose (alcohol-only: 868, alcohol+opioids: 1269, alcohol+other substances: 284). The alcohol-involved overdose rate increased 57% during this period. Compared to those who died of an alcohol-only overdose, Veterans who died from alcohol+opioids and alcohol+other substances were more likely Black or Hispanic, and to have an opioid use disorder, but less likely to live in rural areas or to be diagnosed with alcohol use disorder (AUD). Only 32.5% of those who died from alcohol-involved overdose received treatment in a substance use disorder clinic in the year preceding death, compared to 65.1% seen in mental health and 85.7% in primary care. Only 9.5% of Veterans who died from alcohol overdose received medication treatment for AUD and 24.8% received psychotherapy for AUD in the year preceding death.
Alcohol overdose is increasing primarily related to overdoses involving opioids and other substances. Most patients did not receive any effective medication or psychotherapy treatments for AUD, suggesting further need to identify those at risk and to target treatment for this vulnerable group in healthcare settings.

UNASSIGNED: Alcohol-related care, including screening, brief intervention, and provision of/referral to medication or behavioral treatments for alcohol use disorder, could be delivered in liver clinics to better reach patients with chronic liver conditions. However, the provision of alcohol-related care in liver clinics is currently suboptimal. Practice facilitation is an evidence-based implementation strategy that may address barriers, harness facilitators, and optimize the implementation of alcohol-related care in liver clinic settings using a clinic-centered approach. We report the protocol of a study to test a practice facilitation intervention to implement alcohol-related care in four Veterans Health Administration liver clinics.
UNASSIGNED: This study will employ a Hybrid Type 3 effectiveness-implementation design, in which implementation outcomes are considered primary and clinical outcomes secondary. Intervention and evaluation design were informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Qualitative data collected from clinical stakeholders and patients were used to tailor the intervention. The intervention involves a 6-month period of external practice facilitation, including regular meetings to identify clinic goals, challenges, and solutions; engagement of clinic champions; provision of training and development of educational materials for clinic staff and patients; and performance monitoring and feedback. Ongoing formative evaluation involves the collection of quantitative facilitator tracking data and qualitative data from meeting notes and patient interviews to describe intervention acceptability, feasibility, and adoption, and adjust implementation as needed. In the summative evaluation, implementation outcomes (clinic rates of screening, brief intervention, and treatment referral/receipt) and clinical outcomes (unhealthy alcohol use, liver health) will be assessed among patients in participating clinics using secondary electronic health record data and interrupted time series analysis.
UNASSIGNED: This will be the first study to our knowledge to test practice facilitation to implement alcohol-related care in liver clinic settings. Results from formative and summative evaluation will inform a framework for the successful implementation of effective alcohol-related care through practice facilitation in liver clinics, which may ultimately lead to better health outcomes for patients with chronic liver disease.

The Addictions Neuroclinical Assessment (ANA), a framework for measuring heterogeneity in alcohol use disorder (AUD), focuses on 3 domains that reflect neurobiological dysfunction in addiction and correspond to the cycles of addiction: executive function, incentive salience, and negative emotionality. Kwako and colleagues (Am J Psychiatry 176:744, 2019) validated a 3-factor model of the ANA with neuropsychological and self-report indicators among treatment-seekers and non-treatment-seekers with and without AUD. The present analysis replicated and extended these findings in a treatment-seeking sample, focusing on the negative emotionality domain.
Participants (n = 563; 58.8% male; mean age = 34.3) were part of a multisite prospective study of individuals entering AUD treatment. We examined the factor structure of the negative emotionality domain at the baseline, 6-month follow-up, and 12-month follow-up assessments. The Beck Depression Inventory, Beck Anxiety Inventory, State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory-Trait Anger Subscale, and 3 Drinker Inventory of Consequences items assessing negative affective consequences were indicators in the model.
Results indicated that a 1-factor model was an excellent fit at all assessments and that the negative emotionality domain was time and gender invariant. Furthermore, negative emotionality was associated with drinking patterns and reasons for alcohol use (i.e., drinking because of negative emotions and urges/withdrawal) at all assessments.
This analysis provides evidence for the construct validity and measurement invariance of the ANA negative emotionality domain among AUD treatment-seekers. Future studies are needed to evaluate prospective associations between negative emotionality and specific treatment modalities, and whether individuals with greater negative emotionality are more likely to respond to treatment that targets drinking to relieve negative affective states.