Addiction Medicine

Off-label prescribing (OLP) refers to the practice of using medications for indications outside of those approved by the FDA, or in dosages, dose forms, or patient populations that have not been approved by the FDA.¹ OLP is common, occurring in many practice settings and nearly every medical specialty. In a 2006 review, Radley et al² found OLP accounted for 21% of the overall use of 160 common medications. The frequency of OLP varies between medication classes. Off-label use of anticonvulsants, antidepressants, and antipsychotics tends to be higher than that of other medications.^3,4 OLP is often more common in patient populations unlikely to be included in clinical trials due to ethical or logistical difficulties, such as pediatric patients and individuals who are pregnant. The Box summarizes several components that contribute to the prevalence of OLP and explains why this practice is often necessary for treating certain substance-related and addictive disorders.

Box

Several important medicolegal and ethical considerations surround OLP. The FDA prohibits off-label promotion, in which manufacturers advertise the use of a medication for off-label use.⁵ However, regulations allow physicians to use their best clinical judgment when prescribing medications for off-label use. When considering off-label use of any medication, physicians should review the most up-to-date research, including clinical trials, case reports, and reviews to safely support their decision-making. OLP should be guided by ethical principles such as autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice. Physicians should obtain informed consent by conducting an appropriate discussion of the risks, benefits, and alternatives of off-label medications. This conversation should be clearly documented, and physicians should provide written material regarding off-label options to patients when available. Finally, physicians should verify their patients’ understanding of this discussion, and allow patients to accept or decline off-label medications without pressure.

This article focuses on current and potential future medications available for OLP to treat patients with alcohol use disorder (AUD), gambling disorder (GD), stimulant use disorder, and cannabis use disorder.

Alcohol use disorder

CASE 1

Ms. X, age 67, has a history of severe AUD, mild renal impairment, and migraines. She presents to the outpatient clinic seeking help to drink less alcohol. Ms. X reports drinking 1 to 2 bottles of wine each day. She was previously treated for AUD but was not helped by naltrexone and did not tolerate disulfiram (abstinence was not her goal and she experienced significant adverse effects). Ms. X says she has a medical history of chronic migraines but denies other medical issues. The treatment team discusses alternative pharmacologic options, including acamprosate and topiramate. After outlining the dosing schedule and risks/benefits with Ms. X, you make the joint decision to start topiramate to reduce alcohol cravings and target her migraine symptoms.

Only 3 medications are FDA-approved for treating AUD: disulfiram, naltrexone (oral and injectable formulations), and acamprosate. Off-label options for AUD treatment include gabapentin, topiramate, and baclofen.

Gabapentin is FDA-approved for treating postherpetic neuralgia and partial seizures in patients age ≥3. The exact mechanism of action is unclear, though its effects are possibly related to its activity as a calcium channel ligand. It also carries a structural resemblance to gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), though it lacks activity at GABA receptors.

Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of gabapentin for AUD produced promising results. In a comparison of gabapentin vs placebo for AUD, Anton et al⁶ found gabapentin led to significant increases in the number of participants with total alcohol abstinence and participants who reported reduced drinking. Notably, the effect was most prominent in those with heavy drinking patterns and pretreatment alcohol withdrawal symptoms. A total of 41% of participants with high alcohol withdrawal scores on pretreatment evaluation achieved total abstinence while taking gabapentin, compared to 1% in the placebo group.⁶ A meta-analysis of gabapentin for AUD by Kranzler et al⁷ included 7 RCTs and 32 effect measures. It found that although all outcome measures favored gabapentin over placebo, only the percentage of heavy drinking days was significantly different.

Gabapentin is dosed between 300 to 600 mg 3 times per day, but 1 study found that a higher dose (1,800 mg/d) was associated with better outcomes.⁸ Common adverse effects include sedation, dizziness, peripheral edema, and ataxia.

Continue to: Topiramate

Topiramate blocks voltage-gated sodium channels and enhances GABA-A receptor activity.⁹ It is indicated for the treatment of seizures, migraine prophylaxis, weight management, and weight loss. Several clinical trials, including RCTs,^10-12 demonstrated that topiramate was superior to placebo in reducing the percentage of heavy drinking days and overall drinking days. Some also showed that topiramate was associated with abstinence and reduced craving levels.^12,13 A meta-analysis by Blodgett et al¹⁴ found that compared to placebo, topiramate lowered the rate of heavy drinking and increased abstinence.

Topiramate is dosed from 50 to 150 mg twice daily, although some studies suggest a lower dose (≤75 mg/d) may be associated with clinical benefits.^15,16 One important clinical consideration: topiramate must follow a slow titration schedule (4 to 6 weeks) to increase tolerability and avoid adverse effects. Common adverse effects include sedation, word-finding difficulty, paresthesia, increased risk for renal calculi, dizziness, anorexia, and alterations in taste.

Baclofen is a GABA-B agonist FDA-approved for the treatment of muscle spasticity related to multiple sclerosis and reversible spasticity related to spinal cord lesions and multiple sclerosis. Of note, it is approved for treatment of AUD in Europe.

In a meta-analysis of 13 RCTs, Pierce et al¹⁷ found a greater likelihood of abstinence and greater time to first lapse of drinking with baclofen compared to placebo. Interestingly, a subgroup analysis found that the positive effects were limited to trials that used 30 to 60 mg/d of baclofen, and not evident in those that used higher doses. Additionally, there was no difference between baclofen and placebo with regard to several important outcomes, including alcohol cravings, anxiety, depression, or number of total abstinent days. A review by Andrade¹⁸ proposed that individualized treatment with high-dose baclofen (30 to 300 mg/d) may be a useful second-line approach in heavy drinkers who wish to reduce their alcohol intake.

Continue to: Before starting baclofen...

Before starting baclofen, patients should be informed about its adverse effects. Common adverse effects include sedation and motor impairment. More serious but less common adverse effects include seizures, respiratory depression with sleep apnea, severe mood disorders (ie, mania, depression, or suicide risk), and mental confusion. Baclofen should be gradually discontinued, because there is some risk of clinical withdrawal symptoms (ie, agitation, confusion, seizures, or delirium).

Among the medications discussed in this section, the evidence for gabapentin and topiramate is moderate to strong, while the evidence for baclofen is overall weaker or mixed. The American Psychiatric Association’s Practice Guideline suggests offering gabapentin or topiramate to patients with moderate to severe AUD whose goal is to achieve abstinence or reduce alcohol use, or those who prefer gabapentin or topiramate or cannot tolerate or have not responded to naltrexone and acamprosate.¹⁹ Clinicians must ensure patients have no contra­indications to the use of these medications. Due to the moderate quality evidence for a significant reduction in heavy drinking and increased abstinence,^14,20 a practice guideline from the US Department of Veterans Affairs and US Department of Defense²¹ recommends topiramate as 1 of 2 first-line treatments (the other is naltrexone). This guideline suggests gabapentin as a second-line treatment for AUD.²¹

Gambling disorder

CASE 2

Mr. P, age 28, seeks treatment for GD and cocaine use disorder. He reports a 7-year history of sports betting that has increasingly impaired his functioning over the past year. He lost his job, savings, and familial relationships due to his impulsive and risky behavior. Mr. P also reports frequent cocaine use, about 2 to 3 days per week, mostly on the weekends. The psychiatrist tells Mr. P there is no FDA-approved pharmacologic treatment for GD or cocaine use disorder. The psychiatrist discusses the option of naltrexone as off-label treatment for GD with the goal of reducing Mr. P’s urges to gamble, and points to possible benefits for cocaine use disorder.

GD impacts approximately 0.5% of the adult US population and is often co-occurring with substance use disorders.²² It is thought to share neurobiological and clinical similarities with substance use disorders.²³ There are currently no FDA-approved medications to treat the disorder. In studies of GD, treatment success with antidepressants and mood stabilizers has not been consistent,^23,24 but some promising results have been published for the opioid receptor antagonist naltrexone^24-29 and N-acetylcysteine (NAC).^30-32

Naltrexone is thought to reduce gambling behavior and urges via downstream modulation of mesolimbic dopamine circuitry.²⁴ It is FDA-approved for the treatment of AUD and opioid use disorder. Open-label RCTs have found a reduction in gambling urges and behavior with daily naltrexone.^25-27 Dosing at 50 mg/d appears to be just as efficacious as higher doses such as 100 and 150 mg/d.²⁷ When used as a daily as-needed medication for strong gambling urges or if an individual was planning to gamble, naltrexone 50 mg/d was not effective.²⁸

Continue to: Naltrexone typically is started...

Naltrexone typically is started at 25 mg/d to assess tolerability and quickly titrated to 50 mg/d. When titrating, common adverse effects include nausea, vomiting, and transient elevations in transaminases. Another opioid antagonist, nalmefene, has also been studied in patients with GD. An RCT by Grant et al²⁹ that evaluated 207 patients found that compared with placebo, nalmefene 25 mg/d for 16 weeks was associated with a significant reduction in gambling assessment scores. In Europe, nalmefene is approved for treating AUD but the oral formulation is not currently available in the US.

N-acetylcysteine is thought to potentially reverse neuronal dysfunction seen in addictive disorders by glutamatergic modulation.³⁰ Research investigating NAC for GD is scarce. A pilot study found 16 of 27 patients with GD reduced gambling behavior with a mean dose of 1,476.9 mg/d.³¹ An additional study investigating the addition of NAC to behavioral therapy in nicotine-dependent individuals with pathologic gambling found a reduction in problem gambling after 18 weeks (6 weeks + 3 months follow-up).³² Common but mild adverse effects associated with NAC are nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea.

A meta-analysis by Goslar et al³³ that reviewed 34 studies (1,340 participants) found pharmacologic treatments were associated with large and medium pre-post reductions in global severity, frequency, and financial loss in patients with GD. RCTs studying opioid antagonists and mood stabilizers (combined with a cognitive intervention) as well as lithium for patients with comorbid bipolar disorder and GD demonstrated promising results.³³

Stimulant use disorder

There are no FDA-approved medications for stimulant use disorder. Multiple off-label options have been studied for the treatment of methamphetamine abuse and cocaine abuse.

Methamphetamine use has been expanding over the past decade with a 3.6-fold increase in positive methamphetamine screens in overdose deaths from 2011 to 2016.³⁴ Pharmacologic options studied for OLP of methamphetamine use disorder include mirtazapine, bupropion, naltrexone, and topiramate.

Continue to: Mirtazapine

Mirtazapine is an atypical antidepressant whose mechanism of action includes modulation of the serotonin, norepinephrine, and alpha-2 adrenergic systems. It is FDA-approved for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). In a randomized placebo-controlled study, mirtazapine 30 mg/d at night was found to decrease methamphetamine use for active users and led to decreased sexual risk in men who have sex with men.³⁵ These results were supported by an additional RCT in which mirtazapine 30 mg/d significantly reduced rates of methamphetamine use vs placebo at 24 and 36 weeks despite poor medication adherence.³⁶ Adverse effects to monitor in patients treated with mirtazapine include increased appetite, weight gain, sedation, and constipation.

Bupropion is a norepinephrine dopamine reuptake inhibitor that produces increased neurotransmission of norepinephrine and dopamine in the CNS. It is FDA-approved for the treatment of MDD and as an aid for smoking cessation. Bupropion has been studied for methamphetamine use disorder with mixed results. In a randomized placebo-controlled trial, bupropion sustained release 150 mg twice daily was not more effective than placebo in reducing methamphetamine use.³⁷ However, the extended-release formulation of bupropion 450 mg/d combined with long-acting injectable naltrexone was associated with a reduction in methamphetamine use over 12 weeks.³⁸ Bupropion is generally well tolerated; common adverse effects include insomnia, tremor, headache, and dizziness.

Naltrexone. Data about using oral naltrexone to treat stimulant use disorders are limited. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial by Jayaram-Lindström et al³⁹ found naltrexone 50 mg/d significantly reduced amphetamine use compared to placebo. Additionally, naltrexone 50 and 150 mg/d have been shown to reduce cocaine use over time in combination with therapy for cocaine-dependent patients and those dependent on alcohol and cocaine.^40,41

Topiramate has been studied for the treatment of cocaine use disorder. It is hypothesized that modulation of the mesocorticolimbic dopamine system may contribute to decreased cocaine cravings.⁴² A pilot study by Kampman et al⁴³ found that after an 8-week titration of topiramate to 200 mg/d, individuals were more likely to achieve cocaine abstinence compared to those who receive placebo. In an RCT, Elkashef et al⁴⁴ did not find topiramate assisted with increased abstinence of methamphetamine in active users at a target dose of 200 mg/d. However, it was associated with reduced relapse rates in individuals who were abstinent prior to the study.⁴⁴ At a target dose of 300 mg/d, topiramate also outperformed placebo in decreasing days of cocaine use.⁴² Adverse effects of topiramate included paresthesia, alteration in taste, and difficulty with concentration.

Cannabis use disorder

In recent years, cannabis use in the US has greatly increased⁴⁵ but no medications are FDA-approved for treating cannabis use disorder. Studies of pharmacologic options for cannabis use disorder have had mixed results.⁴⁶ A meta-analysis by Bahji et al⁴⁷ of 24 studies investigating pharmacotherapies for cannabis use disorder highlighted the lack of adequate evidence. In this section, we focus on a few positive trials of NAC and gabapentin.

Continue to: N-acetylcysteine

N-acetylcysteine. Studies investigating NAC 1,200 mg twice daily have been promising in adolescent and adult populations.^48-50 There are some mixed results, however. A large RCT found NAC 1,200 mg twice daily was not better than placebo in helping adults achieve abstinence from cannabis.⁵¹

Gabapentin may be a viable option for treating cannabis use disorder. A pilot study by Mason et al⁵² found gabapentin 1,200 mg/d was more effective than placebo at reducing cannabis use among treatment-seeking adults.

When and how to consider OLP

OLP for addictive disorders is common and often necessary. This is primarily due to limitations of the FDA-approved medications and because there are no FDA-approved medications for many substance-related and addictive disorders (ie, GD, cannabis use disorder, and stimulant use disorder). When assessing pharmacotherapy options, if FDA-approved medications are available for certain diagnoses, clinicians should first consider them. The off-label medications discussed in this article are outlined in the Table.^{6-21,24-28,30-33,35-44,48-52}

The overall level of evidence to support the use of off-label medications is lower than that of FDA-approved medications, which contributes to potential medicolegal concerns of OLP. Off-label medications should be considered when there are no FDA-approved medications available, and the decision to use off-label medications should be based on evidence from the literature and current standard of care. Additionally, OLP is necessary if a patient cannot tolerate FDA-approved medications, is not helped by FDA-approved treatments, or when there are other clinical reasons to choose a particular off-label medication. For example, if a patient has comorbid AUD and obesity (or migraines), using topiramate may be appropriate because it may target alcohol cravings and can be helpful for weight loss (and migraine prophylaxis). Similarly, for patients with AUD and neuropathic pain, using gabapentin can be considered for its dual therapeutic effects.

It is critical for clinicians to understand the landscape of off-label options for treating addictive disorders. Additional research in the form of RCTs is needed to better clarify the efficacy and adverse effects of these treatments.

Continue to: Bottom Line

 

 

Bottom Line

Off-label prescribing is prevalent in practice, including in the treatment of substance-related and addictive disorders. When considering off-label use of any medication, clinicians should review the most recent research, obtain informed consent from patients, and verify patients’ understanding of the potential risks and adverse effects associated with the particular medication.

Related Resources

• Joshi KG, Frierson RL. Off-label prescribing: how to limit your liability. Current Psychiatry. 2020;19(9):12,39. doi:10.12788/ cp.0035
• Stanciu CN, Gnanasegaram SA. Don’t balk at using medical therapy to manage alcohol use disorder. Current Psychiatry. 2017;16(2):50-52.

Drug Brand Names

Acamprosate • Campral
Baclofen • Ozobax
Bupropion • Wellbutrin, Zyban
Disulfiram • Antabuse
Gabapentin • Neurontin
Lithium • Eskalith, Lithobid
Mirtazapine • Remeron
Naltrexone • ReVia, Vivitrol
Topiramate • Topamax

Off-label prescribing (OLP) refers to the practice of using medications for indications outside of those approved by the FDA, or in dosages, dose forms, or patient populations that have not been approved by the FDA.¹ OLP is common, occurring in many practice settings and nearly every medical specialty. In a 2006 review, Radley et al² found OLP accounted for 21% of the overall use of 160 common medications. The frequency of OLP varies between medication classes. Off-label use of anticonvulsants, antidepressants, and antipsychotics tends to be higher than that of other medications.^3,4 OLP is often more common in patient populations unlikely to be included in clinical trials due to ethical or logistical difficulties, such as pediatric patients and individuals who are pregnant. The Box summarizes several components that contribute to the prevalence of OLP and explains why this practice is often necessary for treating certain substance-related and addictive disorders.

Box

Several important medicolegal and ethical considerations surround OLP. The FDA prohibits off-label promotion, in which manufacturers advertise the use of a medication for off-label use.⁵ However, regulations allow physicians to use their best clinical judgment when prescribing medications for off-label use. When considering off-label use of any medication, physicians should review the most up-to-date research, including clinical trials, case reports, and reviews to safely support their decision-making. OLP should be guided by ethical principles such as autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice. Physicians should obtain informed consent by conducting an appropriate discussion of the risks, benefits, and alternatives of off-label medications. This conversation should be clearly documented, and physicians should provide written material regarding off-label options to patients when available. Finally, physicians should verify their patients’ understanding of this discussion, and allow patients to accept or decline off-label medications without pressure.

This article focuses on current and potential future medications available for OLP to treat patients with alcohol use disorder (AUD), gambling disorder (GD), stimulant use disorder, and cannabis use disorder.

Alcohol use disorder

CASE 1

Ms. X, age 67, has a history of severe AUD, mild renal impairment, and migraines. She presents to the outpatient clinic seeking help to drink less alcohol. Ms. X reports drinking 1 to 2 bottles of wine each day. She was previously treated for AUD but was not helped by naltrexone and did not tolerate disulfiram (abstinence was not her goal and she experienced significant adverse effects). Ms. X says she has a medical history of chronic migraines but denies other medical issues. The treatment team discusses alternative pharmacologic options, including acamprosate and topiramate. After outlining the dosing schedule and risks/benefits with Ms. X, you make the joint decision to start topiramate to reduce alcohol cravings and target her migraine symptoms.

Only 3 medications are FDA-approved for treating AUD: disulfiram, naltrexone (oral and injectable formulations), and acamprosate. Off-label options for AUD treatment include gabapentin, topiramate, and baclofen.

Gabapentin is FDA-approved for treating postherpetic neuralgia and partial seizures in patients age ≥3. The exact mechanism of action is unclear, though its effects are possibly related to its activity as a calcium channel ligand. It also carries a structural resemblance to gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), though it lacks activity at GABA receptors.

Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of gabapentin for AUD produced promising results. In a comparison of gabapentin vs placebo for AUD, Anton et al⁶ found gabapentin led to significant increases in the number of participants with total alcohol abstinence and participants who reported reduced drinking. Notably, the effect was most prominent in those with heavy drinking patterns and pretreatment alcohol withdrawal symptoms. A total of 41% of participants with high alcohol withdrawal scores on pretreatment evaluation achieved total abstinence while taking gabapentin, compared to 1% in the placebo group.⁶ A meta-analysis of gabapentin for AUD by Kranzler et al⁷ included 7 RCTs and 32 effect measures. It found that although all outcome measures favored gabapentin over placebo, only the percentage of heavy drinking days was significantly different.

Gabapentin is dosed between 300 to 600 mg 3 times per day, but 1 study found that a higher dose (1,800 mg/d) was associated with better outcomes.⁸ Common adverse effects include sedation, dizziness, peripheral edema, and ataxia.

Continue to: Topiramate

Topiramate blocks voltage-gated sodium channels and enhances GABA-A receptor activity.⁹ It is indicated for the treatment of seizures, migraine prophylaxis, weight management, and weight loss. Several clinical trials, including RCTs,^10-12 demonstrated that topiramate was superior to placebo in reducing the percentage of heavy drinking days and overall drinking days. Some also showed that topiramate was associated with abstinence and reduced craving levels.^12,13 A meta-analysis by Blodgett et al¹⁴ found that compared to placebo, topiramate lowered the rate of heavy drinking and increased abstinence.

Topiramate is dosed from 50 to 150 mg twice daily, although some studies suggest a lower dose (≤75 mg/d) may be associated with clinical benefits.^15,16 One important clinical consideration: topiramate must follow a slow titration schedule (4 to 6 weeks) to increase tolerability and avoid adverse effects. Common adverse effects include sedation, word-finding difficulty, paresthesia, increased risk for renal calculi, dizziness, anorexia, and alterations in taste.

Baclofen is a GABA-B agonist FDA-approved for the treatment of muscle spasticity related to multiple sclerosis and reversible spasticity related to spinal cord lesions and multiple sclerosis. Of note, it is approved for treatment of AUD in Europe.

In a meta-analysis of 13 RCTs, Pierce et al¹⁷ found a greater likelihood of abstinence and greater time to first lapse of drinking with baclofen compared to placebo. Interestingly, a subgroup analysis found that the positive effects were limited to trials that used 30 to 60 mg/d of baclofen, and not evident in those that used higher doses. Additionally, there was no difference between baclofen and placebo with regard to several important outcomes, including alcohol cravings, anxiety, depression, or number of total abstinent days. A review by Andrade¹⁸ proposed that individualized treatment with high-dose baclofen (30 to 300 mg/d) may be a useful second-line approach in heavy drinkers who wish to reduce their alcohol intake.

Continue to: Before starting baclofen...

Before starting baclofen, patients should be informed about its adverse effects. Common adverse effects include sedation and motor impairment. More serious but less common adverse effects include seizures, respiratory depression with sleep apnea, severe mood disorders (ie, mania, depression, or suicide risk), and mental confusion. Baclofen should be gradually discontinued, because there is some risk of clinical withdrawal symptoms (ie, agitation, confusion, seizures, or delirium).

Among the medications discussed in this section, the evidence for gabapentin and topiramate is moderate to strong, while the evidence for baclofen is overall weaker or mixed. The American Psychiatric Association’s Practice Guideline suggests offering gabapentin or topiramate to patients with moderate to severe AUD whose goal is to achieve abstinence or reduce alcohol use, or those who prefer gabapentin or topiramate or cannot tolerate or have not responded to naltrexone and acamprosate.¹⁹ Clinicians must ensure patients have no contra­indications to the use of these medications. Due to the moderate quality evidence for a significant reduction in heavy drinking and increased abstinence,^14,20 a practice guideline from the US Department of Veterans Affairs and US Department of Defense²¹ recommends topiramate as 1 of 2 first-line treatments (the other is naltrexone). This guideline suggests gabapentin as a second-line treatment for AUD.²¹

Gambling disorder

CASE 2

Mr. P, age 28, seeks treatment for GD and cocaine use disorder. He reports a 7-year history of sports betting that has increasingly impaired his functioning over the past year. He lost his job, savings, and familial relationships due to his impulsive and risky behavior. Mr. P also reports frequent cocaine use, about 2 to 3 days per week, mostly on the weekends. The psychiatrist tells Mr. P there is no FDA-approved pharmacologic treatment for GD or cocaine use disorder. The psychiatrist discusses the option of naltrexone as off-label treatment for GD with the goal of reducing Mr. P’s urges to gamble, and points to possible benefits for cocaine use disorder.

GD impacts approximately 0.5% of the adult US population and is often co-occurring with substance use disorders.²² It is thought to share neurobiological and clinical similarities with substance use disorders.²³ There are currently no FDA-approved medications to treat the disorder. In studies of GD, treatment success with antidepressants and mood stabilizers has not been consistent,^23,24 but some promising results have been published for the opioid receptor antagonist naltrexone^24-29 and N-acetylcysteine (NAC).^30-32

Naltrexone is thought to reduce gambling behavior and urges via downstream modulation of mesolimbic dopamine circuitry.²⁴ It is FDA-approved for the treatment of AUD and opioid use disorder. Open-label RCTs have found a reduction in gambling urges and behavior with daily naltrexone.^25-27 Dosing at 50 mg/d appears to be just as efficacious as higher doses such as 100 and 150 mg/d.²⁷ When used as a daily as-needed medication for strong gambling urges or if an individual was planning to gamble, naltrexone 50 mg/d was not effective.²⁸

Continue to: Naltrexone typically is started...

Naltrexone typically is started at 25 mg/d to assess tolerability and quickly titrated to 50 mg/d. When titrating, common adverse effects include nausea, vomiting, and transient elevations in transaminases. Another opioid antagonist, nalmefene, has also been studied in patients with GD. An RCT by Grant et al²⁹ that evaluated 207 patients found that compared with placebo, nalmefene 25 mg/d for 16 weeks was associated with a significant reduction in gambling assessment scores. In Europe, nalmefene is approved for treating AUD but the oral formulation is not currently available in the US.

N-acetylcysteine is thought to potentially reverse neuronal dysfunction seen in addictive disorders by glutamatergic modulation.³⁰ Research investigating NAC for GD is scarce. A pilot study found 16 of 27 patients with GD reduced gambling behavior with a mean dose of 1,476.9 mg/d.³¹ An additional study investigating the addition of NAC to behavioral therapy in nicotine-dependent individuals with pathologic gambling found a reduction in problem gambling after 18 weeks (6 weeks + 3 months follow-up).³² Common but mild adverse effects associated with NAC are nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea.

A meta-analysis by Goslar et al³³ that reviewed 34 studies (1,340 participants) found pharmacologic treatments were associated with large and medium pre-post reductions in global severity, frequency, and financial loss in patients with GD. RCTs studying opioid antagonists and mood stabilizers (combined with a cognitive intervention) as well as lithium for patients with comorbid bipolar disorder and GD demonstrated promising results.³³

Stimulant use disorder

There are no FDA-approved medications for stimulant use disorder. Multiple off-label options have been studied for the treatment of methamphetamine abuse and cocaine abuse.

Methamphetamine use has been expanding over the past decade with a 3.6-fold increase in positive methamphetamine screens in overdose deaths from 2011 to 2016.³⁴ Pharmacologic options studied for OLP of methamphetamine use disorder include mirtazapine, bupropion, naltrexone, and topiramate.

Continue to: Mirtazapine

Mirtazapine is an atypical antidepressant whose mechanism of action includes modulation of the serotonin, norepinephrine, and alpha-2 adrenergic systems. It is FDA-approved for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). In a randomized placebo-controlled study, mirtazapine 30 mg/d at night was found to decrease methamphetamine use for active users and led to decreased sexual risk in men who have sex with men.³⁵ These results were supported by an additional RCT in which mirtazapine 30 mg/d significantly reduced rates of methamphetamine use vs placebo at 24 and 36 weeks despite poor medication adherence.³⁶ Adverse effects to monitor in patients treated with mirtazapine include increased appetite, weight gain, sedation, and constipation.

Bupropion is a norepinephrine dopamine reuptake inhibitor that produces increased neurotransmission of norepinephrine and dopamine in the CNS. It is FDA-approved for the treatment of MDD and as an aid for smoking cessation. Bupropion has been studied for methamphetamine use disorder with mixed results. In a randomized placebo-controlled trial, bupropion sustained release 150 mg twice daily was not more effective than placebo in reducing methamphetamine use.³⁷ However, the extended-release formulation of bupropion 450 mg/d combined with long-acting injectable naltrexone was associated with a reduction in methamphetamine use over 12 weeks.³⁸ Bupropion is generally well tolerated; common adverse effects include insomnia, tremor, headache, and dizziness.

Naltrexone. Data about using oral naltrexone to treat stimulant use disorders are limited. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial by Jayaram-Lindström et al³⁹ found naltrexone 50 mg/d significantly reduced amphetamine use compared to placebo. Additionally, naltrexone 50 and 150 mg/d have been shown to reduce cocaine use over time in combination with therapy for cocaine-dependent patients and those dependent on alcohol and cocaine.^40,41

Topiramate has been studied for the treatment of cocaine use disorder. It is hypothesized that modulation of the mesocorticolimbic dopamine system may contribute to decreased cocaine cravings.⁴² A pilot study by Kampman et al⁴³ found that after an 8-week titration of topiramate to 200 mg/d, individuals were more likely to achieve cocaine abstinence compared to those who receive placebo. In an RCT, Elkashef et al⁴⁴ did not find topiramate assisted with increased abstinence of methamphetamine in active users at a target dose of 200 mg/d. However, it was associated with reduced relapse rates in individuals who were abstinent prior to the study.⁴⁴ At a target dose of 300 mg/d, topiramate also outperformed placebo in decreasing days of cocaine use.⁴² Adverse effects of topiramate included paresthesia, alteration in taste, and difficulty with concentration.

Cannabis use disorder

In recent years, cannabis use in the US has greatly increased⁴⁵ but no medications are FDA-approved for treating cannabis use disorder. Studies of pharmacologic options for cannabis use disorder have had mixed results.⁴⁶ A meta-analysis by Bahji et al⁴⁷ of 24 studies investigating pharmacotherapies for cannabis use disorder highlighted the lack of adequate evidence. In this section, we focus on a few positive trials of NAC and gabapentin.

Continue to: N-acetylcysteine

N-acetylcysteine. Studies investigating NAC 1,200 mg twice daily have been promising in adolescent and adult populations.^48-50 There are some mixed results, however. A large RCT found NAC 1,200 mg twice daily was not better than placebo in helping adults achieve abstinence from cannabis.⁵¹

Gabapentin may be a viable option for treating cannabis use disorder. A pilot study by Mason et al⁵² found gabapentin 1,200 mg/d was more effective than placebo at reducing cannabis use among treatment-seeking adults.

When and how to consider OLP

OLP for addictive disorders is common and often necessary. This is primarily due to limitations of the FDA-approved medications and because there are no FDA-approved medications for many substance-related and addictive disorders (ie, GD, cannabis use disorder, and stimulant use disorder). When assessing pharmacotherapy options, if FDA-approved medications are available for certain diagnoses, clinicians should first consider them. The off-label medications discussed in this article are outlined in the Table.^{6-21,24-28,30-33,35-44,48-52}

The overall level of evidence to support the use of off-label medications is lower than that of FDA-approved medications, which contributes to potential medicolegal concerns of OLP. Off-label medications should be considered when there are no FDA-approved medications available, and the decision to use off-label medications should be based on evidence from the literature and current standard of care. Additionally, OLP is necessary if a patient cannot tolerate FDA-approved medications, is not helped by FDA-approved treatments, or when there are other clinical reasons to choose a particular off-label medication. For example, if a patient has comorbid AUD and obesity (or migraines), using topiramate may be appropriate because it may target alcohol cravings and can be helpful for weight loss (and migraine prophylaxis). Similarly, for patients with AUD and neuropathic pain, using gabapentin can be considered for its dual therapeutic effects.

It is critical for clinicians to understand the landscape of off-label options for treating addictive disorders. Additional research in the form of RCTs is needed to better clarify the efficacy and adverse effects of these treatments.

Continue to: Bottom Line

 

 

Bottom Line

Off-label prescribing is prevalent in practice, including in the treatment of substance-related and addictive disorders. When considering off-label use of any medication, clinicians should review the most recent research, obtain informed consent from patients, and verify patients’ understanding of the potential risks and adverse effects associated with the particular medication.

Related Resources

• Joshi KG, Frierson RL. Off-label prescribing: how to limit your liability. Current Psychiatry. 2020;19(9):12,39. doi:10.12788/ cp.0035
• Stanciu CN, Gnanasegaram SA. Don’t balk at using medical therapy to manage alcohol use disorder. Current Psychiatry. 2017;16(2):50-52.

Drug Brand Names

Acamprosate • Campral
Baclofen • Ozobax
Bupropion • Wellbutrin, Zyban
Disulfiram • Antabuse
Gabapentin • Neurontin
Lithium • Eskalith, Lithobid
Mirtazapine • Remeron
Naltrexone • ReVia, Vivitrol
Topiramate • Topamax

Off-label prescribing (OLP) refers to the practice of using medications for indications outside of those approved by the FDA, or in dosages, dose forms, or patient populations that have not been approved by the FDA.¹ OLP is common, occurring in many practice settings and nearly every medical specialty. In a 2006 review, Radley et al² found OLP accounted for 21% of the overall use of 160 common medications. The frequency of OLP varies between medication classes. Off-label use of anticonvulsants, antidepressants, and antipsychotics tends to be higher than that of other medications.^3,4 OLP is often more common in patient populations unlikely to be included in clinical trials due to ethical or logistical difficulties, such as pediatric patients and individuals who are pregnant. The Box summarizes several components that contribute to the prevalence of OLP and explains why this practice is often necessary for treating certain substance-related and addictive disorders.

Box

Several important medicolegal and ethical considerations surround OLP. The FDA prohibits off-label promotion, in which manufacturers advertise the use of a medication for off-label use.⁵ However, regulations allow physicians to use their best clinical judgment when prescribing medications for off-label use. When considering off-label use of any medication, physicians should review the most up-to-date research, including clinical trials, case reports, and reviews to safely support their decision-making. OLP should be guided by ethical principles such as autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice. Physicians should obtain informed consent by conducting an appropriate discussion of the risks, benefits, and alternatives of off-label medications. This conversation should be clearly documented, and physicians should provide written material regarding off-label options to patients when available. Finally, physicians should verify their patients’ understanding of this discussion, and allow patients to accept or decline off-label medications without pressure.

This article focuses on current and potential future medications available for OLP to treat patients with alcohol use disorder (AUD), gambling disorder (GD), stimulant use disorder, and cannabis use disorder.

Alcohol use disorder

CASE 1

Ms. X, age 67, has a history of severe AUD, mild renal impairment, and migraines. She presents to the outpatient clinic seeking help to drink less alcohol. Ms. X reports drinking 1 to 2 bottles of wine each day. She was previously treated for AUD but was not helped by naltrexone and did not tolerate disulfiram (abstinence was not her goal and she experienced significant adverse effects). Ms. X says she has a medical history of chronic migraines but denies other medical issues. The treatment team discusses alternative pharmacologic options, including acamprosate and topiramate. After outlining the dosing schedule and risks/benefits with Ms. X, you make the joint decision to start topiramate to reduce alcohol cravings and target her migraine symptoms.

Only 3 medications are FDA-approved for treating AUD: disulfiram, naltrexone (oral and injectable formulations), and acamprosate. Off-label options for AUD treatment include gabapentin, topiramate, and baclofen.

Gabapentin is FDA-approved for treating postherpetic neuralgia and partial seizures in patients age ≥3. The exact mechanism of action is unclear, though its effects are possibly related to its activity as a calcium channel ligand. It also carries a structural resemblance to gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), though it lacks activity at GABA receptors.

Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of gabapentin for AUD produced promising results. In a comparison of gabapentin vs placebo for AUD, Anton et al⁶ found gabapentin led to significant increases in the number of participants with total alcohol abstinence and participants who reported reduced drinking. Notably, the effect was most prominent in those with heavy drinking patterns and pretreatment alcohol withdrawal symptoms. A total of 41% of participants with high alcohol withdrawal scores on pretreatment evaluation achieved total abstinence while taking gabapentin, compared to 1% in the placebo group.⁶ A meta-analysis of gabapentin for AUD by Kranzler et al⁷ included 7 RCTs and 32 effect measures. It found that although all outcome measures favored gabapentin over placebo, only the percentage of heavy drinking days was significantly different.

Gabapentin is dosed between 300 to 600 mg 3 times per day, but 1 study found that a higher dose (1,800 mg/d) was associated with better outcomes.⁸ Common adverse effects include sedation, dizziness, peripheral edema, and ataxia.

Continue to: Topiramate

Topiramate blocks voltage-gated sodium channels and enhances GABA-A receptor activity.⁹ It is indicated for the treatment of seizures, migraine prophylaxis, weight management, and weight loss. Several clinical trials, including RCTs,^10-12 demonstrated that topiramate was superior to placebo in reducing the percentage of heavy drinking days and overall drinking days. Some also showed that topiramate was associated with abstinence and reduced craving levels.^12,13 A meta-analysis by Blodgett et al¹⁴ found that compared to placebo, topiramate lowered the rate of heavy drinking and increased abstinence.

Topiramate is dosed from 50 to 150 mg twice daily, although some studies suggest a lower dose (≤75 mg/d) may be associated with clinical benefits.^15,16 One important clinical consideration: topiramate must follow a slow titration schedule (4 to 6 weeks) to increase tolerability and avoid adverse effects. Common adverse effects include sedation, word-finding difficulty, paresthesia, increased risk for renal calculi, dizziness, anorexia, and alterations in taste.

Baclofen is a GABA-B agonist FDA-approved for the treatment of muscle spasticity related to multiple sclerosis and reversible spasticity related to spinal cord lesions and multiple sclerosis. Of note, it is approved for treatment of AUD in Europe.

In a meta-analysis of 13 RCTs, Pierce et al¹⁷ found a greater likelihood of abstinence and greater time to first lapse of drinking with baclofen compared to placebo. Interestingly, a subgroup analysis found that the positive effects were limited to trials that used 30 to 60 mg/d of baclofen, and not evident in those that used higher doses. Additionally, there was no difference between baclofen and placebo with regard to several important outcomes, including alcohol cravings, anxiety, depression, or number of total abstinent days. A review by Andrade¹⁸ proposed that individualized treatment with high-dose baclofen (30 to 300 mg/d) may be a useful second-line approach in heavy drinkers who wish to reduce their alcohol intake.

Continue to: Before starting baclofen...

Before starting baclofen, patients should be informed about its adverse effects. Common adverse effects include sedation and motor impairment. More serious but less common adverse effects include seizures, respiratory depression with sleep apnea, severe mood disorders (ie, mania, depression, or suicide risk), and mental confusion. Baclofen should be gradually discontinued, because there is some risk of clinical withdrawal symptoms (ie, agitation, confusion, seizures, or delirium).

Among the medications discussed in this section, the evidence for gabapentin and topiramate is moderate to strong, while the evidence for baclofen is overall weaker or mixed. The American Psychiatric Association’s Practice Guideline suggests offering gabapentin or topiramate to patients with moderate to severe AUD whose goal is to achieve abstinence or reduce alcohol use, or those who prefer gabapentin or topiramate or cannot tolerate or have not responded to naltrexone and acamprosate.¹⁹ Clinicians must ensure patients have no contra­indications to the use of these medications. Due to the moderate quality evidence for a significant reduction in heavy drinking and increased abstinence,^14,20 a practice guideline from the US Department of Veterans Affairs and US Department of Defense²¹ recommends topiramate as 1 of 2 first-line treatments (the other is naltrexone). This guideline suggests gabapentin as a second-line treatment for AUD.²¹

Gambling disorder

CASE 2

Mr. P, age 28, seeks treatment for GD and cocaine use disorder. He reports a 7-year history of sports betting that has increasingly impaired his functioning over the past year. He lost his job, savings, and familial relationships due to his impulsive and risky behavior. Mr. P also reports frequent cocaine use, about 2 to 3 days per week, mostly on the weekends. The psychiatrist tells Mr. P there is no FDA-approved pharmacologic treatment for GD or cocaine use disorder. The psychiatrist discusses the option of naltrexone as off-label treatment for GD with the goal of reducing Mr. P’s urges to gamble, and points to possible benefits for cocaine use disorder.

GD impacts approximately 0.5% of the adult US population and is often co-occurring with substance use disorders.²² It is thought to share neurobiological and clinical similarities with substance use disorders.²³ There are currently no FDA-approved medications to treat the disorder. In studies of GD, treatment success with antidepressants and mood stabilizers has not been consistent,^23,24 but some promising results have been published for the opioid receptor antagonist naltrexone^24-29 and N-acetylcysteine (NAC).^30-32

Naltrexone is thought to reduce gambling behavior and urges via downstream modulation of mesolimbic dopamine circuitry.²⁴ It is FDA-approved for the treatment of AUD and opioid use disorder. Open-label RCTs have found a reduction in gambling urges and behavior with daily naltrexone.^25-27 Dosing at 50 mg/d appears to be just as efficacious as higher doses such as 100 and 150 mg/d.²⁷ When used as a daily as-needed medication for strong gambling urges or if an individual was planning to gamble, naltrexone 50 mg/d was not effective.²⁸

Continue to: Naltrexone typically is started...

Naltrexone typically is started at 25 mg/d to assess tolerability and quickly titrated to 50 mg/d. When titrating, common adverse effects include nausea, vomiting, and transient elevations in transaminases. Another opioid antagonist, nalmefene, has also been studied in patients with GD. An RCT by Grant et al²⁹ that evaluated 207 patients found that compared with placebo, nalmefene 25 mg/d for 16 weeks was associated with a significant reduction in gambling assessment scores. In Europe, nalmefene is approved for treating AUD but the oral formulation is not currently available in the US.

N-acetylcysteine is thought to potentially reverse neuronal dysfunction seen in addictive disorders by glutamatergic modulation.³⁰ Research investigating NAC for GD is scarce. A pilot study found 16 of 27 patients with GD reduced gambling behavior with a mean dose of 1,476.9 mg/d.³¹ An additional study investigating the addition of NAC to behavioral therapy in nicotine-dependent individuals with pathologic gambling found a reduction in problem gambling after 18 weeks (6 weeks + 3 months follow-up).³² Common but mild adverse effects associated with NAC are nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea.

A meta-analysis by Goslar et al³³ that reviewed 34 studies (1,340 participants) found pharmacologic treatments were associated with large and medium pre-post reductions in global severity, frequency, and financial loss in patients with GD. RCTs studying opioid antagonists and mood stabilizers (combined with a cognitive intervention) as well as lithium for patients with comorbid bipolar disorder and GD demonstrated promising results.³³

Stimulant use disorder

There are no FDA-approved medications for stimulant use disorder. Multiple off-label options have been studied for the treatment of methamphetamine abuse and cocaine abuse.

Methamphetamine use has been expanding over the past decade with a 3.6-fold increase in positive methamphetamine screens in overdose deaths from 2011 to 2016.³⁴ Pharmacologic options studied for OLP of methamphetamine use disorder include mirtazapine, bupropion, naltrexone, and topiramate.

Continue to: Mirtazapine

Mirtazapine is an atypical antidepressant whose mechanism of action includes modulation of the serotonin, norepinephrine, and alpha-2 adrenergic systems. It is FDA-approved for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). In a randomized placebo-controlled study, mirtazapine 30 mg/d at night was found to decrease methamphetamine use for active users and led to decreased sexual risk in men who have sex with men.³⁵ These results were supported by an additional RCT in which mirtazapine 30 mg/d significantly reduced rates of methamphetamine use vs placebo at 24 and 36 weeks despite poor medication adherence.³⁶ Adverse effects to monitor in patients treated with mirtazapine include increased appetite, weight gain, sedation, and constipation.

Bupropion is a norepinephrine dopamine reuptake inhibitor that produces increased neurotransmission of norepinephrine and dopamine in the CNS. It is FDA-approved for the treatment of MDD and as an aid for smoking cessation. Bupropion has been studied for methamphetamine use disorder with mixed results. In a randomized placebo-controlled trial, bupropion sustained release 150 mg twice daily was not more effective than placebo in reducing methamphetamine use.³⁷ However, the extended-release formulation of bupropion 450 mg/d combined with long-acting injectable naltrexone was associated with a reduction in methamphetamine use over 12 weeks.³⁸ Bupropion is generally well tolerated; common adverse effects include insomnia, tremor, headache, and dizziness.

Naltrexone. Data about using oral naltrexone to treat stimulant use disorders are limited. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial by Jayaram-Lindström et al³⁹ found naltrexone 50 mg/d significantly reduced amphetamine use compared to placebo. Additionally, naltrexone 50 and 150 mg/d have been shown to reduce cocaine use over time in combination with therapy for cocaine-dependent patients and those dependent on alcohol and cocaine.^40,41

Topiramate has been studied for the treatment of cocaine use disorder. It is hypothesized that modulation of the mesocorticolimbic dopamine system may contribute to decreased cocaine cravings.⁴² A pilot study by Kampman et al⁴³ found that after an 8-week titration of topiramate to 200 mg/d, individuals were more likely to achieve cocaine abstinence compared to those who receive placebo. In an RCT, Elkashef et al⁴⁴ did not find topiramate assisted with increased abstinence of methamphetamine in active users at a target dose of 200 mg/d. However, it was associated with reduced relapse rates in individuals who were abstinent prior to the study.⁴⁴ At a target dose of 300 mg/d, topiramate also outperformed placebo in decreasing days of cocaine use.⁴² Adverse effects of topiramate included paresthesia, alteration in taste, and difficulty with concentration.

Cannabis use disorder

In recent years, cannabis use in the US has greatly increased⁴⁵ but no medications are FDA-approved for treating cannabis use disorder. Studies of pharmacologic options for cannabis use disorder have had mixed results.⁴⁶ A meta-analysis by Bahji et al⁴⁷ of 24 studies investigating pharmacotherapies for cannabis use disorder highlighted the lack of adequate evidence. In this section, we focus on a few positive trials of NAC and gabapentin.

Continue to: N-acetylcysteine

N-acetylcysteine. Studies investigating NAC 1,200 mg twice daily have been promising in adolescent and adult populations.^48-50 There are some mixed results, however. A large RCT found NAC 1,200 mg twice daily was not better than placebo in helping adults achieve abstinence from cannabis.⁵¹

Gabapentin may be a viable option for treating cannabis use disorder. A pilot study by Mason et al⁵² found gabapentin 1,200 mg/d was more effective than placebo at reducing cannabis use among treatment-seeking adults.

When and how to consider OLP

OLP for addictive disorders is common and often necessary. This is primarily due to limitations of the FDA-approved medications and because there are no FDA-approved medications for many substance-related and addictive disorders (ie, GD, cannabis use disorder, and stimulant use disorder). When assessing pharmacotherapy options, if FDA-approved medications are available for certain diagnoses, clinicians should first consider them. The off-label medications discussed in this article are outlined in the Table.^{6-21,24-28,30-33,35-44,48-52}

The overall level of evidence to support the use of off-label medications is lower than that of FDA-approved medications, which contributes to potential medicolegal concerns of OLP. Off-label medications should be considered when there are no FDA-approved medications available, and the decision to use off-label medications should be based on evidence from the literature and current standard of care. Additionally, OLP is necessary if a patient cannot tolerate FDA-approved medications, is not helped by FDA-approved treatments, or when there are other clinical reasons to choose a particular off-label medication. For example, if a patient has comorbid AUD and obesity (or migraines), using topiramate may be appropriate because it may target alcohol cravings and can be helpful for weight loss (and migraine prophylaxis). Similarly, for patients with AUD and neuropathic pain, using gabapentin can be considered for its dual therapeutic effects.

It is critical for clinicians to understand the landscape of off-label options for treating addictive disorders. Additional research in the form of RCTs is needed to better clarify the efficacy and adverse effects of these treatments.

Continue to: Bottom Line

 

 

Bottom Line

Off-label prescribing is prevalent in practice, including in the treatment of substance-related and addictive disorders. When considering off-label use of any medication, clinicians should review the most recent research, obtain informed consent from patients, and verify patients’ understanding of the potential risks and adverse effects associated with the particular medication.

Related Resources

• Joshi KG, Frierson RL. Off-label prescribing: how to limit your liability. Current Psychiatry. 2020;19(9):12,39. doi:10.12788/ cp.0035
• Stanciu CN, Gnanasegaram SA. Don’t balk at using medical therapy to manage alcohol use disorder. Current Psychiatry. 2017;16(2):50-52.

Drug Brand Names

Acamprosate • Campral
Baclofen • Ozobax
Bupropion • Wellbutrin, Zyban
Disulfiram • Antabuse
Gabapentin • Neurontin
Lithium • Eskalith, Lithobid
Mirtazapine • Remeron
Naltrexone • ReVia, Vivitrol
Topiramate • Topamax

CASE Detoxification and preoccupation with parasites

Mr. H, age 51, has an extensive history of alcohol and methamphetamine use. He presents to the emergency department (ED) requesting inpatient detoxification. He says he had been drinking alcohol but is unable to say how much. His blood ethanol level is 61 mg/dL (unintoxicated level: <50 mg/dL), and a urine drug screen is positive for methamphetamine; Mr. H also admits to using fentanyl. The ED team treats Mr. H’s electrolyte abnormalities, initiates thiamine supplementation, and transfers him to a unit for inpatient withdrawal management.

On the detoxification unit, Mr. H receives a total of 1,950 mg of phenobarbital for alcohol withdrawal and stabilizes on a buprenorphine/naloxone maintenance dose of 8 mg/2 mg twice daily for methamphetamine and fentanyl use. Though he was not taking any psychiatric medications prior to his arrival at the ED, Mr. H agrees to restart quetiapine—which he took when he was younger for suspected bipolar depression—50 mg/d at bedtime.

During Mr. H’s 3-day detoxification, the psychiatry team evaluates him. Mr. H says he believes he is infested with worms. He describes a prior sensation of “meth mites,” or the feeling of bugs crawling under his skin, while using methamphetamines. However, Mr. H says his current infestation feels distinctively different, and he had continued to experience these sensations during prior periods of abstinence.

The psychiatry team expresses concern over his preoccupation with infestations, disheveled appearance, poor hygiene, and healed scars from excoriation. Mr. H also reports poor sleep and appetite and was observed writing an incomprehensible “experiment” on a paper towel. Due to his bizarre behavior, delusional thoughts, and concerns about his inability to care for himself, the team admits Mr. H to the acute inpatient psychiatric unit on a voluntary commitment.

HISTORY Long-standing drug use and repeated hospital visits

Mr. H reports a history of drug use. His first documented ED visit was >5 years before his current admission. He has a family history of substance abuse and reports previously using methamphetamine, heroin, and alcohol. Mr. H was never diagnosed with a psychiatric illness, but when he was younger, there were suspicions of bipolar depression, with no contributing family psychiatric history. Though he took quetiapine at an unspecified younger age, Mr. H did not follow through with any outpatient mental health services or medications.

Mr. H first reported infestation symptoms 6 months before his current inpatient admission, when he came to the ED with complaints of bumps on his arms and legs and reported seeing bugs in his carpet. He was prescribed permethrin 5% topical cream for suspected bedbug infestation.

In the 6 months prior to his current admission, Mr. H came to the hospital >20 times for various reasons, including methamphetamine abuse, alcohol withdrawal, opiate overdose, cellulitis, wound checks, and 3 visits for hallucinations for which he requested physical evaluation and medical care. His substance use was the suspected cause of his tactile and visual hallucinations of infestation because formication—the sensation of something crawling on your skin—is commonly associated with substance use. Although the etiology of Mr. H’s hallucinations was unclear, his substance use may have either precipitated them, or, as the team suspects, masked an underlying pathology that eventually became more evident and required psychiatric treatment.

Continue to: The authors' observations

The authors’ observations

Delusional parasitosis (DP), also known as delusional infestation or Ekbom Syndrome, is a condition characterized by the fixed, false belief of an infestation without any objective evidence. This condition was previously defined in DSM-IV, but was removed from DSM-5-TR. In DSM-5-TR, DP is most closely associated with delusional disorder—somatic type (Table 1¹). It describes a patient with ≥1 month of delusions who does not meet the criteria for schizophrenia with a central theme of delusions involving bodily functions or sensations such as infestation of insects or internal parasites.¹

DP is rare, affecting approximately 1.9 per 100,000 people. There has not been consistent data supporting differences in prevalence between sexes, but there is evidence for increasing incidence with age, with a mean age of diagnosis of 61.4.^2,3 DP can be divided into 2 types based on the history and etiology of the symptoms: primary DP and secondary DP. Primary DP occurs when there is a failure to identify an organic cause for the occurrence of the symptoms. Therefore, primary DP requires an extensive investigation by a multidisciplinary team that commonly includes medical specialists for a nonpsychiatric workup. Secondary DP occurs when the patient has delusional symptoms associated with a primary diagnosis of schizophrenia, depression, stroke, diabetes, vitamin B12 deficiency, or substance use.⁴

Though Mr. H initially presented to the ED, patients with DP commonly present to a primary care physician or dermatologist with the complaint of itching or feelings of insects, worms, or unclear organisms inside them. Patients with DP may often develop poor working relationships with physicians while obtaining multiple negative results. They may seek opinions from multiple specialists; however, patients typically do not consider psychiatrists as a source of help. When patients seek psychiatric care, often after a recommendation from a primary care physician or dermatologist, mental health clinicians should listen to and evaluate the patient holistically, continuing to rule out other possible etiologies.

[polldaddy:12570072]

TREATMENT Finding the right antipsychotic

In the psychiatric unit, Mr. H says he believes worms are exiting his ears, mouth, toenail, and self-inflicted scratch wounds. He believes he has been dealing with the parasites for >1 year and they are slowly draining his energy. Mr. H insists he contracted the “infection” from his home carpet, which was wet due to a flood in his house, and after he had fallen asleep following drug use. He also believes he acquired the parasites while walking barefoot along the beach and collecting rocks, and that there are multiple species living inside him, all intelligent enough to hide, making it difficult to prove their existence. He notes they vary in size, and some have red eyes.

During admission, Mr. H voices his frustration that clinicians had not found the worms he has been seeing. He continuously requests to review imaging performed during his visit and wants a multidisciplinary team to evaluate his case. He demands to test a cup with spit-up “samples,” believing the parasites would be visible under a microscope. Throughout his admission, Mr. H continues to take buprenorphine/naloxone and does not experience withdrawal symptoms. The treatment team titrates his quetiapine to 400 mg/d. Due to the lack of improvement, the team initiates olanzapine 5 mg/d at bedtime. However, Mr. H reports significant tinnitus and requests a medication change. He is started on haloperidol 5 mg twice daily.

Continue to: Mr. H begins to see improvements...

Mr. H begins to see improvements on Day 7 of taking haloperidol. He no longer brings up infestation but still acknowledges having worms inside him when directly asked. He says the worms cause him less distress than before and he is hopeful to live without discomfort. He also demonstrates an ability to conduct activities of daily living. Because Mr. H is being monitored on an acute inpatient psychiatric basis, he is deemed appropriate for discharge even though his symptoms have not yet fully resolved. After a 19-day hospital stay, Mr. H is discharged on haloperidol 15 mg/d and quetiapine 200 mg/d.

[polldaddy:12570074]

The authors’ observations

Mr. H asked to have his sputum examined. The “specimen sign,” also called “matchbox sign” or “Ziploc bag sign,” in which patients collect what they believe to be infected tissue or organisms in a container, is a well-studied part of DP.⁵ Such samples should be considered during initial encounters and can be examined for formal evaluation, but cautiously. Overtesting may incur a financial burden or reinforce deleterious beliefs and behaviors.

It can be difficult to identify triggers of DP. Research shows DP may arise from nonorganic and stressful life events, home floods, or contact with people infected with parasites.^6,7 Organic causes have also been found, such as patients taking multiple medications for Parkinson disease who developed delusional symptoms.⁸ Buscarino et al⁹ reported the case of a woman who started to develop symptoms of delusions and hallucinations after being on high-dose amphetamines for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Research shows that stopping the suspected medication commonly improves such symptoms.^9,10 Although methamphetamine can remain detectable in urine for up to 4 days after use and potentially a few days longer for chronic users due to circulating levels,¹¹ Mr. H’s symptoms continued for weeks after all substances of abuse should have been cleared from his system. This suggests he was experiencing a psychiatric illness and was accurate in distinguishing methamphetamine-induced from psychiatric-induced sensations. Regardless, polysubstance use has been shown to potentially increase the risk and play a role in the onset and progression of delusional illness, as seen in prior cases as well as in this case.⁹

It has been hypothesized that the pathophysiology of DP is associated with the deterioration of the striatal dopaminergic pathway, leading to an increase in extracellular dopamine levels. The striatum is responsible for most dopamine reuptake in the brain; therefore, certain drugs such as cocaine, methamphetamine, and methyl­phenidate may precipitate symptoms of DP due to their blockade of presynaptic dopamine reuptake.¹² Additionally, conditions that decrease the functioning of striatal dopamine transporters, such as schizophrenia or depression, may be underlying causes of DP.¹³

Treatment of DP remains a topic of debate. Most current recommendations appear to be based on a small, nonrandomized placebo-controlled trial.¹⁴ The first-generation antipsychotic pimozide had been a first-line treatment for DP, but its adverse effect profile, which includes QTc prolongation and extrapyramidal symptoms, led to the exploration of second-generation antipsychotics such as olanzapine and risperidone.^15,16 There is a dearth of literature about the use of haloperidol, quetiapine, or a combination of both as treatment options for DP, though the combination of these 2 medications proved effective for Mr. H. Further research is necessary to justify changes to current treatment standards, but this finding highlights a successful symptom reduction achieved with this combination.

Continue to: Patients may experience genuine symptoms...

Patients may experience genuine symptoms despite the delusional nature of DP, and it is important for clinicians to recognize the potential burden and anxiety these individuals face. Patients may present with self-inflicted bruises, cuts, and erosions to gain access to infected areas, which may be confused with skin picking disorder. Excessive cleansing or use of irritant products can also cause skin damage, leading to other dermatological conditions that reinforce the patient’s belief that something is medically wrong. During treatment, consider medications for relief of pruritus or pain. Focus on offering patients the opportunity to express their concerns, treat them with empathy, avoid stigmatizing language such as “delusions” or “psychosis,” and refrain from contradicting them until a strong rapport has been established (Table 2¹⁷).

Symptoms of DP can persist for months to years. Patients who fully recovered experienced a median duration of 0.5 years until symptom resolution, compared to incompletely recovered patients, who took approximately 1 year.¹⁸ Primary DP has slower improvement rates compared to secondary DP, with the median onset of effects occurring at Week 1.5 and peak improvements occurring at Week 6.¹⁶

OUTCOME Continued ED visits

Unfortunately, Mr. H does not follow through with his outpatient psychiatry appointments. In the 7 months following discharge, he visits the ED 8 times for alcohol intoxication, alcohol withdrawal, and methamphetamine abuse, in addition to 2 admissions for inpatient detoxification, during which he was still receiving the same scheduled medications (haloperidol 15 mg/d and quetiapine 200 mg/d). At each of his ED visits, there was no documentation of DP symptoms, which suggests his symptoms may have resolved.

Bottom Line

Because delusional parasitosis symptoms feel real to patients, it is crucial to build rapport to recommend and successfully initiate treatment. After ruling out nonpsychiatric etiologies, consider traditional treatment with antipsychotics, and consider medications for relief of pruritus or pain.

Related Resources

• Sellman D, Phan SV, Inyang M. Bugs on her skin—but nobody else sees them. Current Psychiatry. 2018;17(8):48,50-53.
• Campbell EH, Elston DM, Hawthorne JD, et al. Diagnosis and management of delusional parasitosis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;80(5):1428-1434. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2018.12.012

Drug Brand Names

Buprenorphine/naloxone • Suboxone
Haloperidol • Haldol
Hydroxyzine • Vistaril
Lithium • Eskalith, Lithobid
Methylphenidate • Concerta
Olanzapine • Zyprexa
Permethrin • Elimite
Phenobarbital • Solfoton, Tedral, Luminal
Pimozide • Orap
Quetiapine • Seroquel
Risperidone • Risperdal
Sertraline • Zoloft
Valproic acid • Depakote

CASE Detoxification and preoccupation with parasites

Mr. H, age 51, has an extensive history of alcohol and methamphetamine use. He presents to the emergency department (ED) requesting inpatient detoxification. He says he had been drinking alcohol but is unable to say how much. His blood ethanol level is 61 mg/dL (unintoxicated level: <50 mg/dL), and a urine drug screen is positive for methamphetamine; Mr. H also admits to using fentanyl. The ED team treats Mr. H’s electrolyte abnormalities, initiates thiamine supplementation, and transfers him to a unit for inpatient withdrawal management.

On the detoxification unit, Mr. H receives a total of 1,950 mg of phenobarbital for alcohol withdrawal and stabilizes on a buprenorphine/naloxone maintenance dose of 8 mg/2 mg twice daily for methamphetamine and fentanyl use. Though he was not taking any psychiatric medications prior to his arrival at the ED, Mr. H agrees to restart quetiapine—which he took when he was younger for suspected bipolar depression—50 mg/d at bedtime.

During Mr. H’s 3-day detoxification, the psychiatry team evaluates him. Mr. H says he believes he is infested with worms. He describes a prior sensation of “meth mites,” or the feeling of bugs crawling under his skin, while using methamphetamines. However, Mr. H says his current infestation feels distinctively different, and he had continued to experience these sensations during prior periods of abstinence.

The psychiatry team expresses concern over his preoccupation with infestations, disheveled appearance, poor hygiene, and healed scars from excoriation. Mr. H also reports poor sleep and appetite and was observed writing an incomprehensible “experiment” on a paper towel. Due to his bizarre behavior, delusional thoughts, and concerns about his inability to care for himself, the team admits Mr. H to the acute inpatient psychiatric unit on a voluntary commitment.

HISTORY Long-standing drug use and repeated hospital visits

Mr. H reports a history of drug use. His first documented ED visit was >5 years before his current admission. He has a family history of substance abuse and reports previously using methamphetamine, heroin, and alcohol. Mr. H was never diagnosed with a psychiatric illness, but when he was younger, there were suspicions of bipolar depression, with no contributing family psychiatric history. Though he took quetiapine at an unspecified younger age, Mr. H did not follow through with any outpatient mental health services or medications.

Mr. H first reported infestation symptoms 6 months before his current inpatient admission, when he came to the ED with complaints of bumps on his arms and legs and reported seeing bugs in his carpet. He was prescribed permethrin 5% topical cream for suspected bedbug infestation.

In the 6 months prior to his current admission, Mr. H came to the hospital >20 times for various reasons, including methamphetamine abuse, alcohol withdrawal, opiate overdose, cellulitis, wound checks, and 3 visits for hallucinations for which he requested physical evaluation and medical care. His substance use was the suspected cause of his tactile and visual hallucinations of infestation because formication—the sensation of something crawling on your skin—is commonly associated with substance use. Although the etiology of Mr. H’s hallucinations was unclear, his substance use may have either precipitated them, or, as the team suspects, masked an underlying pathology that eventually became more evident and required psychiatric treatment.

Continue to: The authors' observations

The authors’ observations

Delusional parasitosis (DP), also known as delusional infestation or Ekbom Syndrome, is a condition characterized by the fixed, false belief of an infestation without any objective evidence. This condition was previously defined in DSM-IV, but was removed from DSM-5-TR. In DSM-5-TR, DP is most closely associated with delusional disorder—somatic type (Table 1¹). It describes a patient with ≥1 month of delusions who does not meet the criteria for schizophrenia with a central theme of delusions involving bodily functions or sensations such as infestation of insects or internal parasites.¹

DP is rare, affecting approximately 1.9 per 100,000 people. There has not been consistent data supporting differences in prevalence between sexes, but there is evidence for increasing incidence with age, with a mean age of diagnosis of 61.4.^2,3 DP can be divided into 2 types based on the history and etiology of the symptoms: primary DP and secondary DP. Primary DP occurs when there is a failure to identify an organic cause for the occurrence of the symptoms. Therefore, primary DP requires an extensive investigation by a multidisciplinary team that commonly includes medical specialists for a nonpsychiatric workup. Secondary DP occurs when the patient has delusional symptoms associated with a primary diagnosis of schizophrenia, depression, stroke, diabetes, vitamin B12 deficiency, or substance use.⁴

Though Mr. H initially presented to the ED, patients with DP commonly present to a primary care physician or dermatologist with the complaint of itching or feelings of insects, worms, or unclear organisms inside them. Patients with DP may often develop poor working relationships with physicians while obtaining multiple negative results. They may seek opinions from multiple specialists; however, patients typically do not consider psychiatrists as a source of help. When patients seek psychiatric care, often after a recommendation from a primary care physician or dermatologist, mental health clinicians should listen to and evaluate the patient holistically, continuing to rule out other possible etiologies.

[polldaddy:12570072]

TREATMENT Finding the right antipsychotic

In the psychiatric unit, Mr. H says he believes worms are exiting his ears, mouth, toenail, and self-inflicted scratch wounds. He believes he has been dealing with the parasites for >1 year and they are slowly draining his energy. Mr. H insists he contracted the “infection” from his home carpet, which was wet due to a flood in his house, and after he had fallen asleep following drug use. He also believes he acquired the parasites while walking barefoot along the beach and collecting rocks, and that there are multiple species living inside him, all intelligent enough to hide, making it difficult to prove their existence. He notes they vary in size, and some have red eyes.

During admission, Mr. H voices his frustration that clinicians had not found the worms he has been seeing. He continuously requests to review imaging performed during his visit and wants a multidisciplinary team to evaluate his case. He demands to test a cup with spit-up “samples,” believing the parasites would be visible under a microscope. Throughout his admission, Mr. H continues to take buprenorphine/naloxone and does not experience withdrawal symptoms. The treatment team titrates his quetiapine to 400 mg/d. Due to the lack of improvement, the team initiates olanzapine 5 mg/d at bedtime. However, Mr. H reports significant tinnitus and requests a medication change. He is started on haloperidol 5 mg twice daily.

Continue to: Mr. H begins to see improvements...

Mr. H begins to see improvements on Day 7 of taking haloperidol. He no longer brings up infestation but still acknowledges having worms inside him when directly asked. He says the worms cause him less distress than before and he is hopeful to live without discomfort. He also demonstrates an ability to conduct activities of daily living. Because Mr. H is being monitored on an acute inpatient psychiatric basis, he is deemed appropriate for discharge even though his symptoms have not yet fully resolved. After a 19-day hospital stay, Mr. H is discharged on haloperidol 15 mg/d and quetiapine 200 mg/d.

[polldaddy:12570074]

The authors’ observations

Mr. H asked to have his sputum examined. The “specimen sign,” also called “matchbox sign” or “Ziploc bag sign,” in which patients collect what they believe to be infected tissue or organisms in a container, is a well-studied part of DP.⁵ Such samples should be considered during initial encounters and can be examined for formal evaluation, but cautiously. Overtesting may incur a financial burden or reinforce deleterious beliefs and behaviors.

It can be difficult to identify triggers of DP. Research shows DP may arise from nonorganic and stressful life events, home floods, or contact with people infected with parasites.^6,7 Organic causes have also been found, such as patients taking multiple medications for Parkinson disease who developed delusional symptoms.⁸ Buscarino et al⁹ reported the case of a woman who started to develop symptoms of delusions and hallucinations after being on high-dose amphetamines for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Research shows that stopping the suspected medication commonly improves such symptoms.^9,10 Although methamphetamine can remain detectable in urine for up to 4 days after use and potentially a few days longer for chronic users due to circulating levels,¹¹ Mr. H’s symptoms continued for weeks after all substances of abuse should have been cleared from his system. This suggests he was experiencing a psychiatric illness and was accurate in distinguishing methamphetamine-induced from psychiatric-induced sensations. Regardless, polysubstance use has been shown to potentially increase the risk and play a role in the onset and progression of delusional illness, as seen in prior cases as well as in this case.⁹

It has been hypothesized that the pathophysiology of DP is associated with the deterioration of the striatal dopaminergic pathway, leading to an increase in extracellular dopamine levels. The striatum is responsible for most dopamine reuptake in the brain; therefore, certain drugs such as cocaine, methamphetamine, and methyl­phenidate may precipitate symptoms of DP due to their blockade of presynaptic dopamine reuptake.¹² Additionally, conditions that decrease the functioning of striatal dopamine transporters, such as schizophrenia or depression, may be underlying causes of DP.¹³

Treatment of DP remains a topic of debate. Most current recommendations appear to be based on a small, nonrandomized placebo-controlled trial.¹⁴ The first-generation antipsychotic pimozide had been a first-line treatment for DP, but its adverse effect profile, which includes QTc prolongation and extrapyramidal symptoms, led to the exploration of second-generation antipsychotics such as olanzapine and risperidone.^15,16 There is a dearth of literature about the use of haloperidol, quetiapine, or a combination of both as treatment options for DP, though the combination of these 2 medications proved effective for Mr. H. Further research is necessary to justify changes to current treatment standards, but this finding highlights a successful symptom reduction achieved with this combination.

Continue to: Patients may experience genuine symptoms...

Patients may experience genuine symptoms despite the delusional nature of DP, and it is important for clinicians to recognize the potential burden and anxiety these individuals face. Patients may present with self-inflicted bruises, cuts, and erosions to gain access to infected areas, which may be confused with skin picking disorder. Excessive cleansing or use of irritant products can also cause skin damage, leading to other dermatological conditions that reinforce the patient’s belief that something is medically wrong. During treatment, consider medications for relief of pruritus or pain. Focus on offering patients the opportunity to express their concerns, treat them with empathy, avoid stigmatizing language such as “delusions” or “psychosis,” and refrain from contradicting them until a strong rapport has been established (Table 2¹⁷).

Symptoms of DP can persist for months to years. Patients who fully recovered experienced a median duration of 0.5 years until symptom resolution, compared to incompletely recovered patients, who took approximately 1 year.¹⁸ Primary DP has slower improvement rates compared to secondary DP, with the median onset of effects occurring at Week 1.5 and peak improvements occurring at Week 6.¹⁶

OUTCOME Continued ED visits

Unfortunately, Mr. H does not follow through with his outpatient psychiatry appointments. In the 7 months following discharge, he visits the ED 8 times for alcohol intoxication, alcohol withdrawal, and methamphetamine abuse, in addition to 2 admissions for inpatient detoxification, during which he was still receiving the same scheduled medications (haloperidol 15 mg/d and quetiapine 200 mg/d). At each of his ED visits, there was no documentation of DP symptoms, which suggests his symptoms may have resolved.

Bottom Line

Because delusional parasitosis symptoms feel real to patients, it is crucial to build rapport to recommend and successfully initiate treatment. After ruling out nonpsychiatric etiologies, consider traditional treatment with antipsychotics, and consider medications for relief of pruritus or pain.

Related Resources

• Sellman D, Phan SV, Inyang M. Bugs on her skin—but nobody else sees them. Current Psychiatry. 2018;17(8):48,50-53.
• Campbell EH, Elston DM, Hawthorne JD, et al. Diagnosis and management of delusional parasitosis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;80(5):1428-1434. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2018.12.012

Drug Brand Names

Buprenorphine/naloxone • Suboxone
Haloperidol • Haldol
Hydroxyzine • Vistaril
Lithium • Eskalith, Lithobid
Methylphenidate • Concerta
Olanzapine • Zyprexa
Permethrin • Elimite
Phenobarbital • Solfoton, Tedral, Luminal
Pimozide • Orap
Quetiapine • Seroquel
Risperidone • Risperdal
Sertraline • Zoloft
Valproic acid • Depakote

CASE Detoxification and preoccupation with parasites

Mr. H, age 51, has an extensive history of alcohol and methamphetamine use. He presents to the emergency department (ED) requesting inpatient detoxification. He says he had been drinking alcohol but is unable to say how much. His blood ethanol level is 61 mg/dL (unintoxicated level: <50 mg/dL), and a urine drug screen is positive for methamphetamine; Mr. H also admits to using fentanyl. The ED team treats Mr. H’s electrolyte abnormalities, initiates thiamine supplementation, and transfers him to a unit for inpatient withdrawal management.

On the detoxification unit, Mr. H receives a total of 1,950 mg of phenobarbital for alcohol withdrawal and stabilizes on a buprenorphine/naloxone maintenance dose of 8 mg/2 mg twice daily for methamphetamine and fentanyl use. Though he was not taking any psychiatric medications prior to his arrival at the ED, Mr. H agrees to restart quetiapine—which he took when he was younger for suspected bipolar depression—50 mg/d at bedtime.

During Mr. H’s 3-day detoxification, the psychiatry team evaluates him. Mr. H says he believes he is infested with worms. He describes a prior sensation of “meth mites,” or the feeling of bugs crawling under his skin, while using methamphetamines. However, Mr. H says his current infestation feels distinctively different, and he had continued to experience these sensations during prior periods of abstinence.

The psychiatry team expresses concern over his preoccupation with infestations, disheveled appearance, poor hygiene, and healed scars from excoriation. Mr. H also reports poor sleep and appetite and was observed writing an incomprehensible “experiment” on a paper towel. Due to his bizarre behavior, delusional thoughts, and concerns about his inability to care for himself, the team admits Mr. H to the acute inpatient psychiatric unit on a voluntary commitment.

HISTORY Long-standing drug use and repeated hospital visits

Mr. H reports a history of drug use. His first documented ED visit was >5 years before his current admission. He has a family history of substance abuse and reports previously using methamphetamine, heroin, and alcohol. Mr. H was never diagnosed with a psychiatric illness, but when he was younger, there were suspicions of bipolar depression, with no contributing family psychiatric history. Though he took quetiapine at an unspecified younger age, Mr. H did not follow through with any outpatient mental health services or medications.

Mr. H first reported infestation symptoms 6 months before his current inpatient admission, when he came to the ED with complaints of bumps on his arms and legs and reported seeing bugs in his carpet. He was prescribed permethrin 5% topical cream for suspected bedbug infestation.

In the 6 months prior to his current admission, Mr. H came to the hospital >20 times for various reasons, including methamphetamine abuse, alcohol withdrawal, opiate overdose, cellulitis, wound checks, and 3 visits for hallucinations for which he requested physical evaluation and medical care. His substance use was the suspected cause of his tactile and visual hallucinations of infestation because formication—the sensation of something crawling on your skin—is commonly associated with substance use. Although the etiology of Mr. H’s hallucinations was unclear, his substance use may have either precipitated them, or, as the team suspects, masked an underlying pathology that eventually became more evident and required psychiatric treatment.

Continue to: The authors' observations

The authors’ observations

Delusional parasitosis (DP), also known as delusional infestation or Ekbom Syndrome, is a condition characterized by the fixed, false belief of an infestation without any objective evidence. This condition was previously defined in DSM-IV, but was removed from DSM-5-TR. In DSM-5-TR, DP is most closely associated with delusional disorder—somatic type (Table 1¹). It describes a patient with ≥1 month of delusions who does not meet the criteria for schizophrenia with a central theme of delusions involving bodily functions or sensations such as infestation of insects or internal parasites.¹

DP is rare, affecting approximately 1.9 per 100,000 people. There has not been consistent data supporting differences in prevalence between sexes, but there is evidence for increasing incidence with age, with a mean age of diagnosis of 61.4.^2,3 DP can be divided into 2 types based on the history and etiology of the symptoms: primary DP and secondary DP. Primary DP occurs when there is a failure to identify an organic cause for the occurrence of the symptoms. Therefore, primary DP requires an extensive investigation by a multidisciplinary team that commonly includes medical specialists for a nonpsychiatric workup. Secondary DP occurs when the patient has delusional symptoms associated with a primary diagnosis of schizophrenia, depression, stroke, diabetes, vitamin B12 deficiency, or substance use.⁴

Though Mr. H initially presented to the ED, patients with DP commonly present to a primary care physician or dermatologist with the complaint of itching or feelings of insects, worms, or unclear organisms inside them. Patients with DP may often develop poor working relationships with physicians while obtaining multiple negative results. They may seek opinions from multiple specialists; however, patients typically do not consider psychiatrists as a source of help. When patients seek psychiatric care, often after a recommendation from a primary care physician or dermatologist, mental health clinicians should listen to and evaluate the patient holistically, continuing to rule out other possible etiologies.

[polldaddy:12570072]

TREATMENT Finding the right antipsychotic

In the psychiatric unit, Mr. H says he believes worms are exiting his ears, mouth, toenail, and self-inflicted scratch wounds. He believes he has been dealing with the parasites for >1 year and they are slowly draining his energy. Mr. H insists he contracted the “infection” from his home carpet, which was wet due to a flood in his house, and after he had fallen asleep following drug use. He also believes he acquired the parasites while walking barefoot along the beach and collecting rocks, and that there are multiple species living inside him, all intelligent enough to hide, making it difficult to prove their existence. He notes they vary in size, and some have red eyes.

During admission, Mr. H voices his frustration that clinicians had not found the worms he has been seeing. He continuously requests to review imaging performed during his visit and wants a multidisciplinary team to evaluate his case. He demands to test a cup with spit-up “samples,” believing the parasites would be visible under a microscope. Throughout his admission, Mr. H continues to take buprenorphine/naloxone and does not experience withdrawal symptoms. The treatment team titrates his quetiapine to 400 mg/d. Due to the lack of improvement, the team initiates olanzapine 5 mg/d at bedtime. However, Mr. H reports significant tinnitus and requests a medication change. He is started on haloperidol 5 mg twice daily.

Continue to: Mr. H begins to see improvements...

Mr. H begins to see improvements on Day 7 of taking haloperidol. He no longer brings up infestation but still acknowledges having worms inside him when directly asked. He says the worms cause him less distress than before and he is hopeful to live without discomfort. He also demonstrates an ability to conduct activities of daily living. Because Mr. H is being monitored on an acute inpatient psychiatric basis, he is deemed appropriate for discharge even though his symptoms have not yet fully resolved. After a 19-day hospital stay, Mr. H is discharged on haloperidol 15 mg/d and quetiapine 200 mg/d.

[polldaddy:12570074]

The authors’ observations

Mr. H asked to have his sputum examined. The “specimen sign,” also called “matchbox sign” or “Ziploc bag sign,” in which patients collect what they believe to be infected tissue or organisms in a container, is a well-studied part of DP.⁵ Such samples should be considered during initial encounters and can be examined for formal evaluation, but cautiously. Overtesting may incur a financial burden or reinforce deleterious beliefs and behaviors.

It can be difficult to identify triggers of DP. Research shows DP may arise from nonorganic and stressful life events, home floods, or contact with people infected with parasites.^6,7 Organic causes have also been found, such as patients taking multiple medications for Parkinson disease who developed delusional symptoms.⁸ Buscarino et al⁹ reported the case of a woman who started to develop symptoms of delusions and hallucinations after being on high-dose amphetamines for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Research shows that stopping the suspected medication commonly improves such symptoms.^9,10 Although methamphetamine can remain detectable in urine for up to 4 days after use and potentially a few days longer for chronic users due to circulating levels,¹¹ Mr. H’s symptoms continued for weeks after all substances of abuse should have been cleared from his system. This suggests he was experiencing a psychiatric illness and was accurate in distinguishing methamphetamine-induced from psychiatric-induced sensations. Regardless, polysubstance use has been shown to potentially increase the risk and play a role in the onset and progression of delusional illness, as seen in prior cases as well as in this case.⁹

It has been hypothesized that the pathophysiology of DP is associated with the deterioration of the striatal dopaminergic pathway, leading to an increase in extracellular dopamine levels. The striatum is responsible for most dopamine reuptake in the brain; therefore, certain drugs such as cocaine, methamphetamine, and methyl­phenidate may precipitate symptoms of DP due to their blockade of presynaptic dopamine reuptake.¹² Additionally, conditions that decrease the functioning of striatal dopamine transporters, such as schizophrenia or depression, may be underlying causes of DP.¹³

Treatment of DP remains a topic of debate. Most current recommendations appear to be based on a small, nonrandomized placebo-controlled trial.¹⁴ The first-generation antipsychotic pimozide had been a first-line treatment for DP, but its adverse effect profile, which includes QTc prolongation and extrapyramidal symptoms, led to the exploration of second-generation antipsychotics such as olanzapine and risperidone.^15,16 There is a dearth of literature about the use of haloperidol, quetiapine, or a combination of both as treatment options for DP, though the combination of these 2 medications proved effective for Mr. H. Further research is necessary to justify changes to current treatment standards, but this finding highlights a successful symptom reduction achieved with this combination.

Continue to: Patients may experience genuine symptoms...

Patients may experience genuine symptoms despite the delusional nature of DP, and it is important for clinicians to recognize the potential burden and anxiety these individuals face. Patients may present with self-inflicted bruises, cuts, and erosions to gain access to infected areas, which may be confused with skin picking disorder. Excessive cleansing or use of irritant products can also cause skin damage, leading to other dermatological conditions that reinforce the patient’s belief that something is medically wrong. During treatment, consider medications for relief of pruritus or pain. Focus on offering patients the opportunity to express their concerns, treat them with empathy, avoid stigmatizing language such as “delusions” or “psychosis,” and refrain from contradicting them until a strong rapport has been established (Table 2¹⁷).

Symptoms of DP can persist for months to years. Patients who fully recovered experienced a median duration of 0.5 years until symptom resolution, compared to incompletely recovered patients, who took approximately 1 year.¹⁸ Primary DP has slower improvement rates compared to secondary DP, with the median onset of effects occurring at Week 1.5 and peak improvements occurring at Week 6.¹⁶

OUTCOME Continued ED visits

Unfortunately, Mr. H does not follow through with his outpatient psychiatry appointments. In the 7 months following discharge, he visits the ED 8 times for alcohol intoxication, alcohol withdrawal, and methamphetamine abuse, in addition to 2 admissions for inpatient detoxification, during which he was still receiving the same scheduled medications (haloperidol 15 mg/d and quetiapine 200 mg/d). At each of his ED visits, there was no documentation of DP symptoms, which suggests his symptoms may have resolved.

Bottom Line

Because delusional parasitosis symptoms feel real to patients, it is crucial to build rapport to recommend and successfully initiate treatment. After ruling out nonpsychiatric etiologies, consider traditional treatment with antipsychotics, and consider medications for relief of pruritus or pain.

Related Resources

• Sellman D, Phan SV, Inyang M. Bugs on her skin—but nobody else sees them. Current Psychiatry. 2018;17(8):48,50-53.
• Campbell EH, Elston DM, Hawthorne JD, et al. Diagnosis and management of delusional parasitosis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;80(5):1428-1434. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2018.12.012

Drug Brand Names

Buprenorphine/naloxone • Suboxone
Haloperidol • Haldol
Hydroxyzine • Vistaril
Lithium • Eskalith, Lithobid
Methylphenidate • Concerta
Olanzapine • Zyprexa
Permethrin • Elimite
Phenobarbital • Solfoton, Tedral, Luminal
Pimozide • Orap
Quetiapine • Seroquel
Risperidone • Risperdal
Sertraline • Zoloft
Valproic acid • Depakote

We appreciate the important review by Gluck et al (“Managing patients with comorbid opioid and alcohol use disorders,” Current Psychiatry, February 2023, p. 20-28, doi:10.12788/cp.0327) addressing the common co-occurrence of opioid use disorder (OUD) and alcohol use disorder (AUD) among hospitalized patients, and we offer a friendly amendment to the algorithm they presented. Early in their algorithm, the authors suggest asking patients whether they want pharmacologic treatment for OUD. We recommend that if the patient affirms interest in OUD medication, the next question should be whether the patient prefers to be opioid-free. If the patient says “yes,” extended-release injectable naltrexone (XR-NTX) is offered. If the patient answers “no,” they can be offered buprenorphine or methadone.

XR-NTX should be considered an equal OUD treatment alternative to buprenorphine-naloxone, especially for patients who prefer an opioid-free option.^1,2 It has the added advantage of being FDA-approved for both AUD and OUD.

One obstacle to the success of XR-NTX is the induction period. The National Institute on Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network X:BOT trial found that once the induction hurdle was surmounted, XR-NTX and buprenorphine were equally effective in a population of approximately 80% heroin users and two-thirds injection drug users.² Patient variables that predict successful induction include young age, baseline preference for XR-NTX, fewer drug complications, and fewer family/social complications.³ If the length of the induction (usually 7 to 10 days) is a deterrent, a study supported the feasibility of a 5-day outpatient XR-NTX induction.⁴ Further research is needed to improve successful induction for XR-NTX.

Ashmeer Ogbuchi, MD
Karen Drexler, MD
Atlanta, Georgia

References

1. Tanum L, Solli KK, Latif Z, et al. Effectiveness of injectable extended-release naltrexone vs daily buprenorphine-naloxone for opioid dependence. JAMA Psychiatry. 2017;74(12):1197-1205. doi:10.1001/ jamapsychiatry.2017.3206

2. Lee JD, Nunes EV Jr, Novo P, et al. Comparative effectiveness of extended-release naltrexone versus buprenorphine-naloxone for opioid relapse prevention (X:BOT): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2018;391(10118):309-318. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(17)32812-x

3. Murphy SM, Jeng PJ, McCollister KE, et al. Cost‐effectiveness implications of increasing the efficiency of the extended‐release naltrexone induction process for the treatment of opioid use disorder: a secondary analysis. Addiction. 2021;116(12)3444-3453. doi:10.1111/add.15531

4. Sibai M, Mishlen K, Nunes EV, et al. A week-long outpatient induction onto XR-naltrexone in patients with opioid use disorder. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2020;46(3):289-296. doi:10.1080/00952990.2019.1700265

Continue to: The authors respond

 

 

The authors respond

We appreciate Drs. Ogbuchi and Drexler for their thoughtful attention to our review. They proposed amending our original algorithm, recommending that XR-NTX be considered as another first-line option for patients with OUD. We agree with this suggestion, particularly for inpatients. However, we have some reservations about applying this suggestion to outpatient treatment. Though research evidence from Lee et al¹ indicates that once initiation is completed, both medications are equally safe and effective, the initial attrition rate in the XR-NTX group was much higher (28% vs 6%, P < .0001), which suggests lower acceptability/tolerability compared with buprenorphine. Notably, the initiation of both medications in Lee et al¹ was done in an inpatient setting. Moreover, although some medications are endorsed as “first-line,” the actual utilization rate is often influenced by many factors, including the ease of treatment initiation. Wakeman et al² found the most common treatment modality received by patients with OUD was nonintensive behavioral health (59.5%), followed by inpatient withdrawal management and residential treatment (15.2%). Among all patients in the Wakeman study,² only 12.5% received buprenorphine or methadone, and 2.4% received naltrexone.

Data from our clinic corroborate this trend. Currently, in our clinic approximately 300 patients with OUD are receiving medications, including approximately 250 on buprenorphine (including 5 to 10 on the long-acting injectable formulation), 50 on methadone, and only 1 or 2 on XR-NTX. Though this disparity may reflect bias in our clinicians’ prescribing practices, in the past few years we have had many unsuccessful attempts at initiating XR-NTX. To our disappointment, a theoretically excellent medication has not translated clinically. The recent surge in fentanyl use further complicates XR-NTX initiation for OUD, because the length of induction may be longer.

In conclusion, we agree that XR-NTX is a potential treatment option for patients with OUD, but clinicians should be cognizant of the potential barriers; inform patients of the advantages, expectations, and challenges; and respect patients’ informed decisions.

Rachel Gluck, MD
Karen Hochman, MD
Yi-lang Tang, MD, PhD
Atlanta, Georgia

References

1. Lee JD, Nunes EV Jr, Novo P, et al. Comparative effectiveness of extended-release naltrexone versus buprenorphine-naloxone for opioid relapse prevention (X:BOT): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2018;391(10118):309-318. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(17)32812-x

2. Wakeman SE, Larochelle MR, Ameli O, et al. Comparative effectiveness of different treatment pathways for opioid use disorder. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(2):e1920622. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.20622

We appreciate the important review by Gluck et al (“Managing patients with comorbid opioid and alcohol use disorders,” Current Psychiatry, February 2023, p. 20-28, doi:10.12788/cp.0327) addressing the common co-occurrence of opioid use disorder (OUD) and alcohol use disorder (AUD) among hospitalized patients, and we offer a friendly amendment to the algorithm they presented. Early in their algorithm, the authors suggest asking patients whether they want pharmacologic treatment for OUD. We recommend that if the patient affirms interest in OUD medication, the next question should be whether the patient prefers to be opioid-free. If the patient says “yes,” extended-release injectable naltrexone (XR-NTX) is offered. If the patient answers “no,” they can be offered buprenorphine or methadone.

XR-NTX should be considered an equal OUD treatment alternative to buprenorphine-naloxone, especially for patients who prefer an opioid-free option.^1,2 It has the added advantage of being FDA-approved for both AUD and OUD.

One obstacle to the success of XR-NTX is the induction period. The National Institute on Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network X:BOT trial found that once the induction hurdle was surmounted, XR-NTX and buprenorphine were equally effective in a population of approximately 80% heroin users and two-thirds injection drug users.² Patient variables that predict successful induction include young age, baseline preference for XR-NTX, fewer drug complications, and fewer family/social complications.³ If the length of the induction (usually 7 to 10 days) is a deterrent, a study supported the feasibility of a 5-day outpatient XR-NTX induction.⁴ Further research is needed to improve successful induction for XR-NTX.

Ashmeer Ogbuchi, MD
Karen Drexler, MD
Atlanta, Georgia

References

1. Tanum L, Solli KK, Latif Z, et al. Effectiveness of injectable extended-release naltrexone vs daily buprenorphine-naloxone for opioid dependence. JAMA Psychiatry. 2017;74(12):1197-1205. doi:10.1001/ jamapsychiatry.2017.3206

2. Lee JD, Nunes EV Jr, Novo P, et al. Comparative effectiveness of extended-release naltrexone versus buprenorphine-naloxone for opioid relapse prevention (X:BOT): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2018;391(10118):309-318. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(17)32812-x

3. Murphy SM, Jeng PJ, McCollister KE, et al. Cost‐effectiveness implications of increasing the efficiency of the extended‐release naltrexone induction process for the treatment of opioid use disorder: a secondary analysis. Addiction. 2021;116(12)3444-3453. doi:10.1111/add.15531

4. Sibai M, Mishlen K, Nunes EV, et al. A week-long outpatient induction onto XR-naltrexone in patients with opioid use disorder. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2020;46(3):289-296. doi:10.1080/00952990.2019.1700265

Continue to: The authors respond

 

 

The authors respond

We appreciate Drs. Ogbuchi and Drexler for their thoughtful attention to our review. They proposed amending our original algorithm, recommending that XR-NTX be considered as another first-line option for patients with OUD. We agree with this suggestion, particularly for inpatients. However, we have some reservations about applying this suggestion to outpatient treatment. Though research evidence from Lee et al¹ indicates that once initiation is completed, both medications are equally safe and effective, the initial attrition rate in the XR-NTX group was much higher (28% vs 6%, P < .0001), which suggests lower acceptability/tolerability compared with buprenorphine. Notably, the initiation of both medications in Lee et al¹ was done in an inpatient setting. Moreover, although some medications are endorsed as “first-line,” the actual utilization rate is often influenced by many factors, including the ease of treatment initiation. Wakeman et al² found the most common treatment modality received by patients with OUD was nonintensive behavioral health (59.5%), followed by inpatient withdrawal management and residential treatment (15.2%). Among all patients in the Wakeman study,² only 12.5% received buprenorphine or methadone, and 2.4% received naltrexone.

Data from our clinic corroborate this trend. Currently, in our clinic approximately 300 patients with OUD are receiving medications, including approximately 250 on buprenorphine (including 5 to 10 on the long-acting injectable formulation), 50 on methadone, and only 1 or 2 on XR-NTX. Though this disparity may reflect bias in our clinicians’ prescribing practices, in the past few years we have had many unsuccessful attempts at initiating XR-NTX. To our disappointment, a theoretically excellent medication has not translated clinically. The recent surge in fentanyl use further complicates XR-NTX initiation for OUD, because the length of induction may be longer.

In conclusion, we agree that XR-NTX is a potential treatment option for patients with OUD, but clinicians should be cognizant of the potential barriers; inform patients of the advantages, expectations, and challenges; and respect patients’ informed decisions.

Rachel Gluck, MD
Karen Hochman, MD
Yi-lang Tang, MD, PhD
Atlanta, Georgia

References

1. Lee JD, Nunes EV Jr, Novo P, et al. Comparative effectiveness of extended-release naltrexone versus buprenorphine-naloxone for opioid relapse prevention (X:BOT): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2018;391(10118):309-318. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(17)32812-x

2. Wakeman SE, Larochelle MR, Ameli O, et al. Comparative effectiveness of different treatment pathways for opioid use disorder. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(2):e1920622. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.20622

We appreciate the important review by Gluck et al (“Managing patients with comorbid opioid and alcohol use disorders,” Current Psychiatry, February 2023, p. 20-28, doi:10.12788/cp.0327) addressing the common co-occurrence of opioid use disorder (OUD) and alcohol use disorder (AUD) among hospitalized patients, and we offer a friendly amendment to the algorithm they presented. Early in their algorithm, the authors suggest asking patients whether they want pharmacologic treatment for OUD. We recommend that if the patient affirms interest in OUD medication, the next question should be whether the patient prefers to be opioid-free. If the patient says “yes,” extended-release injectable naltrexone (XR-NTX) is offered. If the patient answers “no,” they can be offered buprenorphine or methadone.

XR-NTX should be considered an equal OUD treatment alternative to buprenorphine-naloxone, especially for patients who prefer an opioid-free option.^1,2 It has the added advantage of being FDA-approved for both AUD and OUD.

One obstacle to the success of XR-NTX is the induction period. The National Institute on Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network X:BOT trial found that once the induction hurdle was surmounted, XR-NTX and buprenorphine were equally effective in a population of approximately 80% heroin users and two-thirds injection drug users.² Patient variables that predict successful induction include young age, baseline preference for XR-NTX, fewer drug complications, and fewer family/social complications.³ If the length of the induction (usually 7 to 10 days) is a deterrent, a study supported the feasibility of a 5-day outpatient XR-NTX induction.⁴ Further research is needed to improve successful induction for XR-NTX.

Ashmeer Ogbuchi, MD
Karen Drexler, MD
Atlanta, Georgia

References

1. Tanum L, Solli KK, Latif Z, et al. Effectiveness of injectable extended-release naltrexone vs daily buprenorphine-naloxone for opioid dependence. JAMA Psychiatry. 2017;74(12):1197-1205. doi:10.1001/ jamapsychiatry.2017.3206

2. Lee JD, Nunes EV Jr, Novo P, et al. Comparative effectiveness of extended-release naltrexone versus buprenorphine-naloxone for opioid relapse prevention (X:BOT): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2018;391(10118):309-318. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(17)32812-x

3. Murphy SM, Jeng PJ, McCollister KE, et al. Cost‐effectiveness implications of increasing the efficiency of the extended‐release naltrexone induction process for the treatment of opioid use disorder: a secondary analysis. Addiction. 2021;116(12)3444-3453. doi:10.1111/add.15531

4. Sibai M, Mishlen K, Nunes EV, et al. A week-long outpatient induction onto XR-naltrexone in patients with opioid use disorder. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2020;46(3):289-296. doi:10.1080/00952990.2019.1700265

Continue to: The authors respond

 

 

The authors respond

We appreciate Drs. Ogbuchi and Drexler for their thoughtful attention to our review. They proposed amending our original algorithm, recommending that XR-NTX be considered as another first-line option for patients with OUD. We agree with this suggestion, particularly for inpatients. However, we have some reservations about applying this suggestion to outpatient treatment. Though research evidence from Lee et al¹ indicates that once initiation is completed, both medications are equally safe and effective, the initial attrition rate in the XR-NTX group was much higher (28% vs 6%, P < .0001), which suggests lower acceptability/tolerability compared with buprenorphine. Notably, the initiation of both medications in Lee et al¹ was done in an inpatient setting. Moreover, although some medications are endorsed as “first-line,” the actual utilization rate is often influenced by many factors, including the ease of treatment initiation. Wakeman et al² found the most common treatment modality received by patients with OUD was nonintensive behavioral health (59.5%), followed by inpatient withdrawal management and residential treatment (15.2%). Among all patients in the Wakeman study,² only 12.5% received buprenorphine or methadone, and 2.4% received naltrexone.

Data from our clinic corroborate this trend. Currently, in our clinic approximately 300 patients with OUD are receiving medications, including approximately 250 on buprenorphine (including 5 to 10 on the long-acting injectable formulation), 50 on methadone, and only 1 or 2 on XR-NTX. Though this disparity may reflect bias in our clinicians’ prescribing practices, in the past few years we have had many unsuccessful attempts at initiating XR-NTX. To our disappointment, a theoretically excellent medication has not translated clinically. The recent surge in fentanyl use further complicates XR-NTX initiation for OUD, because the length of induction may be longer.

In conclusion, we agree that XR-NTX is a potential treatment option for patients with OUD, but clinicians should be cognizant of the potential barriers; inform patients of the advantages, expectations, and challenges; and respect patients’ informed decisions.

Rachel Gluck, MD
Karen Hochman, MD
Yi-lang Tang, MD, PhD
Atlanta, Georgia

References

1. Lee JD, Nunes EV Jr, Novo P, et al. Comparative effectiveness of extended-release naltrexone versus buprenorphine-naloxone for opioid relapse prevention (X:BOT): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2018;391(10118):309-318. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(17)32812-x

2. Wakeman SE, Larochelle MR, Ameli O, et al. Comparative effectiveness of different treatment pathways for opioid use disorder. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(2):e1920622. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.20622

There is no increased risk of substance abuse later in life among children treated with stimulants for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), results of a large study show.

University of Pittsburgh

“Throughout rigorous analyses, and after accounting for more than 70 variables in this longitudinal sample of children with ADHD taking stimulants, we did not find an association with later substance use,” lead investigator Brooke Molina, PhD, director of the youth and family research program at the University of Pittsburgh, said in an interview.

The findings were published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Protective effect?

Owing to symptoms of impulsivity inherent to ADHD, the disorder itself carries a risk for elevated substance use, the investigators note.

They speculate that this may be why some previous research suggests prescription stimulants reduce the risk of subsequent substance use disorder. However, other studies have found no such protective link.

To shed more light on the issue, the investigators used data from the Multimodal Treatment Study of ADHD, a multicenter, 14-month randomized clinical trial of medication and behavioral therapy for children with ADHD. However, for the purposes of the present study, investigators focused only on stimulant use in children.

At the time of recruitment, the children were aged 7-9 and had been diagnosed with ADHD between 1994 and 1996.

Investigators assessed the participants prior to randomization, at months 3 and 9, and at the end of treatment. They were then followed for 16 years and were assessed at years 2, 3, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 16 until a mean age of 25.

During 12-, 14-, and 16-year follow-up, participants completed a questionnaire on their use of alcohol, marijuana, cigarettes, and several illicit and prescription drugs.

Investigators collected information on participants’ stimulant treatment via the Services for Children and Adolescents Parent Interview until they reached age 18. After that, participants reported their own stimulant treatment.

A total of 579 participants were included in the analysis. Of these, 61% were White, 20% were Black, and 8% were Hispanic.
 

Decline in stimulant use over time

The analysis showed that stimulant use declined “precipitously” over time – from 60% at the 2- and 3-year assessments to an average of 7% during early adulthood.

The investigators also found that for some participants, substance use increased steadily through adolescence and remained stable through early adulthood. For instance, 36.5% of the adolescents in the total cohort reported smoking tobacco daily, and 29.6% reported using marijuana every week.

In addition, approximately 21% of the participants indulged in heavy drinking at least once a week, and 6% reported “other” substance use, which included sedative misuse, heroin, inhalants, hallucinogens, or other substances taken to “get high.”

After accounting for developmental trends in substance use in the sample through adolescence into early adulthood with several rigorous statistical models, the researchers found no association between current or prior stimulant treatment and cigarette, marijuana, alcohol, or other substance use, with one exception.

While cumulative stimulant treatment was associated with increased heavy drinking, the effect size of this association was small. Each additional year of cumulative stimulant use was estimated to increase participants’ likelihood of any binge drinking/drunkenness vs. none in the past year by 4% (95% confidence interval, 0.01-0.08; P =.03).

When the investigators used a causal analytic method to account for age and other time-varying characteristics, including household income, behavior problems, and parental support, there was no evidence that current (B range, –0.62-0.34) or prior stimulant treatment (B range, –0.06-0.70) or their interaction (B range, –0.49-0.86) was associated with substance use in adulthood.

Dr. Molina noted that although participants were recruited from multiple sites, the sample may not be generalizable because children and parents who present for an intensive treatment study such as this are not necessarily representative of the general ADHD population.
 

Reassuring findings

In a comment, Julie Schweitzer, PhD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of California, Davis, said she hopes the study findings will quell the stigma surrounding stimulant use by children with ADHD.

“Parents’ fears that stimulant use will lead to a substance use disorder inhibits them from bringing their children for an ADHD evaluation, thus reducing the likelihood that they will receive timely treatment,” Dr. Schweitzer said.

“While stimulant medication is the first-line treatment most often recommended for most persons with ADHD, by not following through on evaluations, parents also miss the opportunity to learn about nonpharmacological strategies that might also be helpful to help cope with ADHD symptoms and its potential co-occurring challenges,” she added.

Dr. Schweitzer also noted that many parents hope their children will outgrow the symptoms without realizing that by not obtaining an evaluation and treatment for their child, there is an associated cost, including less than optimal academic performance, social relationships, and emotional health.

The Multimodal Treatment Study of Children with ADHD was a National Institute of Mental Health cooperative agreement randomized clinical trial, continued under an NIMH contract as a follow-up study and under a National Institute on Drug Abuse contract followed by a data analysis grant. Dr. Molina reported grants from the NIMH and the National Institute on Drug Abuse during the conduct of the study.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

There is no increased risk of substance abuse later in life among children treated with stimulants for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), results of a large study show.

University of Pittsburgh

“Throughout rigorous analyses, and after accounting for more than 70 variables in this longitudinal sample of children with ADHD taking stimulants, we did not find an association with later substance use,” lead investigator Brooke Molina, PhD, director of the youth and family research program at the University of Pittsburgh, said in an interview.

The findings were published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Protective effect?

Owing to symptoms of impulsivity inherent to ADHD, the disorder itself carries a risk for elevated substance use, the investigators note.

They speculate that this may be why some previous research suggests prescription stimulants reduce the risk of subsequent substance use disorder. However, other studies have found no such protective link.

To shed more light on the issue, the investigators used data from the Multimodal Treatment Study of ADHD, a multicenter, 14-month randomized clinical trial of medication and behavioral therapy for children with ADHD. However, for the purposes of the present study, investigators focused only on stimulant use in children.

At the time of recruitment, the children were aged 7-9 and had been diagnosed with ADHD between 1994 and 1996.

Investigators assessed the participants prior to randomization, at months 3 and 9, and at the end of treatment. They were then followed for 16 years and were assessed at years 2, 3, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 16 until a mean age of 25.

During 12-, 14-, and 16-year follow-up, participants completed a questionnaire on their use of alcohol, marijuana, cigarettes, and several illicit and prescription drugs.

Investigators collected information on participants’ stimulant treatment via the Services for Children and Adolescents Parent Interview until they reached age 18. After that, participants reported their own stimulant treatment.

A total of 579 participants were included in the analysis. Of these, 61% were White, 20% were Black, and 8% were Hispanic.
 

Decline in stimulant use over time

The analysis showed that stimulant use declined “precipitously” over time – from 60% at the 2- and 3-year assessments to an average of 7% during early adulthood.

The investigators also found that for some participants, substance use increased steadily through adolescence and remained stable through early adulthood. For instance, 36.5% of the adolescents in the total cohort reported smoking tobacco daily, and 29.6% reported using marijuana every week.

In addition, approximately 21% of the participants indulged in heavy drinking at least once a week, and 6% reported “other” substance use, which included sedative misuse, heroin, inhalants, hallucinogens, or other substances taken to “get high.”

After accounting for developmental trends in substance use in the sample through adolescence into early adulthood with several rigorous statistical models, the researchers found no association between current or prior stimulant treatment and cigarette, marijuana, alcohol, or other substance use, with one exception.

While cumulative stimulant treatment was associated with increased heavy drinking, the effect size of this association was small. Each additional year of cumulative stimulant use was estimated to increase participants’ likelihood of any binge drinking/drunkenness vs. none in the past year by 4% (95% confidence interval, 0.01-0.08; P =.03).

When the investigators used a causal analytic method to account for age and other time-varying characteristics, including household income, behavior problems, and parental support, there was no evidence that current (B range, –0.62-0.34) or prior stimulant treatment (B range, –0.06-0.70) or their interaction (B range, –0.49-0.86) was associated with substance use in adulthood.

Dr. Molina noted that although participants were recruited from multiple sites, the sample may not be generalizable because children and parents who present for an intensive treatment study such as this are not necessarily representative of the general ADHD population.
 

Reassuring findings

In a comment, Julie Schweitzer, PhD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of California, Davis, said she hopes the study findings will quell the stigma surrounding stimulant use by children with ADHD.

“Parents’ fears that stimulant use will lead to a substance use disorder inhibits them from bringing their children for an ADHD evaluation, thus reducing the likelihood that they will receive timely treatment,” Dr. Schweitzer said.

“While stimulant medication is the first-line treatment most often recommended for most persons with ADHD, by not following through on evaluations, parents also miss the opportunity to learn about nonpharmacological strategies that might also be helpful to help cope with ADHD symptoms and its potential co-occurring challenges,” she added.

Dr. Schweitzer also noted that many parents hope their children will outgrow the symptoms without realizing that by not obtaining an evaluation and treatment for their child, there is an associated cost, including less than optimal academic performance, social relationships, and emotional health.

The Multimodal Treatment Study of Children with ADHD was a National Institute of Mental Health cooperative agreement randomized clinical trial, continued under an NIMH contract as a follow-up study and under a National Institute on Drug Abuse contract followed by a data analysis grant. Dr. Molina reported grants from the NIMH and the National Institute on Drug Abuse during the conduct of the study.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

There is no increased risk of substance abuse later in life among children treated with stimulants for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), results of a large study show.

University of Pittsburgh

“Throughout rigorous analyses, and after accounting for more than 70 variables in this longitudinal sample of children with ADHD taking stimulants, we did not find an association with later substance use,” lead investigator Brooke Molina, PhD, director of the youth and family research program at the University of Pittsburgh, said in an interview.

The findings were published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Protective effect?

Owing to symptoms of impulsivity inherent to ADHD, the disorder itself carries a risk for elevated substance use, the investigators note.

They speculate that this may be why some previous research suggests prescription stimulants reduce the risk of subsequent substance use disorder. However, other studies have found no such protective link.

To shed more light on the issue, the investigators used data from the Multimodal Treatment Study of ADHD, a multicenter, 14-month randomized clinical trial of medication and behavioral therapy for children with ADHD. However, for the purposes of the present study, investigators focused only on stimulant use in children.

At the time of recruitment, the children were aged 7-9 and had been diagnosed with ADHD between 1994 and 1996.

Investigators assessed the participants prior to randomization, at months 3 and 9, and at the end of treatment. They were then followed for 16 years and were assessed at years 2, 3, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 16 until a mean age of 25.

During 12-, 14-, and 16-year follow-up, participants completed a questionnaire on their use of alcohol, marijuana, cigarettes, and several illicit and prescription drugs.

Investigators collected information on participants’ stimulant treatment via the Services for Children and Adolescents Parent Interview until they reached age 18. After that, participants reported their own stimulant treatment.

A total of 579 participants were included in the analysis. Of these, 61% were White, 20% were Black, and 8% were Hispanic.
 

Decline in stimulant use over time

The analysis showed that stimulant use declined “precipitously” over time – from 60% at the 2- and 3-year assessments to an average of 7% during early adulthood.

The investigators also found that for some participants, substance use increased steadily through adolescence and remained stable through early adulthood. For instance, 36.5% of the adolescents in the total cohort reported smoking tobacco daily, and 29.6% reported using marijuana every week.

In addition, approximately 21% of the participants indulged in heavy drinking at least once a week, and 6% reported “other” substance use, which included sedative misuse, heroin, inhalants, hallucinogens, or other substances taken to “get high.”

After accounting for developmental trends in substance use in the sample through adolescence into early adulthood with several rigorous statistical models, the researchers found no association between current or prior stimulant treatment and cigarette, marijuana, alcohol, or other substance use, with one exception.

While cumulative stimulant treatment was associated with increased heavy drinking, the effect size of this association was small. Each additional year of cumulative stimulant use was estimated to increase participants’ likelihood of any binge drinking/drunkenness vs. none in the past year by 4% (95% confidence interval, 0.01-0.08; P =.03).

When the investigators used a causal analytic method to account for age and other time-varying characteristics, including household income, behavior problems, and parental support, there was no evidence that current (B range, –0.62-0.34) or prior stimulant treatment (B range, –0.06-0.70) or their interaction (B range, –0.49-0.86) was associated with substance use in adulthood.

Dr. Molina noted that although participants were recruited from multiple sites, the sample may not be generalizable because children and parents who present for an intensive treatment study such as this are not necessarily representative of the general ADHD population.
 

Reassuring findings

In a comment, Julie Schweitzer, PhD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of California, Davis, said she hopes the study findings will quell the stigma surrounding stimulant use by children with ADHD.

“Parents’ fears that stimulant use will lead to a substance use disorder inhibits them from bringing their children for an ADHD evaluation, thus reducing the likelihood that they will receive timely treatment,” Dr. Schweitzer said.

“While stimulant medication is the first-line treatment most often recommended for most persons with ADHD, by not following through on evaluations, parents also miss the opportunity to learn about nonpharmacological strategies that might also be helpful to help cope with ADHD symptoms and its potential co-occurring challenges,” she added.

Dr. Schweitzer also noted that many parents hope their children will outgrow the symptoms without realizing that by not obtaining an evaluation and treatment for their child, there is an associated cost, including less than optimal academic performance, social relationships, and emotional health.

The Multimodal Treatment Study of Children with ADHD was a National Institute of Mental Health cooperative agreement randomized clinical trial, continued under an NIMH contract as a follow-up study and under a National Institute on Drug Abuse contract followed by a data analysis grant. Dr. Molina reported grants from the NIMH and the National Institute on Drug Abuse during the conduct of the study.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Women in the United States are dying of alcohol-related causes at a much faster rate than are U.S. men, according to a new study that tracked these deaths for 20 years. The most dramatic rise occurred in the last 3 years covered by the study, published in JAMA Network Open.

“From 2018 to 2020, there was an increase of 14.7% per year” in alcohol-related deaths in women, said study researcher Ibraheem M. Karaye, MD, DrPH, assistant professor of population health, and director of the health science program at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y. While alcohol-related deaths in men also rose greatly during that same 3-year period, the increase was less than in women, at 12.5% per year.

Researchers have known for several years that the sex gap related to alcohol use and complications is narrowing. Women are drinking more, engaging in more high-risk drinking, and increasingly developing alcohol use disorder, Dr. Karaye said. “However, we know very little about the trends in alcohol-related deaths.”

Using a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention database that spanned the years 1999 to 2020, Dr. Karaye and his coresearchers analyzed files that identified underlying causes of death. During those years, more than 605,000 alcohol-attributed deaths were identified. Overall, men were still nearly three times more likely to die from alcohol-related issues than were women. However, the rate of alcohol-related deaths in women increased steadily and, in the latest years studied, more greatly than in men. 

“We found there were three different segments of trends in women,” Dr. Karaye said. The rates increased slowly, then steadily picked up speed. For instance:

• 1999-2007: “We found that mortality rates from alcohol were increasing by 1% per year” in women, he said.
• 2007-2018: “The rate increased 4.3% per year. That was a big one, but not as phenomenal as the most recent, the most concerning,” he said. 
• 2018 to 2020: The rate increased 14.7% per year in women, compared with 12.5% per year for men.

The findings stayed strong, Dr. Karaye said, even when the researchers excluded data from the year 2020, the first pandemic year. 
 

Explaining the increase

“Our study is descriptive; it tells us the ‘what’ but not the ‘why,’” Dr. Karaye said. “However, we can speculate based on what’s known and previous research.” Women are drinking at higher rates than before and tend to develop more alcohol-related complications than men do.

Women have lower concentrations of the enzyme called alcohol dehydrogenase, which helps breaks down and metabolize alcohol. “We know that in women the concentration of fat to water is higher, so that also leads to a possibly higher concentration of alcohol,” Dr. Karaye said.

The study findings point to the need for more research to focus on causes for the rise in women, Dr. Karaye said. Studies on the use of medication for alcohol use disorder need to represent women more equitably, he said.
 

Other findings on women, alcohol

Other recent research has found that the proportion of suicides that involved alcohol has also increased for women of all age groups, but not men. In research published in 2022, researchers analyzed more than 115,000 deaths by suicide from 2003 to 2018 and found the proportion of those deaths involving alcohol at a level above the legal limit increased annually for women in all age groups, but not for men. 

A review by Mayo Clinic researchers found that women are increasingly affected by liver disease linked to alcohol and develop more severe disease at lower levels of drinking than do men. Among other factors, the researchers said that an increase in obesity, which can worsen the liver-damaging effects of alcohol, is a contributor.  
 

Expert perspectives

Overall, recent research is showing that, “not only are women drinking more but potentially are developing more problems later on as a result of the alcohol,” said Mark S. Kaplan, DrPH, professor emeritus of social welfare at the University of California, Los Angeles. He conducted the study finding growing alcohol use involvement in women’s death by suicide.

“I think this new study is strong,” he said. In future research, “we should focus on some of the issues that may have to do with social circumstances.” 

In particular, he said, research should examine the increase in alcohol-involved death found in the new study among American Indian or Alaska Native women. While the overall annual increase was 14.7% for the years 2018-2020, the rate among American Indian or Alaska Native women was 22.8% annually. 

While the new study and others find the gap between the sexes is narrowing for alcohol-related complications, “unfortunately, alcohol use disorder and alcohol-related deaths are increasing in both men and women,” said Camille A. Kezer, MD, a gastroenterology and hepatology fellow at Mayo Clinic, who led the review on sex differences in alcohol-linked liver disease.  

However, she said, “we know that there are risks of alcohol that are unique to women for a variety of reasons, including differences in metabolism and the impact of hormones, as well as the increasing prevalence of obesity and bariatric surgery in women.” 

Bariatric surgery has been linked with an increase in alcohol consumption and disorder in some studies. 

Dr. Kezer’s advice to women: “Limit alcohol intake to one drink per day or less. If you are concerned about your alcohol intake, you should seek help.”  

Health care providers are committed to helping their patients recognize and treat alcohol-related disorders, she said.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Women in the United States are dying of alcohol-related causes at a much faster rate than are U.S. men, according to a new study that tracked these deaths for 20 years. The most dramatic rise occurred in the last 3 years covered by the study, published in JAMA Network Open.

“From 2018 to 2020, there was an increase of 14.7% per year” in alcohol-related deaths in women, said study researcher Ibraheem M. Karaye, MD, DrPH, assistant professor of population health, and director of the health science program at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y. While alcohol-related deaths in men also rose greatly during that same 3-year period, the increase was less than in women, at 12.5% per year.

Researchers have known for several years that the sex gap related to alcohol use and complications is narrowing. Women are drinking more, engaging in more high-risk drinking, and increasingly developing alcohol use disorder, Dr. Karaye said. “However, we know very little about the trends in alcohol-related deaths.”

Using a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention database that spanned the years 1999 to 2020, Dr. Karaye and his coresearchers analyzed files that identified underlying causes of death. During those years, more than 605,000 alcohol-attributed deaths were identified. Overall, men were still nearly three times more likely to die from alcohol-related issues than were women. However, the rate of alcohol-related deaths in women increased steadily and, in the latest years studied, more greatly than in men. 

“We found there were three different segments of trends in women,” Dr. Karaye said. The rates increased slowly, then steadily picked up speed. For instance:

• 1999-2007: “We found that mortality rates from alcohol were increasing by 1% per year” in women, he said.
• 2007-2018: “The rate increased 4.3% per year. That was a big one, but not as phenomenal as the most recent, the most concerning,” he said. 
• 2018 to 2020: The rate increased 14.7% per year in women, compared with 12.5% per year for men.

The findings stayed strong, Dr. Karaye said, even when the researchers excluded data from the year 2020, the first pandemic year. 
 

Explaining the increase

“Our study is descriptive; it tells us the ‘what’ but not the ‘why,’” Dr. Karaye said. “However, we can speculate based on what’s known and previous research.” Women are drinking at higher rates than before and tend to develop more alcohol-related complications than men do.

Women have lower concentrations of the enzyme called alcohol dehydrogenase, which helps breaks down and metabolize alcohol. “We know that in women the concentration of fat to water is higher, so that also leads to a possibly higher concentration of alcohol,” Dr. Karaye said.

The study findings point to the need for more research to focus on causes for the rise in women, Dr. Karaye said. Studies on the use of medication for alcohol use disorder need to represent women more equitably, he said.
 

Other findings on women, alcohol

Other recent research has found that the proportion of suicides that involved alcohol has also increased for women of all age groups, but not men. In research published in 2022, researchers analyzed more than 115,000 deaths by suicide from 2003 to 2018 and found the proportion of those deaths involving alcohol at a level above the legal limit increased annually for women in all age groups, but not for men. 

A review by Mayo Clinic researchers found that women are increasingly affected by liver disease linked to alcohol and develop more severe disease at lower levels of drinking than do men. Among other factors, the researchers said that an increase in obesity, which can worsen the liver-damaging effects of alcohol, is a contributor.  
 

Expert perspectives

Overall, recent research is showing that, “not only are women drinking more but potentially are developing more problems later on as a result of the alcohol,” said Mark S. Kaplan, DrPH, professor emeritus of social welfare at the University of California, Los Angeles. He conducted the study finding growing alcohol use involvement in women’s death by suicide.

“I think this new study is strong,” he said. In future research, “we should focus on some of the issues that may have to do with social circumstances.” 

In particular, he said, research should examine the increase in alcohol-involved death found in the new study among American Indian or Alaska Native women. While the overall annual increase was 14.7% for the years 2018-2020, the rate among American Indian or Alaska Native women was 22.8% annually. 

While the new study and others find the gap between the sexes is narrowing for alcohol-related complications, “unfortunately, alcohol use disorder and alcohol-related deaths are increasing in both men and women,” said Camille A. Kezer, MD, a gastroenterology and hepatology fellow at Mayo Clinic, who led the review on sex differences in alcohol-linked liver disease.  

However, she said, “we know that there are risks of alcohol that are unique to women for a variety of reasons, including differences in metabolism and the impact of hormones, as well as the increasing prevalence of obesity and bariatric surgery in women.” 

Bariatric surgery has been linked with an increase in alcohol consumption and disorder in some studies. 

Dr. Kezer’s advice to women: “Limit alcohol intake to one drink per day or less. If you are concerned about your alcohol intake, you should seek help.”  

Health care providers are committed to helping their patients recognize and treat alcohol-related disorders, she said.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Women in the United States are dying of alcohol-related causes at a much faster rate than are U.S. men, according to a new study that tracked these deaths for 20 years. The most dramatic rise occurred in the last 3 years covered by the study, published in JAMA Network Open.

“From 2018 to 2020, there was an increase of 14.7% per year” in alcohol-related deaths in women, said study researcher Ibraheem M. Karaye, MD, DrPH, assistant professor of population health, and director of the health science program at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y. While alcohol-related deaths in men also rose greatly during that same 3-year period, the increase was less than in women, at 12.5% per year.

Researchers have known for several years that the sex gap related to alcohol use and complications is narrowing. Women are drinking more, engaging in more high-risk drinking, and increasingly developing alcohol use disorder, Dr. Karaye said. “However, we know very little about the trends in alcohol-related deaths.”

Using a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention database that spanned the years 1999 to 2020, Dr. Karaye and his coresearchers analyzed files that identified underlying causes of death. During those years, more than 605,000 alcohol-attributed deaths were identified. Overall, men were still nearly three times more likely to die from alcohol-related issues than were women. However, the rate of alcohol-related deaths in women increased steadily and, in the latest years studied, more greatly than in men. 

“We found there were three different segments of trends in women,” Dr. Karaye said. The rates increased slowly, then steadily picked up speed. For instance:

• 1999-2007: “We found that mortality rates from alcohol were increasing by 1% per year” in women, he said.
• 2007-2018: “The rate increased 4.3% per year. That was a big one, but not as phenomenal as the most recent, the most concerning,” he said. 
• 2018 to 2020: The rate increased 14.7% per year in women, compared with 12.5% per year for men.

The findings stayed strong, Dr. Karaye said, even when the researchers excluded data from the year 2020, the first pandemic year. 
 

Explaining the increase

“Our study is descriptive; it tells us the ‘what’ but not the ‘why,’” Dr. Karaye said. “However, we can speculate based on what’s known and previous research.” Women are drinking at higher rates than before and tend to develop more alcohol-related complications than men do.

Women have lower concentrations of the enzyme called alcohol dehydrogenase, which helps breaks down and metabolize alcohol. “We know that in women the concentration of fat to water is higher, so that also leads to a possibly higher concentration of alcohol,” Dr. Karaye said.

The study findings point to the need for more research to focus on causes for the rise in women, Dr. Karaye said. Studies on the use of medication for alcohol use disorder need to represent women more equitably, he said.
 

Other findings on women, alcohol

Other recent research has found that the proportion of suicides that involved alcohol has also increased for women of all age groups, but not men. In research published in 2022, researchers analyzed more than 115,000 deaths by suicide from 2003 to 2018 and found the proportion of those deaths involving alcohol at a level above the legal limit increased annually for women in all age groups, but not for men. 

A review by Mayo Clinic researchers found that women are increasingly affected by liver disease linked to alcohol and develop more severe disease at lower levels of drinking than do men. Among other factors, the researchers said that an increase in obesity, which can worsen the liver-damaging effects of alcohol, is a contributor.  
 

Expert perspectives

Overall, recent research is showing that, “not only are women drinking more but potentially are developing more problems later on as a result of the alcohol,” said Mark S. Kaplan, DrPH, professor emeritus of social welfare at the University of California, Los Angeles. He conducted the study finding growing alcohol use involvement in women’s death by suicide.

“I think this new study is strong,” he said. In future research, “we should focus on some of the issues that may have to do with social circumstances.” 

In particular, he said, research should examine the increase in alcohol-involved death found in the new study among American Indian or Alaska Native women. While the overall annual increase was 14.7% for the years 2018-2020, the rate among American Indian or Alaska Native women was 22.8% annually. 

While the new study and others find the gap between the sexes is narrowing for alcohol-related complications, “unfortunately, alcohol use disorder and alcohol-related deaths are increasing in both men and women,” said Camille A. Kezer, MD, a gastroenterology and hepatology fellow at Mayo Clinic, who led the review on sex differences in alcohol-linked liver disease.  

However, she said, “we know that there are risks of alcohol that are unique to women for a variety of reasons, including differences in metabolism and the impact of hormones, as well as the increasing prevalence of obesity and bariatric surgery in women.” 

Bariatric surgery has been linked with an increase in alcohol consumption and disorder in some studies. 

Dr. Kezer’s advice to women: “Limit alcohol intake to one drink per day or less. If you are concerned about your alcohol intake, you should seek help.”  

Health care providers are committed to helping their patients recognize and treat alcohol-related disorders, she said.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Two-thirds of Americans support regulated use of psychedelics for therapeutic purposes, results of a new poll show.

It is a surprisingly large percentage, said officials at the University of California, Berkeley, Center for the Science of Psychedelics, which conducted the online survey of 1,500 registered voters in early June.

Courtesy Alia Malley

“That is a stunning number,” said Michael Pollan, cofounder of the center, and author of “How to Change Your Mind,” a book that explored potential uses of psychedelics.

In a briefing with reporters, Mr. Pollan said that he believes the large support base, in part, reflects campaigns that have “been successful by highlighting the effectiveness of psychedelics as therapy for mental illness.”

However, the poll also showed that 61% of voters said that they do not perceive psychedelics as “good for society,” and 69% do not perceive them as “something for people like me.”

These negative sentiments “suggest a fragile kind of support – the kind of support where you’re only hearing one side of the story,” said Mr. Pollan.

Still, poll respondents supported other potential policy changes, including 56% in support of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration vetting and approving psychedelics so they could be available by prescription.
 

50% have tried psychedelics

Almost 80% said that it should be easier for researchers to study psychedelics, and just under one-half said that they backed removing criminal penalties for personal use and possession.

The poll results also show that almost half of respondents had heard about psychedelics recently, with 48% saying they had heard about the drugs’ use in treating mental illness.

Respondents who were most familiar with and positive about psychedelics tended to be White, male, aged 30-50 years, liberal, highly educated, living in a Western state, and have little to no religious or spiritual practice.

Overall, 52% of survey respondents said that they or someone close to them had used a psychedelic, with almost half of that use coming in the past 5 years. Some 40% said that the use had been more than a decade ago.

Almost three-quarters of psychedelic use was reported as recreational, but the second-biggest category was therapeutic use at 39%. About one-third of respondents said that they or someone close to them had microdosed.

Conservative voters had lower levels of awareness and first-degree connection use as well as the least amount of support for regulated therapeutic use, with only 45% saying they would back such a policy, compared with 80% of liberal voters and 66% of moderate voters.

Black individuals were the least likely to be familiar with psychedelics: Just 29% said that they had heard a little or a lot about the drugs, compared with 39% of Latinx individuals and 51% of White individuals. And just one-quarter reported first-degree use, compared with half of Latinx individuals and 56% of White individuals.
 

Who should be eligible?

When asked who should be eligible for treatment with psychedelics, 80% said that they were comfortable with its use for those with terminal illnesses. More than two-thirds expressed comfort with the drugs being used to help veterans and people with treatment-resistant depression and anxiety.

Less than one-half of respondents said that psychedelics should be available to everyone older than 21 years. And voters seemed to be less inclined to say psychedelics should be used to treat people with addiction, with just 45% indicating that they were very or somewhat comfortable with that use.

Mr. Pollan said that reflects perhaps some lack of knowledge or education.

“The story about addiction and psychedelics hasn’t gotten out,” he said. “I kind of get that intuitively the idea of using a drug to treat a drug doesn’t sound right to a lot of people. But in fact, there’s good evidence it works,” Mr. Pollan said.

Respondents said that doctors, nurses, and scientists were the most trusted source of information about psychedelics, whereas the FDA received lower confidence. Law enforcement was least trusted by liberals and most trusted by conservatives.

Mr. Pollan noted the reversal in attitudes, with Americans mostly now looking to the scientific and medical establishment for guidance on psychedelics.

“We went from a counterculture drug to something that is being taken seriously by scientists as a potential therapy,” he said.

The poll’s margin of error was ± 2.5%.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two-thirds of Americans support regulated use of psychedelics for therapeutic purposes, results of a new poll show.

It is a surprisingly large percentage, said officials at the University of California, Berkeley, Center for the Science of Psychedelics, which conducted the online survey of 1,500 registered voters in early June.

Courtesy Alia Malley

“That is a stunning number,” said Michael Pollan, cofounder of the center, and author of “How to Change Your Mind,” a book that explored potential uses of psychedelics.

In a briefing with reporters, Mr. Pollan said that he believes the large support base, in part, reflects campaigns that have “been successful by highlighting the effectiveness of psychedelics as therapy for mental illness.”

However, the poll also showed that 61% of voters said that they do not perceive psychedelics as “good for society,” and 69% do not perceive them as “something for people like me.”

These negative sentiments “suggest a fragile kind of support – the kind of support where you’re only hearing one side of the story,” said Mr. Pollan.

Still, poll respondents supported other potential policy changes, including 56% in support of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration vetting and approving psychedelics so they could be available by prescription.
 

50% have tried psychedelics

Almost 80% said that it should be easier for researchers to study psychedelics, and just under one-half said that they backed removing criminal penalties for personal use and possession.

The poll results also show that almost half of respondents had heard about psychedelics recently, with 48% saying they had heard about the drugs’ use in treating mental illness.

Respondents who were most familiar with and positive about psychedelics tended to be White, male, aged 30-50 years, liberal, highly educated, living in a Western state, and have little to no religious or spiritual practice.

Overall, 52% of survey respondents said that they or someone close to them had used a psychedelic, with almost half of that use coming in the past 5 years. Some 40% said that the use had been more than a decade ago.

Almost three-quarters of psychedelic use was reported as recreational, but the second-biggest category was therapeutic use at 39%. About one-third of respondents said that they or someone close to them had microdosed.

Conservative voters had lower levels of awareness and first-degree connection use as well as the least amount of support for regulated therapeutic use, with only 45% saying they would back such a policy, compared with 80% of liberal voters and 66% of moderate voters.

Black individuals were the least likely to be familiar with psychedelics: Just 29% said that they had heard a little or a lot about the drugs, compared with 39% of Latinx individuals and 51% of White individuals. And just one-quarter reported first-degree use, compared with half of Latinx individuals and 56% of White individuals.
 

Who should be eligible?

When asked who should be eligible for treatment with psychedelics, 80% said that they were comfortable with its use for those with terminal illnesses. More than two-thirds expressed comfort with the drugs being used to help veterans and people with treatment-resistant depression and anxiety.

Less than one-half of respondents said that psychedelics should be available to everyone older than 21 years. And voters seemed to be less inclined to say psychedelics should be used to treat people with addiction, with just 45% indicating that they were very or somewhat comfortable with that use.

Mr. Pollan said that reflects perhaps some lack of knowledge or education.

“The story about addiction and psychedelics hasn’t gotten out,” he said. “I kind of get that intuitively the idea of using a drug to treat a drug doesn’t sound right to a lot of people. But in fact, there’s good evidence it works,” Mr. Pollan said.

Respondents said that doctors, nurses, and scientists were the most trusted source of information about psychedelics, whereas the FDA received lower confidence. Law enforcement was least trusted by liberals and most trusted by conservatives.

Mr. Pollan noted the reversal in attitudes, with Americans mostly now looking to the scientific and medical establishment for guidance on psychedelics.

“We went from a counterculture drug to something that is being taken seriously by scientists as a potential therapy,” he said.

The poll’s margin of error was ± 2.5%.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two-thirds of Americans support regulated use of psychedelics for therapeutic purposes, results of a new poll show.

It is a surprisingly large percentage, said officials at the University of California, Berkeley, Center for the Science of Psychedelics, which conducted the online survey of 1,500 registered voters in early June.

Courtesy Alia Malley

“That is a stunning number,” said Michael Pollan, cofounder of the center, and author of “How to Change Your Mind,” a book that explored potential uses of psychedelics.

In a briefing with reporters, Mr. Pollan said that he believes the large support base, in part, reflects campaigns that have “been successful by highlighting the effectiveness of psychedelics as therapy for mental illness.”

However, the poll also showed that 61% of voters said that they do not perceive psychedelics as “good for society,” and 69% do not perceive them as “something for people like me.”

These negative sentiments “suggest a fragile kind of support – the kind of support where you’re only hearing one side of the story,” said Mr. Pollan.

Still, poll respondents supported other potential policy changes, including 56% in support of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration vetting and approving psychedelics so they could be available by prescription.
 

50% have tried psychedelics

Almost 80% said that it should be easier for researchers to study psychedelics, and just under one-half said that they backed removing criminal penalties for personal use and possession.

The poll results also show that almost half of respondents had heard about psychedelics recently, with 48% saying they had heard about the drugs’ use in treating mental illness.

Respondents who were most familiar with and positive about psychedelics tended to be White, male, aged 30-50 years, liberal, highly educated, living in a Western state, and have little to no religious or spiritual practice.

Overall, 52% of survey respondents said that they or someone close to them had used a psychedelic, with almost half of that use coming in the past 5 years. Some 40% said that the use had been more than a decade ago.

Almost three-quarters of psychedelic use was reported as recreational, but the second-biggest category was therapeutic use at 39%. About one-third of respondents said that they or someone close to them had microdosed.

Conservative voters had lower levels of awareness and first-degree connection use as well as the least amount of support for regulated therapeutic use, with only 45% saying they would back such a policy, compared with 80% of liberal voters and 66% of moderate voters.

Black individuals were the least likely to be familiar with psychedelics: Just 29% said that they had heard a little or a lot about the drugs, compared with 39% of Latinx individuals and 51% of White individuals. And just one-quarter reported first-degree use, compared with half of Latinx individuals and 56% of White individuals.
 

Who should be eligible?

When asked who should be eligible for treatment with psychedelics, 80% said that they were comfortable with its use for those with terminal illnesses. More than two-thirds expressed comfort with the drugs being used to help veterans and people with treatment-resistant depression and anxiety.

Less than one-half of respondents said that psychedelics should be available to everyone older than 21 years. And voters seemed to be less inclined to say psychedelics should be used to treat people with addiction, with just 45% indicating that they were very or somewhat comfortable with that use.

Mr. Pollan said that reflects perhaps some lack of knowledge or education.

“The story about addiction and psychedelics hasn’t gotten out,” he said. “I kind of get that intuitively the idea of using a drug to treat a drug doesn’t sound right to a lot of people. But in fact, there’s good evidence it works,” Mr. Pollan said.

Respondents said that doctors, nurses, and scientists were the most trusted source of information about psychedelics, whereas the FDA received lower confidence. Law enforcement was least trusted by liberals and most trusted by conservatives.

Mr. Pollan noted the reversal in attitudes, with Americans mostly now looking to the scientific and medical establishment for guidance on psychedelics.

“We went from a counterculture drug to something that is being taken seriously by scientists as a potential therapy,” he said.

The poll’s margin of error was ± 2.5%.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The key to reducing problem drinking may just be an app away.

A brief intervention with web- and app-based components helped risky drinkers substantially reduce their alcohol intake to a level that is considered not to be hazardous, researchers in Australia have found.

Participants in the randomized controlled trial tracked information about their alcohol consumption, including the quantity and frequency. The intervention then generated an impulsivity score and implications for their risk for alcohol-related disorders and diseases, hospitalization, and death. The findings were published in Alcohol: Clinical & Experimental Research.

Worldwide each year, alcohol consumption accounts for 5.3% of all deaths. In the United States, an estimated 29.5 million people older than 12 years had alcohol use disorder in 2021.

More than 60% of people with alcohol use problems never seek out in-person treatment. Many are deterred from doing so by fear of judgment, stigma, and embarrassment, especially those at the low end of the alcohol use severity spectrum, according to the Australian researchers. Such fear-based barriers, however, may be overcome through the anonymity of a smartphone app.

The researchers tested whether hazardous drinkers who receive personalized feedback about their alcohol consumption and level of self-control would reduce their problem drinking more than hazardous drinkers who received only personalized information about their alcohol consumption or no feedback at all would.

“I knew from my previous research that just putting in the information is not enough to change someone’s drinking: It seems that putting in the information and then having someone tell you, ‘You drank x number of drinks, and that level of drinking is high according to Australian or WHO [World Health Organization] standards’ seems to be the critical point,” said Antoinette Poulton, PhD, of the University of Melbourne, who developed the app and led the study.

The study was conducted among first-year psychology students at the University of Melbourne between 2020 and 2022.

Each of the 313 participants in the study (average age 21.7 years; 74% women) provided estimates of alcohol intake over 14 days. A subset of 178 individuals utilized Alcohol Capture, the validated smartphone app, which records alcohol intake in real-time and includes an online cognitive task assessing impulsivity.

Participants were categorized as “hazardous” or “nonharmful” drinkers according to guidelines from the World Health Organization and were divided into three groups. Members in the alcohol intake feedback (Alc) group were given personalized feedback about their alcohol consumption, including whether their drinking exceeded Australian and/or WHO guidelines. Others were assigned to the Alc plus cognitive feedback (AlcCog) group and received the same feedback plus details about their level of self-control and information about the links between poor self-control and vulnerability for transition to alcohol use disorder. The control group did not receive personalized feedback. After 8 weeks, alcohol intake was again recorded over 14 days.

Relative to hazardous drinkers in the control group, total alcohol consumption among risky drinkers in the Alc group fell by 32% (or 3.8 standard drinks per week) and by 35% (or 4.2 standard drinks per week) in the AlcCog group, according to the researchers. That difference was not statistically significant.

“Our brief electronic intervention had clear impact on the drinking behavior of hazardous drinkers,” the researchers reported. “In fact, following the intervention, hazardous drinkers did not differ from non-harmful ones on total alcohol intake, quantity of intake per drinking day, or frequency of six or more drinking occasions.”

Drinks per drinking day also decreased by 31% (or 1.6 standard drinks) and 32% (or 2.1 standard drinks) in the Alc and AlcCog groups, respectively, compared with the control group.

Alcohol use did not appear to change among nonharmful drinkers in any of the study groups.

“This is a nice study, because it shows that a simple, small intervention can really have a profound effect on hazardous drinking,” said Akhil Anand, MD, an addiction psychiatrist and Medical Director of the Alcohol and Drug Recovery Center at Cleveland Clinic. “It’s hard to say if this intervention would work on very severe cases, but I like it because it’s anonymous, it’s quick, it’s easily accessible, and it doesn’t take too much health care personnel power to apply it,” Dr. Anand added.

This research was supported by an Early Career Researcher grant from the University of Melbourne. Dr. Poulton and Dr. Anand reported no financial conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The key to reducing problem drinking may just be an app away.

A brief intervention with web- and app-based components helped risky drinkers substantially reduce their alcohol intake to a level that is considered not to be hazardous, researchers in Australia have found.

Participants in the randomized controlled trial tracked information about their alcohol consumption, including the quantity and frequency. The intervention then generated an impulsivity score and implications for their risk for alcohol-related disorders and diseases, hospitalization, and death. The findings were published in Alcohol: Clinical & Experimental Research.

Worldwide each year, alcohol consumption accounts for 5.3% of all deaths. In the United States, an estimated 29.5 million people older than 12 years had alcohol use disorder in 2021.

More than 60% of people with alcohol use problems never seek out in-person treatment. Many are deterred from doing so by fear of judgment, stigma, and embarrassment, especially those at the low end of the alcohol use severity spectrum, according to the Australian researchers. Such fear-based barriers, however, may be overcome through the anonymity of a smartphone app.

The researchers tested whether hazardous drinkers who receive personalized feedback about their alcohol consumption and level of self-control would reduce their problem drinking more than hazardous drinkers who received only personalized information about their alcohol consumption or no feedback at all would.

“I knew from my previous research that just putting in the information is not enough to change someone’s drinking: It seems that putting in the information and then having someone tell you, ‘You drank x number of drinks, and that level of drinking is high according to Australian or WHO [World Health Organization] standards’ seems to be the critical point,” said Antoinette Poulton, PhD, of the University of Melbourne, who developed the app and led the study.

The study was conducted among first-year psychology students at the University of Melbourne between 2020 and 2022.

Each of the 313 participants in the study (average age 21.7 years; 74% women) provided estimates of alcohol intake over 14 days. A subset of 178 individuals utilized Alcohol Capture, the validated smartphone app, which records alcohol intake in real-time and includes an online cognitive task assessing impulsivity.

Participants were categorized as “hazardous” or “nonharmful” drinkers according to guidelines from the World Health Organization and were divided into three groups. Members in the alcohol intake feedback (Alc) group were given personalized feedback about their alcohol consumption, including whether their drinking exceeded Australian and/or WHO guidelines. Others were assigned to the Alc plus cognitive feedback (AlcCog) group and received the same feedback plus details about their level of self-control and information about the links between poor self-control and vulnerability for transition to alcohol use disorder. The control group did not receive personalized feedback. After 8 weeks, alcohol intake was again recorded over 14 days.

Relative to hazardous drinkers in the control group, total alcohol consumption among risky drinkers in the Alc group fell by 32% (or 3.8 standard drinks per week) and by 35% (or 4.2 standard drinks per week) in the AlcCog group, according to the researchers. That difference was not statistically significant.

“Our brief electronic intervention had clear impact on the drinking behavior of hazardous drinkers,” the researchers reported. “In fact, following the intervention, hazardous drinkers did not differ from non-harmful ones on total alcohol intake, quantity of intake per drinking day, or frequency of six or more drinking occasions.”

Drinks per drinking day also decreased by 31% (or 1.6 standard drinks) and 32% (or 2.1 standard drinks) in the Alc and AlcCog groups, respectively, compared with the control group.

Alcohol use did not appear to change among nonharmful drinkers in any of the study groups.

“This is a nice study, because it shows that a simple, small intervention can really have a profound effect on hazardous drinking,” said Akhil Anand, MD, an addiction psychiatrist and Medical Director of the Alcohol and Drug Recovery Center at Cleveland Clinic. “It’s hard to say if this intervention would work on very severe cases, but I like it because it’s anonymous, it’s quick, it’s easily accessible, and it doesn’t take too much health care personnel power to apply it,” Dr. Anand added.

This research was supported by an Early Career Researcher grant from the University of Melbourne. Dr. Poulton and Dr. Anand reported no financial conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The key to reducing problem drinking may just be an app away.

A brief intervention with web- and app-based components helped risky drinkers substantially reduce their alcohol intake to a level that is considered not to be hazardous, researchers in Australia have found.

Participants in the randomized controlled trial tracked information about their alcohol consumption, including the quantity and frequency. The intervention then generated an impulsivity score and implications for their risk for alcohol-related disorders and diseases, hospitalization, and death. The findings were published in Alcohol: Clinical & Experimental Research.

Worldwide each year, alcohol consumption accounts for 5.3% of all deaths. In the United States, an estimated 29.5 million people older than 12 years had alcohol use disorder in 2021.

More than 60% of people with alcohol use problems never seek out in-person treatment. Many are deterred from doing so by fear of judgment, stigma, and embarrassment, especially those at the low end of the alcohol use severity spectrum, according to the Australian researchers. Such fear-based barriers, however, may be overcome through the anonymity of a smartphone app.

The researchers tested whether hazardous drinkers who receive personalized feedback about their alcohol consumption and level of self-control would reduce their problem drinking more than hazardous drinkers who received only personalized information about their alcohol consumption or no feedback at all would.

“I knew from my previous research that just putting in the information is not enough to change someone’s drinking: It seems that putting in the information and then having someone tell you, ‘You drank x number of drinks, and that level of drinking is high according to Australian or WHO [World Health Organization] standards’ seems to be the critical point,” said Antoinette Poulton, PhD, of the University of Melbourne, who developed the app and led the study.

The study was conducted among first-year psychology students at the University of Melbourne between 2020 and 2022.

Each of the 313 participants in the study (average age 21.7 years; 74% women) provided estimates of alcohol intake over 14 days. A subset of 178 individuals utilized Alcohol Capture, the validated smartphone app, which records alcohol intake in real-time and includes an online cognitive task assessing impulsivity.

Participants were categorized as “hazardous” or “nonharmful” drinkers according to guidelines from the World Health Organization and were divided into three groups. Members in the alcohol intake feedback (Alc) group were given personalized feedback about their alcohol consumption, including whether their drinking exceeded Australian and/or WHO guidelines. Others were assigned to the Alc plus cognitive feedback (AlcCog) group and received the same feedback plus details about their level of self-control and information about the links between poor self-control and vulnerability for transition to alcohol use disorder. The control group did not receive personalized feedback. After 8 weeks, alcohol intake was again recorded over 14 days.

Relative to hazardous drinkers in the control group, total alcohol consumption among risky drinkers in the Alc group fell by 32% (or 3.8 standard drinks per week) and by 35% (or 4.2 standard drinks per week) in the AlcCog group, according to the researchers. That difference was not statistically significant.

“Our brief electronic intervention had clear impact on the drinking behavior of hazardous drinkers,” the researchers reported. “In fact, following the intervention, hazardous drinkers did not differ from non-harmful ones on total alcohol intake, quantity of intake per drinking day, or frequency of six or more drinking occasions.”

Drinks per drinking day also decreased by 31% (or 1.6 standard drinks) and 32% (or 2.1 standard drinks) in the Alc and AlcCog groups, respectively, compared with the control group.

Alcohol use did not appear to change among nonharmful drinkers in any of the study groups.

“This is a nice study, because it shows that a simple, small intervention can really have a profound effect on hazardous drinking,” said Akhil Anand, MD, an addiction psychiatrist and Medical Director of the Alcohol and Drug Recovery Center at Cleveland Clinic. “It’s hard to say if this intervention would work on very severe cases, but I like it because it’s anonymous, it’s quick, it’s easily accessible, and it doesn’t take too much health care personnel power to apply it,” Dr. Anand added.

This research was supported by an Early Career Researcher grant from the University of Melbourne. Dr. Poulton and Dr. Anand reported no financial conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As children learn to walk and talk, their brains are remarkably open to new information. They gather knowledge from parents, their environment, and trial and error. Teenagers do too, as they adopt the emotional and intellectual skills needed to become adults. 

In adulthood, however, our minds become relatively locked, closed to new information. This saves energy and lets us navigate the world more efficiently. But that also makes it harder to adapt, learn a new language or skill, or recover from psychological or physical trauma. For those who’ve dealt with abuse, abandonment, or physical violence, that lockdown can lead to a lifetime of suffering, substance abuse, and other maladaptive behaviors.

But recent research offers promise that psychedelic drugs may “reopen” the brain to help it recover from trauma. The study, published in Nature, reflects a renaissance of using and researching psychedelics to treat a range of mental health conditions. 

Scientists at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore were investigating the drugs’ effects on “critical periods” for social learning, times when the brain is more open to new information that diminish as we age. Success in mice suggests that psychedelics can start a fresh period of learning.

If the finding bears out in future studies, the therapeutic horizon for psychedelics could expand to other opportunities to retrain the brain, including recovery from a stroke, traumatic brain injury, and even hearing loss and paralysis. 

The stakes are big, and the future is promising, said lead researcher Gul Dolen, MD, PhD, an associate professor of neuroscience at Johns Hopkins University. Psychedelics “could be the key that unlocks the brain and helps people after one dose, rather than subjecting them to a lifetime of drugs.” 
 

The psychedelic advantage

Dr. Dolen, who launched her career in addiction studies, has long been fascinated by critical periods and their influence on adult behavior. 

“There have been three Nobel Prizes awarded for work on critical periods,” she said. One study in mice, for instance, identified 15 periods of social learning that define their behaviors for a lifetime. 

Prior research has found that MDMA (commonly known as ecstasy) can help soldiers reconsider traumatic events on the battlefield, learn from them, and move on. That phenomenon had all the earmarks of a critical period for social learning. Perhaps, Dr. Dolen said, psychedelics could open a critical period in a soldier’s life – or a drug-addicted person’s or rape survivor’s – and give them tools to process their trauma.

In the placebo-controlled experiment, she and her team gave mice psychedelic drugs and a behavioral test to gauge the rodents’ ability to learn from their environment. 

“All of the psychedelics opened the critical period of social learning for varying lengths of time,” said Dr. Dolen. 

Ketamine achieved that reopening for 2 days, while the other drugs – ibogaine, LSD, MDMA, and psilocybin – opened critical periods of between 2 and 4 weeks, long after the drugs’ acute effects had worn off.

In humans, Dr. Dolen stressed, opening a critical period would be a sensitive process. 

“You wouldn’t achieve these results if you dropped ecstasy and attended a rave,” she said. “The key seems to be to establish an intention for the therapy: Discuss what you hope to get from the experience, be guided through it, and process it with the therapist after the fact.” 

“You need to be careful with a patient once they’re off the psychedelic,” she said, “because they’re in a state of openness and vulnerability similar to a child.” 
 

The push for psychedelic therapy

Another psychedelics researcher, Matthew Lowe, PhD, sees promise in the Johns Hopkins study. The drugs “place the brain in a more malleable and flexible state,” said Dr. Lowe, the executive director and chief science officer for Unlimited Sciences, a psychedelics research nonprofit.

He expects that psychedelics may help people break out of negative behavior patterns. 

“These findings show significant promise for treating a wide range of neuropsychiatric diseases, including depression, PTSD, and addiction,” he said. 

Dr. Dolen said using psychedelics in critical-period therapy “opens up all sorts of possibilities for the rest of the brain.” Future research may also lead to treatments for deafness, physical disabilities, and drug and alcohol addiction. She is currently raising funds for a clinical trial to see if psychedelics can improve motor impairment after a stroke. 

“Growing legislative openness” to the use of psychedelics could open the door for millions to benefit from mental health treatment “through clinical trials and legal therapeutic pathways as they open up,” said Benjamin Lightburn, CEO and cofounder of Filament Health, a company based in British Columbia that provides naturally derived psilocybin for clinical trials. 

Several states have made moves toward decriminalization or permitting the drugs’ use under medical supervision. In a scientific paper, Washington University researchers, using an analytic model based on marijuana legalization, projected that most states will legalize psychedelics in the next 10-15 years. And on July 1, Australia became the first country to allow psilocybin and MDMA to be prescribed by doctors to treat psychiatric conditions. The U.S. could potentially approve MDMA for therapy later in 2023.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

As children learn to walk and talk, their brains are remarkably open to new information. They gather knowledge from parents, their environment, and trial and error. Teenagers do too, as they adopt the emotional and intellectual skills needed to become adults. 

In adulthood, however, our minds become relatively locked, closed to new information. This saves energy and lets us navigate the world more efficiently. But that also makes it harder to adapt, learn a new language or skill, or recover from psychological or physical trauma. For those who’ve dealt with abuse, abandonment, or physical violence, that lockdown can lead to a lifetime of suffering, substance abuse, and other maladaptive behaviors.

But recent research offers promise that psychedelic drugs may “reopen” the brain to help it recover from trauma. The study, published in Nature, reflects a renaissance of using and researching psychedelics to treat a range of mental health conditions. 

Scientists at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore were investigating the drugs’ effects on “critical periods” for social learning, times when the brain is more open to new information that diminish as we age. Success in mice suggests that psychedelics can start a fresh period of learning.

If the finding bears out in future studies, the therapeutic horizon for psychedelics could expand to other opportunities to retrain the brain, including recovery from a stroke, traumatic brain injury, and even hearing loss and paralysis. 

The stakes are big, and the future is promising, said lead researcher Gul Dolen, MD, PhD, an associate professor of neuroscience at Johns Hopkins University. Psychedelics “could be the key that unlocks the brain and helps people after one dose, rather than subjecting them to a lifetime of drugs.” 
 

The psychedelic advantage

Dr. Dolen, who launched her career in addiction studies, has long been fascinated by critical periods and their influence on adult behavior. 

“There have been three Nobel Prizes awarded for work on critical periods,” she said. One study in mice, for instance, identified 15 periods of social learning that define their behaviors for a lifetime. 

Prior research has found that MDMA (commonly known as ecstasy) can help soldiers reconsider traumatic events on the battlefield, learn from them, and move on. That phenomenon had all the earmarks of a critical period for social learning. Perhaps, Dr. Dolen said, psychedelics could open a critical period in a soldier’s life – or a drug-addicted person’s or rape survivor’s – and give them tools to process their trauma.

In the placebo-controlled experiment, she and her team gave mice psychedelic drugs and a behavioral test to gauge the rodents’ ability to learn from their environment. 

“All of the psychedelics opened the critical period of social learning for varying lengths of time,” said Dr. Dolen. 

Ketamine achieved that reopening for 2 days, while the other drugs – ibogaine, LSD, MDMA, and psilocybin – opened critical periods of between 2 and 4 weeks, long after the drugs’ acute effects had worn off.

In humans, Dr. Dolen stressed, opening a critical period would be a sensitive process. 

“You wouldn’t achieve these results if you dropped ecstasy and attended a rave,” she said. “The key seems to be to establish an intention for the therapy: Discuss what you hope to get from the experience, be guided through it, and process it with the therapist after the fact.” 

“You need to be careful with a patient once they’re off the psychedelic,” she said, “because they’re in a state of openness and vulnerability similar to a child.” 
 

The push for psychedelic therapy

Another psychedelics researcher, Matthew Lowe, PhD, sees promise in the Johns Hopkins study. The drugs “place the brain in a more malleable and flexible state,” said Dr. Lowe, the executive director and chief science officer for Unlimited Sciences, a psychedelics research nonprofit.

He expects that psychedelics may help people break out of negative behavior patterns. 

“These findings show significant promise for treating a wide range of neuropsychiatric diseases, including depression, PTSD, and addiction,” he said. 

Dr. Dolen said using psychedelics in critical-period therapy “opens up all sorts of possibilities for the rest of the brain.” Future research may also lead to treatments for deafness, physical disabilities, and drug and alcohol addiction. She is currently raising funds for a clinical trial to see if psychedelics can improve motor impairment after a stroke. 

“Growing legislative openness” to the use of psychedelics could open the door for millions to benefit from mental health treatment “through clinical trials and legal therapeutic pathways as they open up,” said Benjamin Lightburn, CEO and cofounder of Filament Health, a company based in British Columbia that provides naturally derived psilocybin for clinical trials. 

Several states have made moves toward decriminalization or permitting the drugs’ use under medical supervision. In a scientific paper, Washington University researchers, using an analytic model based on marijuana legalization, projected that most states will legalize psychedelics in the next 10-15 years. And on July 1, Australia became the first country to allow psilocybin and MDMA to be prescribed by doctors to treat psychiatric conditions. The U.S. could potentially approve MDMA for therapy later in 2023.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

As children learn to walk and talk, their brains are remarkably open to new information. They gather knowledge from parents, their environment, and trial and error. Teenagers do too, as they adopt the emotional and intellectual skills needed to become adults. 

In adulthood, however, our minds become relatively locked, closed to new information. This saves energy and lets us navigate the world more efficiently. But that also makes it harder to adapt, learn a new language or skill, or recover from psychological or physical trauma. For those who’ve dealt with abuse, abandonment, or physical violence, that lockdown can lead to a lifetime of suffering, substance abuse, and other maladaptive behaviors.

But recent research offers promise that psychedelic drugs may “reopen” the brain to help it recover from trauma. The study, published in Nature, reflects a renaissance of using and researching psychedelics to treat a range of mental health conditions. 

Scientists at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore were investigating the drugs’ effects on “critical periods” for social learning, times when the brain is more open to new information that diminish as we age. Success in mice suggests that psychedelics can start a fresh period of learning.

If the finding bears out in future studies, the therapeutic horizon for psychedelics could expand to other opportunities to retrain the brain, including recovery from a stroke, traumatic brain injury, and even hearing loss and paralysis. 

The stakes are big, and the future is promising, said lead researcher Gul Dolen, MD, PhD, an associate professor of neuroscience at Johns Hopkins University. Psychedelics “could be the key that unlocks the brain and helps people after one dose, rather than subjecting them to a lifetime of drugs.” 
 

The psychedelic advantage

Dr. Dolen, who launched her career in addiction studies, has long been fascinated by critical periods and their influence on adult behavior. 

“There have been three Nobel Prizes awarded for work on critical periods,” she said. One study in mice, for instance, identified 15 periods of social learning that define their behaviors for a lifetime. 

Prior research has found that MDMA (commonly known as ecstasy) can help soldiers reconsider traumatic events on the battlefield, learn from them, and move on. That phenomenon had all the earmarks of a critical period for social learning. Perhaps, Dr. Dolen said, psychedelics could open a critical period in a soldier’s life – or a drug-addicted person’s or rape survivor’s – and give them tools to process their trauma.

In the placebo-controlled experiment, she and her team gave mice psychedelic drugs and a behavioral test to gauge the rodents’ ability to learn from their environment. 

“All of the psychedelics opened the critical period of social learning for varying lengths of time,” said Dr. Dolen. 

Ketamine achieved that reopening for 2 days, while the other drugs – ibogaine, LSD, MDMA, and psilocybin – opened critical periods of between 2 and 4 weeks, long after the drugs’ acute effects had worn off.

In humans, Dr. Dolen stressed, opening a critical period would be a sensitive process. 

“You wouldn’t achieve these results if you dropped ecstasy and attended a rave,” she said. “The key seems to be to establish an intention for the therapy: Discuss what you hope to get from the experience, be guided through it, and process it with the therapist after the fact.” 

“You need to be careful with a patient once they’re off the psychedelic,” she said, “because they’re in a state of openness and vulnerability similar to a child.” 
 

The push for psychedelic therapy

Another psychedelics researcher, Matthew Lowe, PhD, sees promise in the Johns Hopkins study. The drugs “place the brain in a more malleable and flexible state,” said Dr. Lowe, the executive director and chief science officer for Unlimited Sciences, a psychedelics research nonprofit.

He expects that psychedelics may help people break out of negative behavior patterns. 

“These findings show significant promise for treating a wide range of neuropsychiatric diseases, including depression, PTSD, and addiction,” he said. 

Dr. Dolen said using psychedelics in critical-period therapy “opens up all sorts of possibilities for the rest of the brain.” Future research may also lead to treatments for deafness, physical disabilities, and drug and alcohol addiction. She is currently raising funds for a clinical trial to see if psychedelics can improve motor impairment after a stroke. 

“Growing legislative openness” to the use of psychedelics could open the door for millions to benefit from mental health treatment “through clinical trials and legal therapeutic pathways as they open up,” said Benjamin Lightburn, CEO and cofounder of Filament Health, a company based in British Columbia that provides naturally derived psilocybin for clinical trials. 

Several states have made moves toward decriminalization or permitting the drugs’ use under medical supervision. In a scientific paper, Washington University researchers, using an analytic model based on marijuana legalization, projected that most states will legalize psychedelics in the next 10-15 years. And on July 1, Australia became the first country to allow psilocybin and MDMA to be prescribed by doctors to treat psychiatric conditions. The U.S. could potentially approve MDMA for therapy later in 2023.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Legislators in New York City recently approved a bill specifically prohibiting weight- and height-based discrimination, on par with existing protections for gender, race, sexual orientation, and other personal identities. Other U.S. cities, as well as New York state, are considering similar moves.

Weight-based discrimination in the United States has increased by an estimated 66% over the past decade, putting it on par with the prevalence of racial discrimination. More than 40% of adult Americans and 18% of children report experiencing weight discrimination in employment, school, and/or health care settings – as well as within interpersonal relationships – demonstrating a clear need to have legal protections in place.

For obesity advocates in Canada, the news from New York triggered a moment of reflection to consider how our own advocacy efforts have fared over the years, or not. Just like in the United States, body size and obesity (and appearance in general) are not specifically protected grounds under human rights legislation in Canada (for example, the Canadian Human Rights Act), unlike race, gender, sexual orientation, and religion.

Case law is uneven across the Canadian provinces when it comes to determining whether obesity is even a disease and/or a disability. And despite broad support for anti–weight discrimination policies in Canada (Front Public Health. 2023 Apr 17;11:1060794; Milbank Q. 2015 Dec;93[4]:691-731), years of advocacy at the national and provincial levels have not led to any legislative changes (Ramos Salas Obes Rev. 2017 Nov;18[11]:1323-35; Can J Diabetes. 2015 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.jcjd.2015.01.009). A 2017 private members bill seeking to add protection for body size to Manitoba’s human rights code was defeated, with many members of the legislature citing enforcement difficulties as the reason for voting down the proposition.

Some obesity advocates have argued that people living with obesity can be protected under the grounds of disability in the Canadian Human Rights Act. To be protected, however, individuals must demonstrate that there is actual or perceived disability relating to their weight or size; yet, many people living with obesity and those who have a higher weight don’t perceive themselves as having a disability.

In our view, the disparate viewpoints on the worthiness of considering body size a human rights issue could be resolved, at least partially, by wider understanding and adoption of the relatively new clinical definition of obesity. This definition holds that obesity is not about size; an obesity diagnosis can be made only when objective clinical investigations identify that excess or abnormal adiposity (fat tissue) impairs health.

While obesity advocates use the clinical definition of obesity, weight and body size proponents disagree that obesity is a chronic disease, and in fact believe that treating it as such can be stigmatizing. In a sense, this can sometimes be true, as not all people with larger bodies have obesity per the new definition but risk being identified as “unhealthy” in the clinical world. Bias, it turns out, can be a two-way street.

Regardless of the advocacy strategy used, it’s clear that specific anti–weight discrimination laws are needed in Canada. One in four Canadian adults report experiencing discrimination in their day-to-day life, with race, gender, age, and weight being the most commonly reported forms. To refuse to protect them against some, but not all, forms of discrimination is itself unjust, and is surely rooted in the age-old misinformed concept that excess weight is the result of laziness, poor food choices, and lack of physical activity, among other moral failings.

Including body size in human rights codes may provide a mechanism to seek legal remedy from discriminatory acts, but it will do little to address rampant weight bias, in the same way that race-based legal protections don’t eradicate racism. And it’s not just the legal community that fails to understand that weight is, by and large, a product of our environment and our genes. Weight bias and stigma are well documented in media, workplaces, the home, and in health care systems.

The solution, in our minds, is meaningful education across all these domains, reinforcing that weight is not a behavior, just as health is not a size. If we truly understand and embrace these concepts, then as a society we may someday recognize that body size is not a choice, just like race, sexual orientation, gender identity, and other individual characteristics. And if it’s not a choice, if it’s not a behavior, then it deserves the same protections.

At the same time, people with obesity deserve to seek evidence-based treatment, just as those at higher weights who experience no weight or adiposity-related health issues deserve not to be identified as having a disease simply because of their size.

If we all follow the science, we might yet turn a common understanding into more equitable outcomes for all.

Dr. Ramos Salas and Mr. Hussey are research consultants for Replica Communications, Hamilton, Ont. She disclosed ties with the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, European Association for the Study of Obesity, Novo Nordisk, Obesity Canada, The Obesity Society, World Obesity, and the World Health Organization. Mr. Hussey disclosed ties with the European Association for the Study of Obesity, Novo Nordisk, Obesity Canada, and the World Health Organization (Nutrition and Food Safety).

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Legislators in New York City recently approved a bill specifically prohibiting weight- and height-based discrimination, on par with existing protections for gender, race, sexual orientation, and other personal identities. Other U.S. cities, as well as New York state, are considering similar moves.

Weight-based discrimination in the United States has increased by an estimated 66% over the past decade, putting it on par with the prevalence of racial discrimination. More than 40% of adult Americans and 18% of children report experiencing weight discrimination in employment, school, and/or health care settings – as well as within interpersonal relationships – demonstrating a clear need to have legal protections in place.

For obesity advocates in Canada, the news from New York triggered a moment of reflection to consider how our own advocacy efforts have fared over the years, or not. Just like in the United States, body size and obesity (and appearance in general) are not specifically protected grounds under human rights legislation in Canada (for example, the Canadian Human Rights Act), unlike race, gender, sexual orientation, and religion.

Case law is uneven across the Canadian provinces when it comes to determining whether obesity is even a disease and/or a disability. And despite broad support for anti–weight discrimination policies in Canada (Front Public Health. 2023 Apr 17;11:1060794; Milbank Q. 2015 Dec;93[4]:691-731), years of advocacy at the national and provincial levels have not led to any legislative changes (Ramos Salas Obes Rev. 2017 Nov;18[11]:1323-35; Can J Diabetes. 2015 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.jcjd.2015.01.009). A 2017 private members bill seeking to add protection for body size to Manitoba’s human rights code was defeated, with many members of the legislature citing enforcement difficulties as the reason for voting down the proposition.

Some obesity advocates have argued that people living with obesity can be protected under the grounds of disability in the Canadian Human Rights Act. To be protected, however, individuals must demonstrate that there is actual or perceived disability relating to their weight or size; yet, many people living with obesity and those who have a higher weight don’t perceive themselves as having a disability.

In our view, the disparate viewpoints on the worthiness of considering body size a human rights issue could be resolved, at least partially, by wider understanding and adoption of the relatively new clinical definition of obesity. This definition holds that obesity is not about size; an obesity diagnosis can be made only when objective clinical investigations identify that excess or abnormal adiposity (fat tissue) impairs health.

While obesity advocates use the clinical definition of obesity, weight and body size proponents disagree that obesity is a chronic disease, and in fact believe that treating it as such can be stigmatizing. In a sense, this can sometimes be true, as not all people with larger bodies have obesity per the new definition but risk being identified as “unhealthy” in the clinical world. Bias, it turns out, can be a two-way street.

Regardless of the advocacy strategy used, it’s clear that specific anti–weight discrimination laws are needed in Canada. One in four Canadian adults report experiencing discrimination in their day-to-day life, with race, gender, age, and weight being the most commonly reported forms. To refuse to protect them against some, but not all, forms of discrimination is itself unjust, and is surely rooted in the age-old misinformed concept that excess weight is the result of laziness, poor food choices, and lack of physical activity, among other moral failings.

Including body size in human rights codes may provide a mechanism to seek legal remedy from discriminatory acts, but it will do little to address rampant weight bias, in the same way that race-based legal protections don’t eradicate racism. And it’s not just the legal community that fails to understand that weight is, by and large, a product of our environment and our genes. Weight bias and stigma are well documented in media, workplaces, the home, and in health care systems.

The solution, in our minds, is meaningful education across all these domains, reinforcing that weight is not a behavior, just as health is not a size. If we truly understand and embrace these concepts, then as a society we may someday recognize that body size is not a choice, just like race, sexual orientation, gender identity, and other individual characteristics. And if it’s not a choice, if it’s not a behavior, then it deserves the same protections.

At the same time, people with obesity deserve to seek evidence-based treatment, just as those at higher weights who experience no weight or adiposity-related health issues deserve not to be identified as having a disease simply because of their size.

If we all follow the science, we might yet turn a common understanding into more equitable outcomes for all.

Dr. Ramos Salas and Mr. Hussey are research consultants for Replica Communications, Hamilton, Ont. She disclosed ties with the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, European Association for the Study of Obesity, Novo Nordisk, Obesity Canada, The Obesity Society, World Obesity, and the World Health Organization. Mr. Hussey disclosed ties with the European Association for the Study of Obesity, Novo Nordisk, Obesity Canada, and the World Health Organization (Nutrition and Food Safety).

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Legislators in New York City recently approved a bill specifically prohibiting weight- and height-based discrimination, on par with existing protections for gender, race, sexual orientation, and other personal identities. Other U.S. cities, as well as New York state, are considering similar moves.

Weight-based discrimination in the United States has increased by an estimated 66% over the past decade, putting it on par with the prevalence of racial discrimination. More than 40% of adult Americans and 18% of children report experiencing weight discrimination in employment, school, and/or health care settings – as well as within interpersonal relationships – demonstrating a clear need to have legal protections in place.

For obesity advocates in Canada, the news from New York triggered a moment of reflection to consider how our own advocacy efforts have fared over the years, or not. Just like in the United States, body size and obesity (and appearance in general) are not specifically protected grounds under human rights legislation in Canada (for example, the Canadian Human Rights Act), unlike race, gender, sexual orientation, and religion.

Case law is uneven across the Canadian provinces when it comes to determining whether obesity is even a disease and/or a disability. And despite broad support for anti–weight discrimination policies in Canada (Front Public Health. 2023 Apr 17;11:1060794; Milbank Q. 2015 Dec;93[4]:691-731), years of advocacy at the national and provincial levels have not led to any legislative changes (Ramos Salas Obes Rev. 2017 Nov;18[11]:1323-35; Can J Diabetes. 2015 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.jcjd.2015.01.009). A 2017 private members bill seeking to add protection for body size to Manitoba’s human rights code was defeated, with many members of the legislature citing enforcement difficulties as the reason for voting down the proposition.

Some obesity advocates have argued that people living with obesity can be protected under the grounds of disability in the Canadian Human Rights Act. To be protected, however, individuals must demonstrate that there is actual or perceived disability relating to their weight or size; yet, many people living with obesity and those who have a higher weight don’t perceive themselves as having a disability.

In our view, the disparate viewpoints on the worthiness of considering body size a human rights issue could be resolved, at least partially, by wider understanding and adoption of the relatively new clinical definition of obesity. This definition holds that obesity is not about size; an obesity diagnosis can be made only when objective clinical investigations identify that excess or abnormal adiposity (fat tissue) impairs health.

While obesity advocates use the clinical definition of obesity, weight and body size proponents disagree that obesity is a chronic disease, and in fact believe that treating it as such can be stigmatizing. In a sense, this can sometimes be true, as not all people with larger bodies have obesity per the new definition but risk being identified as “unhealthy” in the clinical world. Bias, it turns out, can be a two-way street.

Regardless of the advocacy strategy used, it’s clear that specific anti–weight discrimination laws are needed in Canada. One in four Canadian adults report experiencing discrimination in their day-to-day life, with race, gender, age, and weight being the most commonly reported forms. To refuse to protect them against some, but not all, forms of discrimination is itself unjust, and is surely rooted in the age-old misinformed concept that excess weight is the result of laziness, poor food choices, and lack of physical activity, among other moral failings.

Including body size in human rights codes may provide a mechanism to seek legal remedy from discriminatory acts, but it will do little to address rampant weight bias, in the same way that race-based legal protections don’t eradicate racism. And it’s not just the legal community that fails to understand that weight is, by and large, a product of our environment and our genes. Weight bias and stigma are well documented in media, workplaces, the home, and in health care systems.

The solution, in our minds, is meaningful education across all these domains, reinforcing that weight is not a behavior, just as health is not a size. If we truly understand and embrace these concepts, then as a society we may someday recognize that body size is not a choice, just like race, sexual orientation, gender identity, and other individual characteristics. And if it’s not a choice, if it’s not a behavior, then it deserves the same protections.

At the same time, people with obesity deserve to seek evidence-based treatment, just as those at higher weights who experience no weight or adiposity-related health issues deserve not to be identified as having a disease simply because of their size.

If we all follow the science, we might yet turn a common understanding into more equitable outcomes for all.

Dr. Ramos Salas and Mr. Hussey are research consultants for Replica Communications, Hamilton, Ont. She disclosed ties with the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, European Association for the Study of Obesity, Novo Nordisk, Obesity Canada, The Obesity Society, World Obesity, and the World Health Organization. Mr. Hussey disclosed ties with the European Association for the Study of Obesity, Novo Nordisk, Obesity Canada, and the World Health Organization (Nutrition and Food Safety).

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The availability of medical cannabis has little effect on prescription rates of opioids, nonopioid pain medicines, and other pain interventions, according to a new study published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

METHODOLOGY:

• Cannabis advocates suggest that legal medical cannabis can be a partial solution to the opioid overdose crisis in the United States, which claimed more than 80,000 lives in 2021.
• Current research on how legalized cannabis reduces dependence on prescription pain medication is inconclusive.
• Researchers examined insurance data for the period 2010-2022 from 583,820 adults with chronic noncancer pain.
• They drew from 12 states in which medical cannabis is legal and from 17 in which it is not legal to create a hypothetical randomized trial. The control group simulated prescription rates where medical cannabis was not available.
• Authors evaluated prescription rates for opioids, nonopioid painkillers, and pain interventions, such as physical therapy.

TAKEAWAY:

In a given month during the first 3 years after legalization, for states with medical cannabis, the investigators found the following:

• There was an average decrease of 1.07 percentage points in the proportion of patients who received any opioid prescription, compared to a 1.12 percentage point decrease in the control group.
• There was an average increase of 1.14 percentage points in the proportion of patients who received any nonopioid prescription painkiller, compared to a 1.19 percentage point increase in the control group.
• There was a 0.17 percentage point decrease in the proportion of patients who received any pain procedure, compared to a 0.001 percentage point decrease in the control group.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study did not identify important effects of medical cannabis laws on receipt of opioid or nonopioid pain treatment among patients with chronic noncancer pain,” according to the researchers.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Emma E. McGinty, PhD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

LIMITATIONS:

The investigators used a simulated, hypothetical control group that was based on untestable assumptions. They also drew data solely from insured individuals, so the study does not necessarily represent uninsured populations.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. McGinty reports receiving a grant from NIDA. Her coauthors reported receiving support from NIDA and the National Institutes of Health.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The availability of medical cannabis has little effect on prescription rates of opioids, nonopioid pain medicines, and other pain interventions, according to a new study published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

METHODOLOGY:

• Cannabis advocates suggest that legal medical cannabis can be a partial solution to the opioid overdose crisis in the United States, which claimed more than 80,000 lives in 2021.
• Current research on how legalized cannabis reduces dependence on prescription pain medication is inconclusive.
• Researchers examined insurance data for the period 2010-2022 from 583,820 adults with chronic noncancer pain.
• They drew from 12 states in which medical cannabis is legal and from 17 in which it is not legal to create a hypothetical randomized trial. The control group simulated prescription rates where medical cannabis was not available.
• Authors evaluated prescription rates for opioids, nonopioid painkillers, and pain interventions, such as physical therapy.

TAKEAWAY:

In a given month during the first 3 years after legalization, for states with medical cannabis, the investigators found the following:

• There was an average decrease of 1.07 percentage points in the proportion of patients who received any opioid prescription, compared to a 1.12 percentage point decrease in the control group.
• There was an average increase of 1.14 percentage points in the proportion of patients who received any nonopioid prescription painkiller, compared to a 1.19 percentage point increase in the control group.
• There was a 0.17 percentage point decrease in the proportion of patients who received any pain procedure, compared to a 0.001 percentage point decrease in the control group.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study did not identify important effects of medical cannabis laws on receipt of opioid or nonopioid pain treatment among patients with chronic noncancer pain,” according to the researchers.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Emma E. McGinty, PhD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

LIMITATIONS:

The investigators used a simulated, hypothetical control group that was based on untestable assumptions. They also drew data solely from insured individuals, so the study does not necessarily represent uninsured populations.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. McGinty reports receiving a grant from NIDA. Her coauthors reported receiving support from NIDA and the National Institutes of Health.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The availability of medical cannabis has little effect on prescription rates of opioids, nonopioid pain medicines, and other pain interventions, according to a new study published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

METHODOLOGY:

• Cannabis advocates suggest that legal medical cannabis can be a partial solution to the opioid overdose crisis in the United States, which claimed more than 80,000 lives in 2021.
• Current research on how legalized cannabis reduces dependence on prescription pain medication is inconclusive.
• Researchers examined insurance data for the period 2010-2022 from 583,820 adults with chronic noncancer pain.
• They drew from 12 states in which medical cannabis is legal and from 17 in which it is not legal to create a hypothetical randomized trial. The control group simulated prescription rates where medical cannabis was not available.
• Authors evaluated prescription rates for opioids, nonopioid painkillers, and pain interventions, such as physical therapy.

TAKEAWAY:

In a given month during the first 3 years after legalization, for states with medical cannabis, the investigators found the following:

• There was an average decrease of 1.07 percentage points in the proportion of patients who received any opioid prescription, compared to a 1.12 percentage point decrease in the control group.
• There was an average increase of 1.14 percentage points in the proportion of patients who received any nonopioid prescription painkiller, compared to a 1.19 percentage point increase in the control group.
• There was a 0.17 percentage point decrease in the proportion of patients who received any pain procedure, compared to a 0.001 percentage point decrease in the control group.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study did not identify important effects of medical cannabis laws on receipt of opioid or nonopioid pain treatment among patients with chronic noncancer pain,” according to the researchers.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Emma E. McGinty, PhD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

LIMITATIONS:

The investigators used a simulated, hypothetical control group that was based on untestable assumptions. They also drew data solely from insured individuals, so the study does not necessarily represent uninsured populations.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. McGinty reports receiving a grant from NIDA. Her coauthors reported receiving support from NIDA and the National Institutes of Health.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.