Addiction Medicine

Acute pain is a primary symptom for many patients who present to the emergency department (ED). The ED team is challenged with relieving pain while limiting harm from medications.¹ A 2017 National Health Interview Survey showed that compared with nonveterans, more veterans reported pain in the previous 3 months, and the rate of severe pain was 40% higher in the veteran group especially among those who served during the era of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.²

The American College of Emergency Physicians guidelines pain management guidelines recommend patient-centered shared decision making that includes patient education about treatment goals and expectations, and short- and long-term risks, as well as a preference toward pharmacologic treatment with nonopioid analgesics except for patients with severe pain or pain refractory to other drug and treatment modalities.³ There is a lack of evidence regarding superior efficacy of either opioid or nonopioid analgesics; therefore, the use of nonopioid analgesics, such as oral or topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or central analgesics, such as acetaminophen, is preferred for treating acute pain to mitigate adverse effects (AEs) and risks associated with opioid use.^1,3,4 The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Department of Defense (DoD) guideline on managing opioid therapy for chronic pain, updated in 2017 and 2022, similarly recommends alternatives to opioids for mild-to-moderate acute pain and encourages multimodal pain care.⁵ However, use of other pharmacologic treatments, such as NSAIDs, is limited by AE profiles, patient contraindications, and severity of acute pain etiologies. There is a need for the expanded use of nonpharmacologic treatments for addressing pain in the veteran population.

The American College of Emergency Physicians guidelines recommend nonpharmacologic modalities, such as applying heat or cold, physical therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, and acupuncture.³ A 2014 study reported that 37% to 46% of active duty and reserve military personnel use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) for a variety of ailments, and there is increasing interest in the use of CAM as adjuncts to traditional therapies.⁶ According to one study, some CAM therapies are used significantly more by military personnel than used by civilians.⁷ However, the percentage of the veteran population using acupuncture in this study was small, and more information is needed to assess its use.

Auricular acupuncture originated in traditional Chinese medicine.⁸ Contemporary auricular acupuncture experts view this modality as a self-contained microsystem mapping portions of the ear to specific parts of the body and internal organs. The analgesic effects may be mediated through the central nervous system by local release of endorphins through nerve fiber activation and neurotransmitters—including serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephrine—leading to pre- and postsynaptic suppression of pain transmission.

Battlefield acupuncture (BFA) uses 5 set points anatomically located on each ear.⁹ Practitioners use small semipermanent, dartlike acupuncture needles. Patients could experience pain relief in a few minutes, which can last minutes, hours, days, weeks, or months depending on the pathology of the pain. This procedure developed in 2001 has been studied for different pain types and has shown benefit when used for postsurgical pain, chronic spinal cord injury−related neuropathic pain, and general chronic pain, as well as for other indications, such as insomnia, depression, and weight loss.^8,10-13 In 2018, a randomized controlled trial compared postintervention numeric rating scale (NRS) pain scores in patients presenting to the ED with acute or acute-on-chronic lower back pain who received BFA as an adjunct to standard care vs standard care alone.¹⁴ Patients receiving BFA as an adjunct to standard care were found to have mean postintervention pain scores 1.7 points lower than those receiving standard care alone. This study demonstrated that BFA was feasible and well tolerated for lower back pain in the ED as an adjunct to standard care. The study was limited by the adjunct use of BFA rather than as monotherapy and by the practitioners’ discretion regarding standard care, which was not defined by the study’s authors.

The Jesse Brown Veterans Affairs Medical Center (JBVAMC) in Chicago, Illinois, offers several CAM modalities, such as exercise/movement therapy, chiropractic, art/music therapy, and relaxation workshops, which are widely used by veterans. Recent evidence suggests BFA could reduce pain scores as an adjunct or an alternative to pharmacologic therapy. We are interested in how CAM therapies, such as BFA, can help avoid AEs associated with opioid or NSAID therapy.

At the JBVAMC ED, ketorolac 15 mg is the preferred first-line treatment of acute, noncancer pain, based on the results of previous studies. In 2018 BFA was offered first to veterans presenting with acute or acute-on-chronic pain to the ED; however, its effectiveness for pain reduction vs ketorolac has not been evaluated in this patient population. Limited literature is available on BFA and its use in the ED. To our knowledge, this was the first observational study assessing the difference between a single session of BFA vs a single dose of ketorolac in treating noncancer acute or acute-on-chronic pain in the ED.

Methods

This study was a retrospective chart review of patients who presented to the JBVAMC ED with acute pain or acute-on-chronic pain, who received ketorolac or BFA. The study population was generated from a list of all IV and intramuscular (IM) ketorolac unit dose orders verified from June 1, 2018, through August 30, 2019, and a list of all BFA procedure notes signed from June 1, 2018, through August 30, 2019. Patients were included in the study if they had documented administration of IV or IM ketorolac or BFA between June 1, 2018, and August 30, 2019. Patients who received ketorolac doses other than 15 mg, the intervention was administered outside of the ED, received adjunct treatment in addition to the treatment intervention in the ED, had no baseline NRS pain score documented before the intervention, had an NRS pain score of < 4, had no postintervention NRS pain score documented within 6 hours, had a treatment indication other than pain, or had active cancer were excluded. As in previous JBVAMC studies, we used NRS pain score cutoffs (mild, moderate, severe, and very severe) based on Woo and colleagues’ meta-analysis and excluded scores < 4.¹⁵

Endpoints

The primary endpoint was the mean difference in NRS pain score before and after the intervention, determined by comparing the NRS pain score documented at triage to the ED with the first documented NRS pain score at least 30 minutes to 6 hours after treatment administration. The secondary endpoints included the number of patients prescribed pain medication at discharge, the number of patients who were discharged with no medications, and the number of patients admitted to the hospital. The safety endpoint included any AEs of the intervention. Subgroup analyses were performed comparing the mean difference in NRS pain score among subgroups classified by severity of baseline NRS pain score and pain location.

Statistical Analysis

Baseline characteristics and endpoints were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Categorical data were analyzed using Fisher exact test and z test for proportions, and continuous data were compared using t test and paired t test. An 80% power calculation determined that 84 patients per group were needed to detect a statistically significant difference in pain score reduction of 1.3 at a type-1 error rate of 0.05. The sample size was based on a calculation performed in a previously published study that compared IV ketorolac at 3 single-dose regimens for treating acute pain in the ED.¹⁶ The 1.3 pain score reduction is considered the minimum clinically significant difference in pain that could be detected with the NRS.¹⁷

Results

Sixty-one patients received BFA during the study period: 31 were excluded (26 received adjunct treatment in the ED, 2 had active cancer documented, 2 had an indication other than pain, and 1 received BFA outside of the ED), leaving 30 patients in the BFA cohort. During the study period, 1299 patients received ketorolac. These patients were selected using a random number generator and then screened to determine inclusion or exclusion in the study. We continued to randomly select patients for the ketorolac group until we had a similar number in each treatment group. Of these 148 patients who were randomly selected to be reviewed, 116 were excluded: 48 received adjunct treatment in the ED, 24 had no postintervention NRS pain score documented within 6 hours, 18 received ketorolac doses other than 15 mg, 12 received ketorolac outside the ED, 9 had no baseline NRS pain score documented, 3 presented with a NRS pain score of ≤ 3, and 2 had active cancer documented. The ketorolac cohort comprised 31 patients.

Baseline characteristics were similar between the 2 groups except for the average baseline NRS pain score, which was statistically significantly higher in the BFA vs ketorolac group (8.7 vs 7.7, respectively; P = .02). The mean age was 51 years in the BFA group and 48 years in the ketorolac group. Most patients in each cohort were male: 80% in the BFA group and 71% in the ketorolac group. The most common types of pain documented as the chief ED presentation included back, lower extremity, and head.

Endpoints

The mean difference in NRS pain score was 3.9 for the BFA group and 5.1 for the ketorolac group. Both were clinically and statistically significant reductions (P = .03 and P < .01), but the difference between the intervention groups in NRS score reduction was not statistically significant (P = .07).

For the secondary endpoint of outpatient prescriptions written at discharge, there was no significant difference between the groups except for oral NSAIDs, which were more likely to be prescribed to patients who received ketorolac (P = .01).

Subgroup Analysis

An analysis was performed for subgroups classified by baseline NRS pain score (mild: 4; moderate, 5 - 6; severe, 7 - 9; and very severe, 10). Data for mild pain was limited because a small number of patients received interventions. For moderate pain, the mean difference in NRS pain score for BFA and ketorolac was 3.5 and 3.8, respectively; for severe pain, 3.4 and 5.3; and for very severe pain, 4.6 and 6.4. There was a larger difference in the preintervention and postintervention NRS pain scores within severe pain and very severe pain groups.

Discussion

Both interventions resulted in a significant reduction in the mean NRS pain score of about 4 to 5 points within their group, and BFA resulted in a similar NRS pain score reduction compared with ketorolac 15 mg. Because the baseline NRS pain scores were significantly different between the BFA and ketorolac groups, a subgroup analysis revealed that BFA reduced mean NRS pain score in patients with severe and very severe pain but appears to be less beneficial for moderate pain, unlike the ketorolac results that showed a large reduction in all pain groups except for the small sample of patients with mild pain.

In this study, more patients in the BFA group presented to the ED with lower extremity pain, such as gout or neuropathy, compared with the ketorolac group; however, BFA did not result in a significantly different pain score reduction in this subgroup compared with ketorolac. Patients receiving BFA were more likely to receive topical analgesics or muscle relaxants at discharge; whereas those receiving ketorolac were significantly more likely to receive oral NSAIDs. Patients in this study also were more likely to be admitted to the hospital if they received ketorolac; however, for these patients, pain was secondary to their chief presentation, and the admitting physician’s familiarity with ketorolac might have been the reason for choosing this intervention. Reasons for the admissions were surgical observation, psychiatric stabilization, kidney/gallstones, rule out of acute coronary syndrome, pneumonia, and proctitis in the ketorolac group, and suicidal ideations in the BFA group.

Limitations

As a limited number of patients received BFA at JBVAMC, the study was not sufficiently powered to detect a difference in the primary outcome. Because BFA required a consultation to be entered in the electronic health record, in addition to time needed to perform the procedure, practitioners might have preferred IV/IM ketorolac during busy times in the ED, potentially leading to underrepresentation in the BFA group. Prescribing preferences might have differed among the rotating physicians, timing of the documentation of the NRS pain score could have differed based on the treatment intervention, and the investigators were unable to control or accurately assess whether patients had taken an analgesic medication before presenting to the ED. Because pain and the treating physician are subjective, patients who reported a higher baseline pain severity might have been more likely to be discharged with topical analgesics or muscle relaxants. One way to correct for this subjectivity would be to conduct a larger prospective trial with a single treating physician. Finally, ED encounters in this study were short, and there was no follow-up permitting identification of AEs.

Conclusions

NRS pain score reduction with BFA did not differ compared with ketorolac 15 mg for treating acute and acute-on-chronic pain in the ED. Although this study was underpowered, these results add to the limited existing literature, suggesting that both interventions could result in clinically significant pain score reductions for patients presenting to the ED with severe and very severe pain, making BFA a viable nonpharmacologic option. Future studies could include investigating the benefit of BFA in the veteran population by studying larger samples in the ED, surveying patients after their interventions to identify rates AEs, and exploring the use of BFA for chronic pain in the outpatient setting.

Acute pain is a primary symptom for many patients who present to the emergency department (ED). The ED team is challenged with relieving pain while limiting harm from medications.¹ A 2017 National Health Interview Survey showed that compared with nonveterans, more veterans reported pain in the previous 3 months, and the rate of severe pain was 40% higher in the veteran group especially among those who served during the era of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.²

The American College of Emergency Physicians guidelines pain management guidelines recommend patient-centered shared decision making that includes patient education about treatment goals and expectations, and short- and long-term risks, as well as a preference toward pharmacologic treatment with nonopioid analgesics except for patients with severe pain or pain refractory to other drug and treatment modalities.³ There is a lack of evidence regarding superior efficacy of either opioid or nonopioid analgesics; therefore, the use of nonopioid analgesics, such as oral or topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or central analgesics, such as acetaminophen, is preferred for treating acute pain to mitigate adverse effects (AEs) and risks associated with opioid use.^1,3,4 The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Department of Defense (DoD) guideline on managing opioid therapy for chronic pain, updated in 2017 and 2022, similarly recommends alternatives to opioids for mild-to-moderate acute pain and encourages multimodal pain care.⁵ However, use of other pharmacologic treatments, such as NSAIDs, is limited by AE profiles, patient contraindications, and severity of acute pain etiologies. There is a need for the expanded use of nonpharmacologic treatments for addressing pain in the veteran population.

The American College of Emergency Physicians guidelines recommend nonpharmacologic modalities, such as applying heat or cold, physical therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, and acupuncture.³ A 2014 study reported that 37% to 46% of active duty and reserve military personnel use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) for a variety of ailments, and there is increasing interest in the use of CAM as adjuncts to traditional therapies.⁶ According to one study, some CAM therapies are used significantly more by military personnel than used by civilians.⁷ However, the percentage of the veteran population using acupuncture in this study was small, and more information is needed to assess its use.

Auricular acupuncture originated in traditional Chinese medicine.⁸ Contemporary auricular acupuncture experts view this modality as a self-contained microsystem mapping portions of the ear to specific parts of the body and internal organs. The analgesic effects may be mediated through the central nervous system by local release of endorphins through nerve fiber activation and neurotransmitters—including serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephrine—leading to pre- and postsynaptic suppression of pain transmission.

Battlefield acupuncture (BFA) uses 5 set points anatomically located on each ear.⁹ Practitioners use small semipermanent, dartlike acupuncture needles. Patients could experience pain relief in a few minutes, which can last minutes, hours, days, weeks, or months depending on the pathology of the pain. This procedure developed in 2001 has been studied for different pain types and has shown benefit when used for postsurgical pain, chronic spinal cord injury−related neuropathic pain, and general chronic pain, as well as for other indications, such as insomnia, depression, and weight loss.^8,10-13 In 2018, a randomized controlled trial compared postintervention numeric rating scale (NRS) pain scores in patients presenting to the ED with acute or acute-on-chronic lower back pain who received BFA as an adjunct to standard care vs standard care alone.¹⁴ Patients receiving BFA as an adjunct to standard care were found to have mean postintervention pain scores 1.7 points lower than those receiving standard care alone. This study demonstrated that BFA was feasible and well tolerated for lower back pain in the ED as an adjunct to standard care. The study was limited by the adjunct use of BFA rather than as monotherapy and by the practitioners’ discretion regarding standard care, which was not defined by the study’s authors.

The Jesse Brown Veterans Affairs Medical Center (JBVAMC) in Chicago, Illinois, offers several CAM modalities, such as exercise/movement therapy, chiropractic, art/music therapy, and relaxation workshops, which are widely used by veterans. Recent evidence suggests BFA could reduce pain scores as an adjunct or an alternative to pharmacologic therapy. We are interested in how CAM therapies, such as BFA, can help avoid AEs associated with opioid or NSAID therapy.

At the JBVAMC ED, ketorolac 15 mg is the preferred first-line treatment of acute, noncancer pain, based on the results of previous studies. In 2018 BFA was offered first to veterans presenting with acute or acute-on-chronic pain to the ED; however, its effectiveness for pain reduction vs ketorolac has not been evaluated in this patient population. Limited literature is available on BFA and its use in the ED. To our knowledge, this was the first observational study assessing the difference between a single session of BFA vs a single dose of ketorolac in treating noncancer acute or acute-on-chronic pain in the ED.

Methods

This study was a retrospective chart review of patients who presented to the JBVAMC ED with acute pain or acute-on-chronic pain, who received ketorolac or BFA. The study population was generated from a list of all IV and intramuscular (IM) ketorolac unit dose orders verified from June 1, 2018, through August 30, 2019, and a list of all BFA procedure notes signed from June 1, 2018, through August 30, 2019. Patients were included in the study if they had documented administration of IV or IM ketorolac or BFA between June 1, 2018, and August 30, 2019. Patients who received ketorolac doses other than 15 mg, the intervention was administered outside of the ED, received adjunct treatment in addition to the treatment intervention in the ED, had no baseline NRS pain score documented before the intervention, had an NRS pain score of < 4, had no postintervention NRS pain score documented within 6 hours, had a treatment indication other than pain, or had active cancer were excluded. As in previous JBVAMC studies, we used NRS pain score cutoffs (mild, moderate, severe, and very severe) based on Woo and colleagues’ meta-analysis and excluded scores < 4.¹⁵

Endpoints

The primary endpoint was the mean difference in NRS pain score before and after the intervention, determined by comparing the NRS pain score documented at triage to the ED with the first documented NRS pain score at least 30 minutes to 6 hours after treatment administration. The secondary endpoints included the number of patients prescribed pain medication at discharge, the number of patients who were discharged with no medications, and the number of patients admitted to the hospital. The safety endpoint included any AEs of the intervention. Subgroup analyses were performed comparing the mean difference in NRS pain score among subgroups classified by severity of baseline NRS pain score and pain location.

Statistical Analysis

Baseline characteristics and endpoints were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Categorical data were analyzed using Fisher exact test and z test for proportions, and continuous data were compared using t test and paired t test. An 80% power calculation determined that 84 patients per group were needed to detect a statistically significant difference in pain score reduction of 1.3 at a type-1 error rate of 0.05. The sample size was based on a calculation performed in a previously published study that compared IV ketorolac at 3 single-dose regimens for treating acute pain in the ED.¹⁶ The 1.3 pain score reduction is considered the minimum clinically significant difference in pain that could be detected with the NRS.¹⁷

Results

Sixty-one patients received BFA during the study period: 31 were excluded (26 received adjunct treatment in the ED, 2 had active cancer documented, 2 had an indication other than pain, and 1 received BFA outside of the ED), leaving 30 patients in the BFA cohort. During the study period, 1299 patients received ketorolac. These patients were selected using a random number generator and then screened to determine inclusion or exclusion in the study. We continued to randomly select patients for the ketorolac group until we had a similar number in each treatment group. Of these 148 patients who were randomly selected to be reviewed, 116 were excluded: 48 received adjunct treatment in the ED, 24 had no postintervention NRS pain score documented within 6 hours, 18 received ketorolac doses other than 15 mg, 12 received ketorolac outside the ED, 9 had no baseline NRS pain score documented, 3 presented with a NRS pain score of ≤ 3, and 2 had active cancer documented. The ketorolac cohort comprised 31 patients.

Baseline characteristics were similar between the 2 groups except for the average baseline NRS pain score, which was statistically significantly higher in the BFA vs ketorolac group (8.7 vs 7.7, respectively; P = .02). The mean age was 51 years in the BFA group and 48 years in the ketorolac group. Most patients in each cohort were male: 80% in the BFA group and 71% in the ketorolac group. The most common types of pain documented as the chief ED presentation included back, lower extremity, and head.

Endpoints

The mean difference in NRS pain score was 3.9 for the BFA group and 5.1 for the ketorolac group. Both were clinically and statistically significant reductions (P = .03 and P < .01), but the difference between the intervention groups in NRS score reduction was not statistically significant (P = .07).

For the secondary endpoint of outpatient prescriptions written at discharge, there was no significant difference between the groups except for oral NSAIDs, which were more likely to be prescribed to patients who received ketorolac (P = .01).

Subgroup Analysis

An analysis was performed for subgroups classified by baseline NRS pain score (mild: 4; moderate, 5 - 6; severe, 7 - 9; and very severe, 10). Data for mild pain was limited because a small number of patients received interventions. For moderate pain, the mean difference in NRS pain score for BFA and ketorolac was 3.5 and 3.8, respectively; for severe pain, 3.4 and 5.3; and for very severe pain, 4.6 and 6.4. There was a larger difference in the preintervention and postintervention NRS pain scores within severe pain and very severe pain groups.

Discussion

Both interventions resulted in a significant reduction in the mean NRS pain score of about 4 to 5 points within their group, and BFA resulted in a similar NRS pain score reduction compared with ketorolac 15 mg. Because the baseline NRS pain scores were significantly different between the BFA and ketorolac groups, a subgroup analysis revealed that BFA reduced mean NRS pain score in patients with severe and very severe pain but appears to be less beneficial for moderate pain, unlike the ketorolac results that showed a large reduction in all pain groups except for the small sample of patients with mild pain.

In this study, more patients in the BFA group presented to the ED with lower extremity pain, such as gout or neuropathy, compared with the ketorolac group; however, BFA did not result in a significantly different pain score reduction in this subgroup compared with ketorolac. Patients receiving BFA were more likely to receive topical analgesics or muscle relaxants at discharge; whereas those receiving ketorolac were significantly more likely to receive oral NSAIDs. Patients in this study also were more likely to be admitted to the hospital if they received ketorolac; however, for these patients, pain was secondary to their chief presentation, and the admitting physician’s familiarity with ketorolac might have been the reason for choosing this intervention. Reasons for the admissions were surgical observation, psychiatric stabilization, kidney/gallstones, rule out of acute coronary syndrome, pneumonia, and proctitis in the ketorolac group, and suicidal ideations in the BFA group.

Limitations

As a limited number of patients received BFA at JBVAMC, the study was not sufficiently powered to detect a difference in the primary outcome. Because BFA required a consultation to be entered in the electronic health record, in addition to time needed to perform the procedure, practitioners might have preferred IV/IM ketorolac during busy times in the ED, potentially leading to underrepresentation in the BFA group. Prescribing preferences might have differed among the rotating physicians, timing of the documentation of the NRS pain score could have differed based on the treatment intervention, and the investigators were unable to control or accurately assess whether patients had taken an analgesic medication before presenting to the ED. Because pain and the treating physician are subjective, patients who reported a higher baseline pain severity might have been more likely to be discharged with topical analgesics or muscle relaxants. One way to correct for this subjectivity would be to conduct a larger prospective trial with a single treating physician. Finally, ED encounters in this study were short, and there was no follow-up permitting identification of AEs.

Conclusions

NRS pain score reduction with BFA did not differ compared with ketorolac 15 mg for treating acute and acute-on-chronic pain in the ED. Although this study was underpowered, these results add to the limited existing literature, suggesting that both interventions could result in clinically significant pain score reductions for patients presenting to the ED with severe and very severe pain, making BFA a viable nonpharmacologic option. Future studies could include investigating the benefit of BFA in the veteran population by studying larger samples in the ED, surveying patients after their interventions to identify rates AEs, and exploring the use of BFA for chronic pain in the outpatient setting.

Acute pain is a primary symptom for many patients who present to the emergency department (ED). The ED team is challenged with relieving pain while limiting harm from medications.¹ A 2017 National Health Interview Survey showed that compared with nonveterans, more veterans reported pain in the previous 3 months, and the rate of severe pain was 40% higher in the veteran group especially among those who served during the era of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.²

The American College of Emergency Physicians guidelines pain management guidelines recommend patient-centered shared decision making that includes patient education about treatment goals and expectations, and short- and long-term risks, as well as a preference toward pharmacologic treatment with nonopioid analgesics except for patients with severe pain or pain refractory to other drug and treatment modalities.³ There is a lack of evidence regarding superior efficacy of either opioid or nonopioid analgesics; therefore, the use of nonopioid analgesics, such as oral or topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or central analgesics, such as acetaminophen, is preferred for treating acute pain to mitigate adverse effects (AEs) and risks associated with opioid use.^1,3,4 The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Department of Defense (DoD) guideline on managing opioid therapy for chronic pain, updated in 2017 and 2022, similarly recommends alternatives to opioids for mild-to-moderate acute pain and encourages multimodal pain care.⁵ However, use of other pharmacologic treatments, such as NSAIDs, is limited by AE profiles, patient contraindications, and severity of acute pain etiologies. There is a need for the expanded use of nonpharmacologic treatments for addressing pain in the veteran population.

The American College of Emergency Physicians guidelines recommend nonpharmacologic modalities, such as applying heat or cold, physical therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, and acupuncture.³ A 2014 study reported that 37% to 46% of active duty and reserve military personnel use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) for a variety of ailments, and there is increasing interest in the use of CAM as adjuncts to traditional therapies.⁶ According to one study, some CAM therapies are used significantly more by military personnel than used by civilians.⁷ However, the percentage of the veteran population using acupuncture in this study was small, and more information is needed to assess its use.

Auricular acupuncture originated in traditional Chinese medicine.⁸ Contemporary auricular acupuncture experts view this modality as a self-contained microsystem mapping portions of the ear to specific parts of the body and internal organs. The analgesic effects may be mediated through the central nervous system by local release of endorphins through nerve fiber activation and neurotransmitters—including serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephrine—leading to pre- and postsynaptic suppression of pain transmission.

Battlefield acupuncture (BFA) uses 5 set points anatomically located on each ear.⁹ Practitioners use small semipermanent, dartlike acupuncture needles. Patients could experience pain relief in a few minutes, which can last minutes, hours, days, weeks, or months depending on the pathology of the pain. This procedure developed in 2001 has been studied for different pain types and has shown benefit when used for postsurgical pain, chronic spinal cord injury−related neuropathic pain, and general chronic pain, as well as for other indications, such as insomnia, depression, and weight loss.^8,10-13 In 2018, a randomized controlled trial compared postintervention numeric rating scale (NRS) pain scores in patients presenting to the ED with acute or acute-on-chronic lower back pain who received BFA as an adjunct to standard care vs standard care alone.¹⁴ Patients receiving BFA as an adjunct to standard care were found to have mean postintervention pain scores 1.7 points lower than those receiving standard care alone. This study demonstrated that BFA was feasible and well tolerated for lower back pain in the ED as an adjunct to standard care. The study was limited by the adjunct use of BFA rather than as monotherapy and by the practitioners’ discretion regarding standard care, which was not defined by the study’s authors.

The Jesse Brown Veterans Affairs Medical Center (JBVAMC) in Chicago, Illinois, offers several CAM modalities, such as exercise/movement therapy, chiropractic, art/music therapy, and relaxation workshops, which are widely used by veterans. Recent evidence suggests BFA could reduce pain scores as an adjunct or an alternative to pharmacologic therapy. We are interested in how CAM therapies, such as BFA, can help avoid AEs associated with opioid or NSAID therapy.

At the JBVAMC ED, ketorolac 15 mg is the preferred first-line treatment of acute, noncancer pain, based on the results of previous studies. In 2018 BFA was offered first to veterans presenting with acute or acute-on-chronic pain to the ED; however, its effectiveness for pain reduction vs ketorolac has not been evaluated in this patient population. Limited literature is available on BFA and its use in the ED. To our knowledge, this was the first observational study assessing the difference between a single session of BFA vs a single dose of ketorolac in treating noncancer acute or acute-on-chronic pain in the ED.

Methods

This study was a retrospective chart review of patients who presented to the JBVAMC ED with acute pain or acute-on-chronic pain, who received ketorolac or BFA. The study population was generated from a list of all IV and intramuscular (IM) ketorolac unit dose orders verified from June 1, 2018, through August 30, 2019, and a list of all BFA procedure notes signed from June 1, 2018, through August 30, 2019. Patients were included in the study if they had documented administration of IV or IM ketorolac or BFA between June 1, 2018, and August 30, 2019. Patients who received ketorolac doses other than 15 mg, the intervention was administered outside of the ED, received adjunct treatment in addition to the treatment intervention in the ED, had no baseline NRS pain score documented before the intervention, had an NRS pain score of < 4, had no postintervention NRS pain score documented within 6 hours, had a treatment indication other than pain, or had active cancer were excluded. As in previous JBVAMC studies, we used NRS pain score cutoffs (mild, moderate, severe, and very severe) based on Woo and colleagues’ meta-analysis and excluded scores < 4.¹⁵

Endpoints

The primary endpoint was the mean difference in NRS pain score before and after the intervention, determined by comparing the NRS pain score documented at triage to the ED with the first documented NRS pain score at least 30 minutes to 6 hours after treatment administration. The secondary endpoints included the number of patients prescribed pain medication at discharge, the number of patients who were discharged with no medications, and the number of patients admitted to the hospital. The safety endpoint included any AEs of the intervention. Subgroup analyses were performed comparing the mean difference in NRS pain score among subgroups classified by severity of baseline NRS pain score and pain location.

Statistical Analysis

Baseline characteristics and endpoints were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Categorical data were analyzed using Fisher exact test and z test for proportions, and continuous data were compared using t test and paired t test. An 80% power calculation determined that 84 patients per group were needed to detect a statistically significant difference in pain score reduction of 1.3 at a type-1 error rate of 0.05. The sample size was based on a calculation performed in a previously published study that compared IV ketorolac at 3 single-dose regimens for treating acute pain in the ED.¹⁶ The 1.3 pain score reduction is considered the minimum clinically significant difference in pain that could be detected with the NRS.¹⁷

Results

Sixty-one patients received BFA during the study period: 31 were excluded (26 received adjunct treatment in the ED, 2 had active cancer documented, 2 had an indication other than pain, and 1 received BFA outside of the ED), leaving 30 patients in the BFA cohort. During the study period, 1299 patients received ketorolac. These patients were selected using a random number generator and then screened to determine inclusion or exclusion in the study. We continued to randomly select patients for the ketorolac group until we had a similar number in each treatment group. Of these 148 patients who were randomly selected to be reviewed, 116 were excluded: 48 received adjunct treatment in the ED, 24 had no postintervention NRS pain score documented within 6 hours, 18 received ketorolac doses other than 15 mg, 12 received ketorolac outside the ED, 9 had no baseline NRS pain score documented, 3 presented with a NRS pain score of ≤ 3, and 2 had active cancer documented. The ketorolac cohort comprised 31 patients.

Baseline characteristics were similar between the 2 groups except for the average baseline NRS pain score, which was statistically significantly higher in the BFA vs ketorolac group (8.7 vs 7.7, respectively; P = .02). The mean age was 51 years in the BFA group and 48 years in the ketorolac group. Most patients in each cohort were male: 80% in the BFA group and 71% in the ketorolac group. The most common types of pain documented as the chief ED presentation included back, lower extremity, and head.

Endpoints

The mean difference in NRS pain score was 3.9 for the BFA group and 5.1 for the ketorolac group. Both were clinically and statistically significant reductions (P = .03 and P < .01), but the difference between the intervention groups in NRS score reduction was not statistically significant (P = .07).

For the secondary endpoint of outpatient prescriptions written at discharge, there was no significant difference between the groups except for oral NSAIDs, which were more likely to be prescribed to patients who received ketorolac (P = .01).

Subgroup Analysis

An analysis was performed for subgroups classified by baseline NRS pain score (mild: 4; moderate, 5 - 6; severe, 7 - 9; and very severe, 10). Data for mild pain was limited because a small number of patients received interventions. For moderate pain, the mean difference in NRS pain score for BFA and ketorolac was 3.5 and 3.8, respectively; for severe pain, 3.4 and 5.3; and for very severe pain, 4.6 and 6.4. There was a larger difference in the preintervention and postintervention NRS pain scores within severe pain and very severe pain groups.

Discussion

Both interventions resulted in a significant reduction in the mean NRS pain score of about 4 to 5 points within their group, and BFA resulted in a similar NRS pain score reduction compared with ketorolac 15 mg. Because the baseline NRS pain scores were significantly different between the BFA and ketorolac groups, a subgroup analysis revealed that BFA reduced mean NRS pain score in patients with severe and very severe pain but appears to be less beneficial for moderate pain, unlike the ketorolac results that showed a large reduction in all pain groups except for the small sample of patients with mild pain.

In this study, more patients in the BFA group presented to the ED with lower extremity pain, such as gout or neuropathy, compared with the ketorolac group; however, BFA did not result in a significantly different pain score reduction in this subgroup compared with ketorolac. Patients receiving BFA were more likely to receive topical analgesics or muscle relaxants at discharge; whereas those receiving ketorolac were significantly more likely to receive oral NSAIDs. Patients in this study also were more likely to be admitted to the hospital if they received ketorolac; however, for these patients, pain was secondary to their chief presentation, and the admitting physician’s familiarity with ketorolac might have been the reason for choosing this intervention. Reasons for the admissions were surgical observation, psychiatric stabilization, kidney/gallstones, rule out of acute coronary syndrome, pneumonia, and proctitis in the ketorolac group, and suicidal ideations in the BFA group.

Limitations

As a limited number of patients received BFA at JBVAMC, the study was not sufficiently powered to detect a difference in the primary outcome. Because BFA required a consultation to be entered in the electronic health record, in addition to time needed to perform the procedure, practitioners might have preferred IV/IM ketorolac during busy times in the ED, potentially leading to underrepresentation in the BFA group. Prescribing preferences might have differed among the rotating physicians, timing of the documentation of the NRS pain score could have differed based on the treatment intervention, and the investigators were unable to control or accurately assess whether patients had taken an analgesic medication before presenting to the ED. Because pain and the treating physician are subjective, patients who reported a higher baseline pain severity might have been more likely to be discharged with topical analgesics or muscle relaxants. One way to correct for this subjectivity would be to conduct a larger prospective trial with a single treating physician. Finally, ED encounters in this study were short, and there was no follow-up permitting identification of AEs.

Conclusions

NRS pain score reduction with BFA did not differ compared with ketorolac 15 mg for treating acute and acute-on-chronic pain in the ED. Although this study was underpowered, these results add to the limited existing literature, suggesting that both interventions could result in clinically significant pain score reductions for patients presenting to the ED with severe and very severe pain, making BFA a viable nonpharmacologic option. Future studies could include investigating the benefit of BFA in the veteran population by studying larger samples in the ED, surveying patients after their interventions to identify rates AEs, and exploring the use of BFA for chronic pain in the outpatient setting.

Three studies provide new insight into the growing problem of gaming disorder (GD), including the condition’s genesis, effective treatments, and the need for a greater focus on recovery.

A team of international researchers led by Orsolya Király, PhD, of the Institute of Psychology, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, reviewed the characteristics and etiology of GD. They concluded that its genesis arises from the interaction of environmental factors, game-specific factors and individual factors, including personality traits, comorbid psychopathology, and genetic predisposition.

“The development of GD is a complex process and we identified three major factors involved,” study coauthor Mark Griffiths, PhD, distinguished professor of behavioral addiction and director of the international gaming research unit, psychology department, Nottingham (England) Trent University, said in an interview. Because of this complexity, “prevention and intervention in GD require multiprofessional action.”

The review was published in Comprehensive Psychiatry.

In a second paper, published online in Frontiers in Psychiatry, Chinese investigators reviewing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) presented “compelling evidence” to support four effective interventions for GD: group counseling, acceptance and cognitive restructuring intervention program (ACRIP), short-term cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), and craving behavioral intervention (CBI).

A third paper, published online in the Journal of Behavioral Addictions, in which researchers analyzed close to 50 studies of GD, found that the concept of “recovery” is rarely mentioned in GD research. Lead author Belle Gavriel-Fried, PhD, senior professor, Bob Shapell School of Social Work, Tel Aviv University, said in an interview that recovery is a “holistic concept that taps into many aspects of life.”

Understanding the “differences in the impact and availability” of negative and positive human resources and their effect on recovery “can help clinicians to customize treatment,” she said.
 

Complex interplay

GD is garnering increasing attention in the clinical community, especially since 2019, when the World Health Organization included it in the ICD-11.

“Although for most individuals, gaming is a recreational activity or even a passion, a small group of gamers experiences negative symptoms which impact their mental and physical health and cause functional impairment,” wrote Dr. Király and colleagues.

Dr. Griffiths explained that his team wanted to provide an “up-to-date primer – a ‘one-stop shop’ – on all things etiologic concerning gaming disorder for academics and practitioners” as well as others, such as health policy makers, teachers, and individuals in the gaming industry.

The researchers identified three factors that increase the risk of developing GD, the first being gaming-related factors, which make video games “addictive in a way that vulnerable individuals may develop GD.”

For example, GD is more prevalent among online versus offline game players, possibly because online multiplayer games “provide safe environments in which players can fulfill their social needs while remaining invisible and anonymous.”

Game genre also matters, with massively multiplayer online role-playing games, first-person/third-person shooter games, real-time strategy games, and multiplayer online battle arena games most implicated in problematic gaming. Moreover, the “monetization techniques” of certain games also increase their addictive potential.

The researchers point to individual factors that increase the risk of developing GD, including male sex and younger age, personality traits like impulsivity and sensation-seeking, and comorbidities including ADHD, anxiety, and depression.

Poor self-esteem and lack of social competencies make gaming “an easy and efficient way to compensate for these deficiencies, which in turn, heightens the risk for developing GD,” they add. Neurobiological processes and genetic predisposition also play a role.

Lastly, the authors mentioned environmental factors, including family and peer-group issues, problems at work or school, and cultural factors.

“The take-home messages are that problematic gaming has had a long history of empirical research; that the psychiatric community now views GD as a legitimate mental health issue; and that the reasons for GD are complex, with many different factors involved in the acquisition, development, and maintenance of GD,” said Dr. Griffiths.
 

Beneficial behavioral therapies

Yuzhou Chen and colleagues, Southwest University, Chongqing, China, conducted a systematic review of RCTs investigating interventions for treating GD. Despite the “large number of intervention approaches developed over the past decade, as yet, there are no authoritative guidelines for what makes an effective GD intervention,” they wrote.

Few studies have focused specifically on GD but instead have focused on a combination of internet addiction and GD. But the interventions used to treat internet addiction may not apply to GD. And few studies have utilized an RCT design. The researchers therefore set out to review studies that specifically used an RCT design to investigate interventions for GD.

They searched six databases to identify RCTs that tested GD interventions from the inception of each database until the end of 2021. To be included, participants had to be diagnosed with GD and receive either a “complete and systematic intervention” or be in a comparator control group receiving no intervention or placebo.

Seven studies met the inclusion criteria (n = 332 participants). The studies tested five interventions:
 

• Group counseling with three different themes (interpersonal interaction, acceptance and commitment, cognition and behavior)
• CBI, which addresses cravings
• Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS)
• ACRIP with the main objectives of reducing GD symptoms and improving psychological well-being
• Short-term CBT, which addresses maladaptive cognitions

The mean duration of the interventions ranged from 3 to 15 weeks.

The primary outcome was GD severity, with secondary outcomes including depression, anxiety, cognition, game time, self-esteem, self-compassion, shyness, impulsivity, and psychological well-being.

Group counseling, CBI, ACRIP, and short-term CBT interventions had “a significant effect on decreasing the severity of GD,” while tDCS had “no significant effect.”

Behavioral therapy “exerts its effect on the behavioral mechanism of GD; for example, by reducing the association between game-related stimuli and the game player’s response to them,” the authors suggested.

Recovery vs. pathology

Recovery “traditionally represents the transition from trauma and illness to health,” Dr. Gavriel-Fried and colleagues noted.

Two paradigms of recovery are “deficit based” and “strength based.” The first assesses recovery in terms of abstinence, sobriety, and symptom reduction; and the second focuses on “growth, rather than a reduction in pathology.”

But although recovery is “embedded within mental health addiction policies and practice,” the concept has received “scant attention” in GD research.

The researchers therefore aimed to “map and summarize the state of the art on recovery from GD,” defining “recovery” as the “ability to handle conflicting feelings and emotions without external mediation.”

They conducted a scoping review of all literature regarding GD or internet GD published before February 2022 (47 studies, 2,924 participants with GD; mean age range, 13-26 years).

Most studies (n = 32) consisted of exclusively male subjects. Only 10 included both sexes, and female participants were in the minority.

Most studies (n = 42) did not address the concept of recovery, although all studies did report significant improvements in gaming-related pathology. Typical terminology used to describe changes in participants’ GD were “reduction” and/or “decrease” in symptom severity.

Although 18 studies mentioned the word “recovery,” only 5 actually discussed issues related to the notion of recovery, and only 5 used the term “abstinence.”

In addition, only 13 studies examined positive components of life in patients with GD, such as increased psychological well-being, life satisfaction, quality of life, improved emotional state, relational skills, and executive control, as well as improved self-care, hygiene, sleep, and interest in school studies.

“As a person and researcher who believes that words shape the way we perceive things, I think we should use the word ‘recovery’ rather than ‘pathology’ much more in research, therapy, and policy,” said Dr. Gavriel-Fried.

She noted that, because GD is a “relatively new behavioral addictive disorder, theories are still being developed and definitions of the symptoms are still being fine-tuned.”

“The field as a whole will benefit from future theoretical work that will lead to practical solutions for treating GD and ways to identify the risk factors,” Dr. Gavriel-Fried said.
 

Filling a research gap

In a comment, David Greenfield, MD, founder and medical director of the Connecticut-based Center for Internet and Technology Addiction, noted that 3 decades ago, there was almost no research into this area.

“The fact that we have these reviews and studies is good because all of the research adds to the science providing more data about an area we still don’t know that much about, where research is still in its infancy,” said Dr. Greenfield, who was not involved with the present study.

“Although we have definitions, there’s no complete agreement about the definitions of GD, and we do not yet have a unified approach,” continued Dr. Greenfield, who wrote the books Overcoming Internet Addiction for Dummies and Virtual Addiction.

He suggested that “recovery” is rarely used as a concept in GD research perhaps because there’s a “bifurcation in the field of addiction medicine in which behavioral addictions are not seen as equivalent to substance addictions,” and, particularly with GD, the principles of “recovery” have not yet matured.

“Recovery means meaningful life away from the screen, not just abstinence from the screen,” said Dr. Greenfield.

The study by Mr. Chen and colleagues was supported by grants from the National Social Science Foundation of China, the Chongqing Research Program of Basic Research and Frontier Technology, and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities. Dr. Griffiths has reported receiving research funding from Norsk Tipping (the gambling operator owned by the Norwegian government). The study by Dr. Király and colleagues received support from the Hungarian National Research Development and Innovation Office and the Janos Bolyai Research Scholarship Academy of Sciences to individual investigators. The study by Dr. Gavriel-Fried and colleagues received support from the Hungarian National Research Development and Innovation Office and the Janos Bolyai Research Scholarship Academy of Sciences to individual investigators. Dr. Gavriel-Fried has reported receiving grants from the Israel National Insurance Institute and the Committee for Independent Studies of the Israel Lottery. Dr. Greenfield reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Three studies provide new insight into the growing problem of gaming disorder (GD), including the condition’s genesis, effective treatments, and the need for a greater focus on recovery.

A team of international researchers led by Orsolya Király, PhD, of the Institute of Psychology, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, reviewed the characteristics and etiology of GD. They concluded that its genesis arises from the interaction of environmental factors, game-specific factors and individual factors, including personality traits, comorbid psychopathology, and genetic predisposition.

“The development of GD is a complex process and we identified three major factors involved,” study coauthor Mark Griffiths, PhD, distinguished professor of behavioral addiction and director of the international gaming research unit, psychology department, Nottingham (England) Trent University, said in an interview. Because of this complexity, “prevention and intervention in GD require multiprofessional action.”

The review was published in Comprehensive Psychiatry.

In a second paper, published online in Frontiers in Psychiatry, Chinese investigators reviewing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) presented “compelling evidence” to support four effective interventions for GD: group counseling, acceptance and cognitive restructuring intervention program (ACRIP), short-term cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), and craving behavioral intervention (CBI).

A third paper, published online in the Journal of Behavioral Addictions, in which researchers analyzed close to 50 studies of GD, found that the concept of “recovery” is rarely mentioned in GD research. Lead author Belle Gavriel-Fried, PhD, senior professor, Bob Shapell School of Social Work, Tel Aviv University, said in an interview that recovery is a “holistic concept that taps into many aspects of life.”

Understanding the “differences in the impact and availability” of negative and positive human resources and their effect on recovery “can help clinicians to customize treatment,” she said.
 

Complex interplay

GD is garnering increasing attention in the clinical community, especially since 2019, when the World Health Organization included it in the ICD-11.

“Although for most individuals, gaming is a recreational activity or even a passion, a small group of gamers experiences negative symptoms which impact their mental and physical health and cause functional impairment,” wrote Dr. Király and colleagues.

Dr. Griffiths explained that his team wanted to provide an “up-to-date primer – a ‘one-stop shop’ – on all things etiologic concerning gaming disorder for academics and practitioners” as well as others, such as health policy makers, teachers, and individuals in the gaming industry.

The researchers identified three factors that increase the risk of developing GD, the first being gaming-related factors, which make video games “addictive in a way that vulnerable individuals may develop GD.”

For example, GD is more prevalent among online versus offline game players, possibly because online multiplayer games “provide safe environments in which players can fulfill their social needs while remaining invisible and anonymous.”

Game genre also matters, with massively multiplayer online role-playing games, first-person/third-person shooter games, real-time strategy games, and multiplayer online battle arena games most implicated in problematic gaming. Moreover, the “monetization techniques” of certain games also increase their addictive potential.

The researchers point to individual factors that increase the risk of developing GD, including male sex and younger age, personality traits like impulsivity and sensation-seeking, and comorbidities including ADHD, anxiety, and depression.

Poor self-esteem and lack of social competencies make gaming “an easy and efficient way to compensate for these deficiencies, which in turn, heightens the risk for developing GD,” they add. Neurobiological processes and genetic predisposition also play a role.

Lastly, the authors mentioned environmental factors, including family and peer-group issues, problems at work or school, and cultural factors.

“The take-home messages are that problematic gaming has had a long history of empirical research; that the psychiatric community now views GD as a legitimate mental health issue; and that the reasons for GD are complex, with many different factors involved in the acquisition, development, and maintenance of GD,” said Dr. Griffiths.
 

Beneficial behavioral therapies

Yuzhou Chen and colleagues, Southwest University, Chongqing, China, conducted a systematic review of RCTs investigating interventions for treating GD. Despite the “large number of intervention approaches developed over the past decade, as yet, there are no authoritative guidelines for what makes an effective GD intervention,” they wrote.

Few studies have focused specifically on GD but instead have focused on a combination of internet addiction and GD. But the interventions used to treat internet addiction may not apply to GD. And few studies have utilized an RCT design. The researchers therefore set out to review studies that specifically used an RCT design to investigate interventions for GD.

They searched six databases to identify RCTs that tested GD interventions from the inception of each database until the end of 2021. To be included, participants had to be diagnosed with GD and receive either a “complete and systematic intervention” or be in a comparator control group receiving no intervention or placebo.

Seven studies met the inclusion criteria (n = 332 participants). The studies tested five interventions:
 

• Group counseling with three different themes (interpersonal interaction, acceptance and commitment, cognition and behavior)
• CBI, which addresses cravings
• Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS)
• ACRIP with the main objectives of reducing GD symptoms and improving psychological well-being
• Short-term CBT, which addresses maladaptive cognitions

The mean duration of the interventions ranged from 3 to 15 weeks.

The primary outcome was GD severity, with secondary outcomes including depression, anxiety, cognition, game time, self-esteem, self-compassion, shyness, impulsivity, and psychological well-being.

Group counseling, CBI, ACRIP, and short-term CBT interventions had “a significant effect on decreasing the severity of GD,” while tDCS had “no significant effect.”

Behavioral therapy “exerts its effect on the behavioral mechanism of GD; for example, by reducing the association between game-related stimuli and the game player’s response to them,” the authors suggested.

Recovery vs. pathology

Recovery “traditionally represents the transition from trauma and illness to health,” Dr. Gavriel-Fried and colleagues noted.

Two paradigms of recovery are “deficit based” and “strength based.” The first assesses recovery in terms of abstinence, sobriety, and symptom reduction; and the second focuses on “growth, rather than a reduction in pathology.”

But although recovery is “embedded within mental health addiction policies and practice,” the concept has received “scant attention” in GD research.

The researchers therefore aimed to “map and summarize the state of the art on recovery from GD,” defining “recovery” as the “ability to handle conflicting feelings and emotions without external mediation.”

They conducted a scoping review of all literature regarding GD or internet GD published before February 2022 (47 studies, 2,924 participants with GD; mean age range, 13-26 years).

Most studies (n = 32) consisted of exclusively male subjects. Only 10 included both sexes, and female participants were in the minority.

Most studies (n = 42) did not address the concept of recovery, although all studies did report significant improvements in gaming-related pathology. Typical terminology used to describe changes in participants’ GD were “reduction” and/or “decrease” in symptom severity.

Although 18 studies mentioned the word “recovery,” only 5 actually discussed issues related to the notion of recovery, and only 5 used the term “abstinence.”

In addition, only 13 studies examined positive components of life in patients with GD, such as increased psychological well-being, life satisfaction, quality of life, improved emotional state, relational skills, and executive control, as well as improved self-care, hygiene, sleep, and interest in school studies.

“As a person and researcher who believes that words shape the way we perceive things, I think we should use the word ‘recovery’ rather than ‘pathology’ much more in research, therapy, and policy,” said Dr. Gavriel-Fried.

She noted that, because GD is a “relatively new behavioral addictive disorder, theories are still being developed and definitions of the symptoms are still being fine-tuned.”

“The field as a whole will benefit from future theoretical work that will lead to practical solutions for treating GD and ways to identify the risk factors,” Dr. Gavriel-Fried said.
 

Filling a research gap

In a comment, David Greenfield, MD, founder and medical director of the Connecticut-based Center for Internet and Technology Addiction, noted that 3 decades ago, there was almost no research into this area.

“The fact that we have these reviews and studies is good because all of the research adds to the science providing more data about an area we still don’t know that much about, where research is still in its infancy,” said Dr. Greenfield, who was not involved with the present study.

“Although we have definitions, there’s no complete agreement about the definitions of GD, and we do not yet have a unified approach,” continued Dr. Greenfield, who wrote the books Overcoming Internet Addiction for Dummies and Virtual Addiction.

He suggested that “recovery” is rarely used as a concept in GD research perhaps because there’s a “bifurcation in the field of addiction medicine in which behavioral addictions are not seen as equivalent to substance addictions,” and, particularly with GD, the principles of “recovery” have not yet matured.

“Recovery means meaningful life away from the screen, not just abstinence from the screen,” said Dr. Greenfield.

The study by Mr. Chen and colleagues was supported by grants from the National Social Science Foundation of China, the Chongqing Research Program of Basic Research and Frontier Technology, and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities. Dr. Griffiths has reported receiving research funding from Norsk Tipping (the gambling operator owned by the Norwegian government). The study by Dr. Király and colleagues received support from the Hungarian National Research Development and Innovation Office and the Janos Bolyai Research Scholarship Academy of Sciences to individual investigators. The study by Dr. Gavriel-Fried and colleagues received support from the Hungarian National Research Development and Innovation Office and the Janos Bolyai Research Scholarship Academy of Sciences to individual investigators. Dr. Gavriel-Fried has reported receiving grants from the Israel National Insurance Institute and the Committee for Independent Studies of the Israel Lottery. Dr. Greenfield reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Three studies provide new insight into the growing problem of gaming disorder (GD), including the condition’s genesis, effective treatments, and the need for a greater focus on recovery.

A team of international researchers led by Orsolya Király, PhD, of the Institute of Psychology, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, reviewed the characteristics and etiology of GD. They concluded that its genesis arises from the interaction of environmental factors, game-specific factors and individual factors, including personality traits, comorbid psychopathology, and genetic predisposition.

“The development of GD is a complex process and we identified three major factors involved,” study coauthor Mark Griffiths, PhD, distinguished professor of behavioral addiction and director of the international gaming research unit, psychology department, Nottingham (England) Trent University, said in an interview. Because of this complexity, “prevention and intervention in GD require multiprofessional action.”

The review was published in Comprehensive Psychiatry.

In a second paper, published online in Frontiers in Psychiatry, Chinese investigators reviewing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) presented “compelling evidence” to support four effective interventions for GD: group counseling, acceptance and cognitive restructuring intervention program (ACRIP), short-term cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), and craving behavioral intervention (CBI).

A third paper, published online in the Journal of Behavioral Addictions, in which researchers analyzed close to 50 studies of GD, found that the concept of “recovery” is rarely mentioned in GD research. Lead author Belle Gavriel-Fried, PhD, senior professor, Bob Shapell School of Social Work, Tel Aviv University, said in an interview that recovery is a “holistic concept that taps into many aspects of life.”

Understanding the “differences in the impact and availability” of negative and positive human resources and their effect on recovery “can help clinicians to customize treatment,” she said.
 

Complex interplay

GD is garnering increasing attention in the clinical community, especially since 2019, when the World Health Organization included it in the ICD-11.

“Although for most individuals, gaming is a recreational activity or even a passion, a small group of gamers experiences negative symptoms which impact their mental and physical health and cause functional impairment,” wrote Dr. Király and colleagues.

Dr. Griffiths explained that his team wanted to provide an “up-to-date primer – a ‘one-stop shop’ – on all things etiologic concerning gaming disorder for academics and practitioners” as well as others, such as health policy makers, teachers, and individuals in the gaming industry.

The researchers identified three factors that increase the risk of developing GD, the first being gaming-related factors, which make video games “addictive in a way that vulnerable individuals may develop GD.”

For example, GD is more prevalent among online versus offline game players, possibly because online multiplayer games “provide safe environments in which players can fulfill their social needs while remaining invisible and anonymous.”

Game genre also matters, with massively multiplayer online role-playing games, first-person/third-person shooter games, real-time strategy games, and multiplayer online battle arena games most implicated in problematic gaming. Moreover, the “monetization techniques” of certain games also increase their addictive potential.

The researchers point to individual factors that increase the risk of developing GD, including male sex and younger age, personality traits like impulsivity and sensation-seeking, and comorbidities including ADHD, anxiety, and depression.

Poor self-esteem and lack of social competencies make gaming “an easy and efficient way to compensate for these deficiencies, which in turn, heightens the risk for developing GD,” they add. Neurobiological processes and genetic predisposition also play a role.

Lastly, the authors mentioned environmental factors, including family and peer-group issues, problems at work or school, and cultural factors.

“The take-home messages are that problematic gaming has had a long history of empirical research; that the psychiatric community now views GD as a legitimate mental health issue; and that the reasons for GD are complex, with many different factors involved in the acquisition, development, and maintenance of GD,” said Dr. Griffiths.
 

Beneficial behavioral therapies

Yuzhou Chen and colleagues, Southwest University, Chongqing, China, conducted a systematic review of RCTs investigating interventions for treating GD. Despite the “large number of intervention approaches developed over the past decade, as yet, there are no authoritative guidelines for what makes an effective GD intervention,” they wrote.

Few studies have focused specifically on GD but instead have focused on a combination of internet addiction and GD. But the interventions used to treat internet addiction may not apply to GD. And few studies have utilized an RCT design. The researchers therefore set out to review studies that specifically used an RCT design to investigate interventions for GD.

They searched six databases to identify RCTs that tested GD interventions from the inception of each database until the end of 2021. To be included, participants had to be diagnosed with GD and receive either a “complete and systematic intervention” or be in a comparator control group receiving no intervention or placebo.

Seven studies met the inclusion criteria (n = 332 participants). The studies tested five interventions:
 

• Group counseling with three different themes (interpersonal interaction, acceptance and commitment, cognition and behavior)
• CBI, which addresses cravings
• Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS)
• ACRIP with the main objectives of reducing GD symptoms and improving psychological well-being
• Short-term CBT, which addresses maladaptive cognitions

The mean duration of the interventions ranged from 3 to 15 weeks.

The primary outcome was GD severity, with secondary outcomes including depression, anxiety, cognition, game time, self-esteem, self-compassion, shyness, impulsivity, and psychological well-being.

Group counseling, CBI, ACRIP, and short-term CBT interventions had “a significant effect on decreasing the severity of GD,” while tDCS had “no significant effect.”

Behavioral therapy “exerts its effect on the behavioral mechanism of GD; for example, by reducing the association between game-related stimuli and the game player’s response to them,” the authors suggested.

Recovery vs. pathology

Recovery “traditionally represents the transition from trauma and illness to health,” Dr. Gavriel-Fried and colleagues noted.

Two paradigms of recovery are “deficit based” and “strength based.” The first assesses recovery in terms of abstinence, sobriety, and symptom reduction; and the second focuses on “growth, rather than a reduction in pathology.”

But although recovery is “embedded within mental health addiction policies and practice,” the concept has received “scant attention” in GD research.

The researchers therefore aimed to “map and summarize the state of the art on recovery from GD,” defining “recovery” as the “ability to handle conflicting feelings and emotions without external mediation.”

They conducted a scoping review of all literature regarding GD or internet GD published before February 2022 (47 studies, 2,924 participants with GD; mean age range, 13-26 years).

Most studies (n = 32) consisted of exclusively male subjects. Only 10 included both sexes, and female participants were in the minority.

Most studies (n = 42) did not address the concept of recovery, although all studies did report significant improvements in gaming-related pathology. Typical terminology used to describe changes in participants’ GD were “reduction” and/or “decrease” in symptom severity.

Although 18 studies mentioned the word “recovery,” only 5 actually discussed issues related to the notion of recovery, and only 5 used the term “abstinence.”

In addition, only 13 studies examined positive components of life in patients with GD, such as increased psychological well-being, life satisfaction, quality of life, improved emotional state, relational skills, and executive control, as well as improved self-care, hygiene, sleep, and interest in school studies.

“As a person and researcher who believes that words shape the way we perceive things, I think we should use the word ‘recovery’ rather than ‘pathology’ much more in research, therapy, and policy,” said Dr. Gavriel-Fried.

She noted that, because GD is a “relatively new behavioral addictive disorder, theories are still being developed and definitions of the symptoms are still being fine-tuned.”

“The field as a whole will benefit from future theoretical work that will lead to practical solutions for treating GD and ways to identify the risk factors,” Dr. Gavriel-Fried said.
 

Filling a research gap

In a comment, David Greenfield, MD, founder and medical director of the Connecticut-based Center for Internet and Technology Addiction, noted that 3 decades ago, there was almost no research into this area.

“The fact that we have these reviews and studies is good because all of the research adds to the science providing more data about an area we still don’t know that much about, where research is still in its infancy,” said Dr. Greenfield, who was not involved with the present study.

“Although we have definitions, there’s no complete agreement about the definitions of GD, and we do not yet have a unified approach,” continued Dr. Greenfield, who wrote the books Overcoming Internet Addiction for Dummies and Virtual Addiction.

He suggested that “recovery” is rarely used as a concept in GD research perhaps because there’s a “bifurcation in the field of addiction medicine in which behavioral addictions are not seen as equivalent to substance addictions,” and, particularly with GD, the principles of “recovery” have not yet matured.

“Recovery means meaningful life away from the screen, not just abstinence from the screen,” said Dr. Greenfield.

The study by Mr. Chen and colleagues was supported by grants from the National Social Science Foundation of China, the Chongqing Research Program of Basic Research and Frontier Technology, and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities. Dr. Griffiths has reported receiving research funding from Norsk Tipping (the gambling operator owned by the Norwegian government). The study by Dr. Király and colleagues received support from the Hungarian National Research Development and Innovation Office and the Janos Bolyai Research Scholarship Academy of Sciences to individual investigators. The study by Dr. Gavriel-Fried and colleagues received support from the Hungarian National Research Development and Innovation Office and the Janos Bolyai Research Scholarship Academy of Sciences to individual investigators. Dr. Gavriel-Fried has reported receiving grants from the Israel National Insurance Institute and the Committee for Independent Studies of the Israel Lottery. Dr. Greenfield reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

New clinical practice guidelines for cannabis in chronic pain management have been released.

Developed by a group of Canadian researchers, clinicians, and patients, the guidelines note that cannabinoid-based medicines (CBM) may help clinicians offer an effective, less addictive, alternative to opioids in patients with chronic noncancer pain and comorbid conditions.

“We don’t recommend using CBM first line for anything pretty much because there are other alternatives that may be more effective and also offer fewer side effects,” lead guideline author Alan Bell, MD, assistant professor of family and community medicine at the University of Toronto, told this news organization.

University of Toronto

Examining the evidence

A consistent criticism of CBM has been the lack of quality research supporting its therapeutic utility. To develop the current recommendations, the task force reviewed 47 pain management studies enrolling more than 11,000 patients. Almost half of the studies (n = 22) were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 12 of the 19 included systematic reviews focused solely on RCTs.

Overall, 38 of the 47 included studies demonstrated that CBM provided at least moderate benefits for chronic pain, resulting in a “strong” recommendation – mostly as an adjunct or replacement treatment in individuals living with chronic pain.

Overall, the guidelines place a high value on improving chronic pain and functionality, and addressing co-occurring conditions such as insomnia, anxiety and depression, mobility, and inflammation. They also provide practical dosing and formulation tips to support the use of CBM in the clinical setting.

When it comes to chronic pain, CBM is not a panacea. However, prior research suggests cannabinoids and opioids share several pharmacologic properties, including independent but possibly related mechanisms for antinociception, making them an intriguing combination.

In the current guidelines, all of the four studies specifically addressing combined opioids and vaporized cannabis flower demonstrated further pain reduction, reinforcing the conclusion that the benefits of CBM for improving pain control in patients taking opioids outweigh the risk of nonserious adverse events (AEs), such as dry mouth, dizziness, increased appetite, sedation, and concentration difficulties.

The recommendations also highlighted evidence demonstrating that a majority of participants were able to reduce use of routine pain medications with concomitant CBM/opioid administration, while simultaneously offering secondary benefits such as improved sleep, anxiety, and mood, as well as prevention of opioid tolerance and dose escalation.

Importantly, the guidelines offer an evidence-based algorithm with a clear framework for tapering patients off opioids, especially those who are on > 50 mg MED, which places them with a twofold greater risk for fatal overdose.

An effective alternative

Commenting on the new guidelines, Mark Wallace, MD, who has extensive experience researching and treating pain patients with medical cannabis, said the genesis of his interest in medical cannabis mirrors the guidelines’ focus.

“What got me interested in medical cannabis was trying to get patients off of opioids,” said Dr. Wallace, professor of anesthesiology and chief of the division of pain medicine in the department of anesthesiology at the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Wallace, who was not involved in the guidelines’ development study, said that he’s “titrated hundreds of patients off of opioids using cannabis.”

Dr. Wallace said he found the guidelines’ dosing recommendations helpful.

“If you stay within the 1- to 5-mg dosing range, the risks are so incredibly low, you’re not going to harm the patient.”

While there are patients who abuse cannabis and CBMs, Dr. Wallace noted that he has seen only one patient in the past 20 years who was overusing the medical cannabis. He added that his patient population does not use medical cannabis to get high and, in fact, wants to avoid doses that produce that effect at all costs.

Also commenting on the guidelines, Christopher Gilligan, MD, MBA, associate chief medical officer and a pain medicine physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, who was not involved in the guidelines’ development, points to the risks.

Brigham and Women&#039;s Hospital

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

New clinical practice guidelines for cannabis in chronic pain management have been released.

Developed by a group of Canadian researchers, clinicians, and patients, the guidelines note that cannabinoid-based medicines (CBM) may help clinicians offer an effective, less addictive, alternative to opioids in patients with chronic noncancer pain and comorbid conditions.

“We don’t recommend using CBM first line for anything pretty much because there are other alternatives that may be more effective and also offer fewer side effects,” lead guideline author Alan Bell, MD, assistant professor of family and community medicine at the University of Toronto, told this news organization.

University of Toronto

Examining the evidence

A consistent criticism of CBM has been the lack of quality research supporting its therapeutic utility. To develop the current recommendations, the task force reviewed 47 pain management studies enrolling more than 11,000 patients. Almost half of the studies (n = 22) were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 12 of the 19 included systematic reviews focused solely on RCTs.

Overall, 38 of the 47 included studies demonstrated that CBM provided at least moderate benefits for chronic pain, resulting in a “strong” recommendation – mostly as an adjunct or replacement treatment in individuals living with chronic pain.

Overall, the guidelines place a high value on improving chronic pain and functionality, and addressing co-occurring conditions such as insomnia, anxiety and depression, mobility, and inflammation. They also provide practical dosing and formulation tips to support the use of CBM in the clinical setting.

When it comes to chronic pain, CBM is not a panacea. However, prior research suggests cannabinoids and opioids share several pharmacologic properties, including independent but possibly related mechanisms for antinociception, making them an intriguing combination.

In the current guidelines, all of the four studies specifically addressing combined opioids and vaporized cannabis flower demonstrated further pain reduction, reinforcing the conclusion that the benefits of CBM for improving pain control in patients taking opioids outweigh the risk of nonserious adverse events (AEs), such as dry mouth, dizziness, increased appetite, sedation, and concentration difficulties.

The recommendations also highlighted evidence demonstrating that a majority of participants were able to reduce use of routine pain medications with concomitant CBM/opioid administration, while simultaneously offering secondary benefits such as improved sleep, anxiety, and mood, as well as prevention of opioid tolerance and dose escalation.

Importantly, the guidelines offer an evidence-based algorithm with a clear framework for tapering patients off opioids, especially those who are on > 50 mg MED, which places them with a twofold greater risk for fatal overdose.

An effective alternative

Commenting on the new guidelines, Mark Wallace, MD, who has extensive experience researching and treating pain patients with medical cannabis, said the genesis of his interest in medical cannabis mirrors the guidelines’ focus.

“What got me interested in medical cannabis was trying to get patients off of opioids,” said Dr. Wallace, professor of anesthesiology and chief of the division of pain medicine in the department of anesthesiology at the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Wallace, who was not involved in the guidelines’ development study, said that he’s “titrated hundreds of patients off of opioids using cannabis.”

Dr. Wallace said he found the guidelines’ dosing recommendations helpful.

“If you stay within the 1- to 5-mg dosing range, the risks are so incredibly low, you’re not going to harm the patient.”

While there are patients who abuse cannabis and CBMs, Dr. Wallace noted that he has seen only one patient in the past 20 years who was overusing the medical cannabis. He added that his patient population does not use medical cannabis to get high and, in fact, wants to avoid doses that produce that effect at all costs.

Also commenting on the guidelines, Christopher Gilligan, MD, MBA, associate chief medical officer and a pain medicine physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, who was not involved in the guidelines’ development, points to the risks.

Brigham and Women&#039;s Hospital

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

New clinical practice guidelines for cannabis in chronic pain management have been released.

Developed by a group of Canadian researchers, clinicians, and patients, the guidelines note that cannabinoid-based medicines (CBM) may help clinicians offer an effective, less addictive, alternative to opioids in patients with chronic noncancer pain and comorbid conditions.

“We don’t recommend using CBM first line for anything pretty much because there are other alternatives that may be more effective and also offer fewer side effects,” lead guideline author Alan Bell, MD, assistant professor of family and community medicine at the University of Toronto, told this news organization.

University of Toronto

Examining the evidence

A consistent criticism of CBM has been the lack of quality research supporting its therapeutic utility. To develop the current recommendations, the task force reviewed 47 pain management studies enrolling more than 11,000 patients. Almost half of the studies (n = 22) were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 12 of the 19 included systematic reviews focused solely on RCTs.

Overall, 38 of the 47 included studies demonstrated that CBM provided at least moderate benefits for chronic pain, resulting in a “strong” recommendation – mostly as an adjunct or replacement treatment in individuals living with chronic pain.

Overall, the guidelines place a high value on improving chronic pain and functionality, and addressing co-occurring conditions such as insomnia, anxiety and depression, mobility, and inflammation. They also provide practical dosing and formulation tips to support the use of CBM in the clinical setting.

When it comes to chronic pain, CBM is not a panacea. However, prior research suggests cannabinoids and opioids share several pharmacologic properties, including independent but possibly related mechanisms for antinociception, making them an intriguing combination.

In the current guidelines, all of the four studies specifically addressing combined opioids and vaporized cannabis flower demonstrated further pain reduction, reinforcing the conclusion that the benefits of CBM for improving pain control in patients taking opioids outweigh the risk of nonserious adverse events (AEs), such as dry mouth, dizziness, increased appetite, sedation, and concentration difficulties.

The recommendations also highlighted evidence demonstrating that a majority of participants were able to reduce use of routine pain medications with concomitant CBM/opioid administration, while simultaneously offering secondary benefits such as improved sleep, anxiety, and mood, as well as prevention of opioid tolerance and dose escalation.

Importantly, the guidelines offer an evidence-based algorithm with a clear framework for tapering patients off opioids, especially those who are on > 50 mg MED, which places them with a twofold greater risk for fatal overdose.

An effective alternative

Commenting on the new guidelines, Mark Wallace, MD, who has extensive experience researching and treating pain patients with medical cannabis, said the genesis of his interest in medical cannabis mirrors the guidelines’ focus.

“What got me interested in medical cannabis was trying to get patients off of opioids,” said Dr. Wallace, professor of anesthesiology and chief of the division of pain medicine in the department of anesthesiology at the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Wallace, who was not involved in the guidelines’ development study, said that he’s “titrated hundreds of patients off of opioids using cannabis.”

Dr. Wallace said he found the guidelines’ dosing recommendations helpful.

“If you stay within the 1- to 5-mg dosing range, the risks are so incredibly low, you’re not going to harm the patient.”

While there are patients who abuse cannabis and CBMs, Dr. Wallace noted that he has seen only one patient in the past 20 years who was overusing the medical cannabis. He added that his patient population does not use medical cannabis to get high and, in fact, wants to avoid doses that produce that effect at all costs.

Also commenting on the guidelines, Christopher Gilligan, MD, MBA, associate chief medical officer and a pain medicine physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, who was not involved in the guidelines’ development, points to the risks.

Brigham and Women&#039;s Hospital

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

Vaping may not be a gateway to long-term cigarette use for adolescents, a new study published in JAMA Network Open suggests.

Many studies have found that youth who vape are more likely to take up cigarette smoking, but whether that new habit lasts for a month or a lifetime has been unclear.

The percentage of adolescents who move on to smoking after starting to vape remains low, and those who do start smoking are unlikely to continue doing so for a long time, the new research shows.

“If they simply experiment with smoking but do not continue, their risks of smoking-related adverse health outcomes are low,” said Ruoyan Sun, PhD, assistant professor with the department of health policy and organization at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and the study’s lead author. “But if they do become regular or established smokers, then the risks can be substantial.”

Dr. Sun and her colleagues analyzed data from several waves of the longitudinal Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health study. Participants included 8,671 children and adolescents aged 12-17 years. Among teens who had ever vaped, 6% began smoking cigarettes and continued to smoke in the subsequent 3 years, the researchers found (95% confidence interval, 4.5%-8.0%), compared with 1.1% among teens who never vaped (95% CI, 0.8%-1.3%).

“The real concern is whether vaping is inducing significant numbers of young people to become confirmed smokers,” said Dr. Sun. “The answer is that it does not.”

Previous studies using PATH data have suggested that adolescents who use e-cigarettes are up to 3.5 times more likely than nonusers to start smoking tobacco cigarettes and that they may continue to use both products.

But in the new study, despite the low overall number of cigarette smokers, those in the group who used e-cigarettes were 81% more likely to continue smoking tobacco cigarettes after 3 years, compared with those who did not use e-cigarettes, researchers found (95% CI, 1.03-3.18).

Rachel Boykan, MD, clinical professor of pediatrics and attending physician at Stony Brook (N.Y.) Children’s Hospital, said that despite the findings, the overall messaging to patients remains the same: Vaping is linked to smoking.

“There is still a risk of initiation smoking among e-cigarette users – that is the take-home message,” Dr. Boykan, who was not affiliated with the study, said. “No risk of smoking initiation is acceptable. And of course, as we are learning, there are significant health risks with e-cigarette use alone.”

Among the entire group of teens, approximately 4% of the adolescents began smoking cigarettes; only 2.5% continued to smoke in the subsequent 3 years, the researchers found.

“Based on our odds ratio result, e-cigarette users are more likely to report continued cigarette smoking,” said Dr. Sun. “However, the risk differences were not significant.”

The low numbers of teens who continued to smoke also suggests that adolescents are more likely to quit than become long-term smokers.

Nicotine dependence may adversely affect the ability of adolescents to learn, remember, and maintain attention. Early research has suggested that long-term e-cigarette smokers may be at increased risk of developing some of the same conditions as tobacco smokers, such as chronic lung disease.

Brian Jenssen, MD, a pediatrician at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and assistant professor in the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said that the analysis is limited in part because it does not include changes in smoking and vaping trends since the pandemic started, “which seems to have increased the risk of smoking and vaping use.”

Data from the 2022 National Youth Tobacco survey found that although the rate of middle school and high school students who begin to use e-cigarettes has steadily decreased during the past two decades, those who vape report using the devices more frequently.

Subsequent use of cigarettes is also only one measure of risk from vapes.

“The goal isn’t just about cigarettes,” said Dr. Jenssen, who was not affiliated with the new study. “The goal is about helping children live tobacco- and nicotine-free lives, and there seems to be an increasing intensity of use, which is causing its own health risks.”

The current study findings do not change how clinicians should counsel their patients, and they should continue to advise teens to abstain from vaping, he added.

Dr. Sun said it’s common for youth to experiment with multiple tobacco products.

“Clinicians should continue to monitor youth tobacco-use behaviors but with their concern being focused on youthful patients who sustain smoking instead of just trying cigarettes,” she said.

Some of the study authors received support from the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Tobacco Products.

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

Vaping may not be a gateway to long-term cigarette use for adolescents, a new study published in JAMA Network Open suggests.

Many studies have found that youth who vape are more likely to take up cigarette smoking, but whether that new habit lasts for a month or a lifetime has been unclear.

The percentage of adolescents who move on to smoking after starting to vape remains low, and those who do start smoking are unlikely to continue doing so for a long time, the new research shows.

“If they simply experiment with smoking but do not continue, their risks of smoking-related adverse health outcomes are low,” said Ruoyan Sun, PhD, assistant professor with the department of health policy and organization at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and the study’s lead author. “But if they do become regular or established smokers, then the risks can be substantial.”

Dr. Sun and her colleagues analyzed data from several waves of the longitudinal Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health study. Participants included 8,671 children and adolescents aged 12-17 years. Among teens who had ever vaped, 6% began smoking cigarettes and continued to smoke in the subsequent 3 years, the researchers found (95% confidence interval, 4.5%-8.0%), compared with 1.1% among teens who never vaped (95% CI, 0.8%-1.3%).

“The real concern is whether vaping is inducing significant numbers of young people to become confirmed smokers,” said Dr. Sun. “The answer is that it does not.”

Previous studies using PATH data have suggested that adolescents who use e-cigarettes are up to 3.5 times more likely than nonusers to start smoking tobacco cigarettes and that they may continue to use both products.

But in the new study, despite the low overall number of cigarette smokers, those in the group who used e-cigarettes were 81% more likely to continue smoking tobacco cigarettes after 3 years, compared with those who did not use e-cigarettes, researchers found (95% CI, 1.03-3.18).

Rachel Boykan, MD, clinical professor of pediatrics and attending physician at Stony Brook (N.Y.) Children’s Hospital, said that despite the findings, the overall messaging to patients remains the same: Vaping is linked to smoking.

“There is still a risk of initiation smoking among e-cigarette users – that is the take-home message,” Dr. Boykan, who was not affiliated with the study, said. “No risk of smoking initiation is acceptable. And of course, as we are learning, there are significant health risks with e-cigarette use alone.”

Among the entire group of teens, approximately 4% of the adolescents began smoking cigarettes; only 2.5% continued to smoke in the subsequent 3 years, the researchers found.

“Based on our odds ratio result, e-cigarette users are more likely to report continued cigarette smoking,” said Dr. Sun. “However, the risk differences were not significant.”

The low numbers of teens who continued to smoke also suggests that adolescents are more likely to quit than become long-term smokers.

Nicotine dependence may adversely affect the ability of adolescents to learn, remember, and maintain attention. Early research has suggested that long-term e-cigarette smokers may be at increased risk of developing some of the same conditions as tobacco smokers, such as chronic lung disease.

Brian Jenssen, MD, a pediatrician at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and assistant professor in the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said that the analysis is limited in part because it does not include changes in smoking and vaping trends since the pandemic started, “which seems to have increased the risk of smoking and vaping use.”

Data from the 2022 National Youth Tobacco survey found that although the rate of middle school and high school students who begin to use e-cigarettes has steadily decreased during the past two decades, those who vape report using the devices more frequently.

Subsequent use of cigarettes is also only one measure of risk from vapes.

“The goal isn’t just about cigarettes,” said Dr. Jenssen, who was not affiliated with the new study. “The goal is about helping children live tobacco- and nicotine-free lives, and there seems to be an increasing intensity of use, which is causing its own health risks.”

The current study findings do not change how clinicians should counsel their patients, and they should continue to advise teens to abstain from vaping, he added.

Dr. Sun said it’s common for youth to experiment with multiple tobacco products.

“Clinicians should continue to monitor youth tobacco-use behaviors but with their concern being focused on youthful patients who sustain smoking instead of just trying cigarettes,” she said.

Some of the study authors received support from the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Tobacco Products.

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

Vaping may not be a gateway to long-term cigarette use for adolescents, a new study published in JAMA Network Open suggests.

Many studies have found that youth who vape are more likely to take up cigarette smoking, but whether that new habit lasts for a month or a lifetime has been unclear.

The percentage of adolescents who move on to smoking after starting to vape remains low, and those who do start smoking are unlikely to continue doing so for a long time, the new research shows.

“If they simply experiment with smoking but do not continue, their risks of smoking-related adverse health outcomes are low,” said Ruoyan Sun, PhD, assistant professor with the department of health policy and organization at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and the study’s lead author. “But if they do become regular or established smokers, then the risks can be substantial.”

Dr. Sun and her colleagues analyzed data from several waves of the longitudinal Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health study. Participants included 8,671 children and adolescents aged 12-17 years. Among teens who had ever vaped, 6% began smoking cigarettes and continued to smoke in the subsequent 3 years, the researchers found (95% confidence interval, 4.5%-8.0%), compared with 1.1% among teens who never vaped (95% CI, 0.8%-1.3%).

“The real concern is whether vaping is inducing significant numbers of young people to become confirmed smokers,” said Dr. Sun. “The answer is that it does not.”

Previous studies using PATH data have suggested that adolescents who use e-cigarettes are up to 3.5 times more likely than nonusers to start smoking tobacco cigarettes and that they may continue to use both products.

But in the new study, despite the low overall number of cigarette smokers, those in the group who used e-cigarettes were 81% more likely to continue smoking tobacco cigarettes after 3 years, compared with those who did not use e-cigarettes, researchers found (95% CI, 1.03-3.18).

Rachel Boykan, MD, clinical professor of pediatrics and attending physician at Stony Brook (N.Y.) Children’s Hospital, said that despite the findings, the overall messaging to patients remains the same: Vaping is linked to smoking.

“There is still a risk of initiation smoking among e-cigarette users – that is the take-home message,” Dr. Boykan, who was not affiliated with the study, said. “No risk of smoking initiation is acceptable. And of course, as we are learning, there are significant health risks with e-cigarette use alone.”

Among the entire group of teens, approximately 4% of the adolescents began smoking cigarettes; only 2.5% continued to smoke in the subsequent 3 years, the researchers found.

“Based on our odds ratio result, e-cigarette users are more likely to report continued cigarette smoking,” said Dr. Sun. “However, the risk differences were not significant.”

The low numbers of teens who continued to smoke also suggests that adolescents are more likely to quit than become long-term smokers.

Nicotine dependence may adversely affect the ability of adolescents to learn, remember, and maintain attention. Early research has suggested that long-term e-cigarette smokers may be at increased risk of developing some of the same conditions as tobacco smokers, such as chronic lung disease.

Brian Jenssen, MD, a pediatrician at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and assistant professor in the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said that the analysis is limited in part because it does not include changes in smoking and vaping trends since the pandemic started, “which seems to have increased the risk of smoking and vaping use.”

Data from the 2022 National Youth Tobacco survey found that although the rate of middle school and high school students who begin to use e-cigarettes has steadily decreased during the past two decades, those who vape report using the devices more frequently.

Subsequent use of cigarettes is also only one measure of risk from vapes.

“The goal isn’t just about cigarettes,” said Dr. Jenssen, who was not affiliated with the new study. “The goal is about helping children live tobacco- and nicotine-free lives, and there seems to be an increasing intensity of use, which is causing its own health risks.”

The current study findings do not change how clinicians should counsel their patients, and they should continue to advise teens to abstain from vaping, he added.

Dr. Sun said it’s common for youth to experiment with multiple tobacco products.

“Clinicians should continue to monitor youth tobacco-use behaviors but with their concern being focused on youthful patients who sustain smoking instead of just trying cigarettes,” she said.

Some of the study authors received support from the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Tobacco Products.

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

CASE A difficult withdrawal

Three days after he stops drinking alcohol, Mr. G, age 49, presents to a detoxification center with his wife, who drove him there because she was concerned about his condition. She says her husband had been drinking alcohol every night for as long as she can remember. Despite numerous admissions to rehabilitation centers, Mr. G usually would resume drinking soon after he was discharged. Three days ago, Mr. G’s wife had told him she “could not take it anymore,” so he got rid of all his alcohol and stopped drinking. Mr. G’s wife felt he was doing fine the first day, but his condition increasingly worsened the second and third days. The triage nurse who attempts to interview Mr. G finds him tremulous, vomiting, and sweating. She notices that he seems preoccupied with pulling at his shirt, appearing to pick at things that are not there.

HISTORY Untreated depression, other comorbidities

Mr. G’s wife says he has never been psychiatrically hospitalized or exhibited suicidal behavior. Mr. G previously received care from a psychiatrist, who diagnosed him with major depressive disorder (MDD) and prescribed an antidepressant, though his wife cannot recall which specific medication. She shares it has been “a long time” since Mr. G has taken the antidepressant and the last time he received treatment for his MDD was 5 years ago. Mr. G’s wife says her husband had once abstained from alcohol use for >6 months following one of his stints at a rehabilitation center. She is not able to share many other details about Mr. G’s previous stays at rehabilitation centers, but says he always had “a rough time.”

She says Mr. G had been drinking an average of 10 drinks each night, usually within 4 hours. He has no history of nicotine or illicit substance use and has held a corporate job for the last 18 years. Several years ago, a physician had diagnosed Mr. G with hypertension and high cholesterol, but he did not follow up for treatment. Mr. G’s wife also recalls a physician told her husband he had a fatty liver. His family history includes heart disease and cancer.

[polldaddy:12041618]

The author’s observations

The treatment team observed several elements of alcohol withdrawal and classified Mr. G as a priority patient. If the team had completed the Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol–Revised scale (CIWA-Ar) (Table 1¹), Mr. G would score ≥10. While the protocol for initiating treatment for patients experiencing alcohol withdrawal varies by institution, patients with moderate to severe scores on the CIWA-Ar when experiencing withdrawal typically are managed with pharmacotherapy to address their symptoms.¹ Given the timeline of his last drink as reported by his wife, Mr. G is on the brink of experiencing a cascade of symptoms concerning for delirium tremens (DTs).² Table 2² provides a timeline and symptoms related to alcohol withdrawal. To prevent further exacerbation of symptoms, which could lead to DTs, Mr. G’s treatment team will likely initiate a benzodiazepine, using either scheduled or symptom-driven dosing.³

Two neurotransmitters that play a role in DTs are glutamate (excitatory) and GABA (inhibitory). In a normal state, the competing actions of these neurotransmitters balance each other. Acute alcohol intake causes a shift in the excitatory and inhibitory levels, with more inhibition taking place, thus causing disequilibrium. If chronic alcohol use continues, the amount of GABA inhibition reduction is related to downregulation of receptors.^2,4 Excitation increases by way of upregulation of the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors.^2,4,5 The goal is to achieve equilibrium of the neurotransmitters, even though the balance is different from when alcohol was not present.^2,4

If alcohol is suddenly removed following chronic use, there is unchecked glutamate excitation related to a blunted GABA state. This added increase in the excitation of glutamate leads to withdrawal symptoms.^2,4 Table 3^2,4,5 depicts the neuro­transmitter equilibrium of GABA and glutamate relative to alcohol use.

EVALUATION Bleeding gums and bruising

The treatment team admits Mr. G to the triage bay and contacts the addiction psychiatrist. The physician orders laboratory tests to assess nutritional deficits and electrolyte abnormalities. Mr. G is also placed on routine assessments with symptom-triggered therapy. An assessment reveals bleeding gums and bruises, which are believed to be a result of thrombocytopenia (low blood platelet count).

[polldaddy:12041627]

Continue to: The author's observations

 

 

The author’s observations

Though regular clinical assessment of PEth varies, it is considered to have high sensitivity and specificity to detect alcohol use.⁶ When ethanol is present, the phospholipase D enzyme acts upon phosphatidylcholine, forming a direct biomarker, PEth, on the surface of the red blood cell.^6,7 PEth’s half-life ranges from 4.5 to 12 days,⁶ and it can be detected in blood for 3 to 4 weeks after alcohol ingestion.^6,7 A PEth value <20 ng/mL indicates light or no alcohol consumption; 20 to 199 ng/mL indicates significant consumption; and >200 ng/mL indicates heavy consumption.⁷ Since Mr. G has a history of chronic alcohol use, his PEth level is expected to be >200 ng/mL.

AST/ALT and MCV are indirect biomarkers, meaning the tests are not alcohol-specific and the role of alcohol is instead observed by the damage to the body with excessive use over time.⁷ The expected AST:ALT ratio is 2:1. This is related to 3 mechanisms. The first is a decrease in ALT usually relative to B6 deficiency in individuals with alcohol use disorder (AUD). Another mechanism is related to alcohol’s propensity to affect mitochondria, which is a source for AST. Additionally, AST is also found in higher proportions in the kidneys, heart, and muscles.⁸

An MCV <100 fL would be within the normal range (80 to 100 fL) for red blood cells. While the reasons for an enlarged red blood cell (or macrocyte) are extensive, alcohol can be a factor once other causes are excluded. Additional laboratory tests and a peripheral blood smear test can help in this investigation. Alcohol disrupts the complete maturation of red blood cells.^9,10 If the cause of the macrocyte is alcohol-related and alcohol use is terminated, those enlarged cells can resolve in an average of 3 months.⁹

Vitamin B1 levels >200 nmol/L would be within normal range (74 to 222 nmol/L). Mr. G’s chronic alcohol use would likely cause him to be vitamin B1–deficient. The deficiency is usually related to diet, malabsorption, and the cells’ impaired ability to utilize vitamin B1. A consequence of vitamin B1 deficiency is Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome.¹¹

Due to his chronic alcohol use, Mr. G’s magnesium stores most likely would be below normal range (1.7 to 2.2 mg/dL). Acting as a diuretic, alcohol depletes magnesium and other electrolytes. The intracellular shift that occurs to balance the deficit causes the body to use its normal stores of magnesium, which leads to further magnesium depletion. Other common causes include nutritional deficiency and decreased gastrointestinal absorption.¹² The bleeding the physician suspected was a result of drinking likely occurred through direct and indirect mechanisms that affect platelets.^9,13 Platelets can show improvement 1 week after drinking cessation. Some evidence suggests the risk of seizure or DTs increases significantly with a platelet count <119,000 µL per unit of blood.¹³

Continue to: TREATMENT Pharmacotherapy for alcohol use disorder

TREATMENT Pharmacotherapy for alcohol use disorder

As Mr. G’s condition starts to stabilize, he discusses treatment options for AUD with his physician. At the end of the discussion, Mr. G expresses an interest in starting a medication. The doctor reviews his laboratory results and available treatment options.

[polldaddy:12041630]

The author’s observations

Of the 3 FDA-approved medications for treating AUD (disulfiram, acamprosate, and naltrexone), naltrexone has been shown to decrease heavy drinking days^5,14 and comes in oral and injectable forms. Reducing drinking is achieved by reducing the rewarding effects of alcohol^5,14 and alcohol cravings.⁵ Disulfiram often has poor adherence, and like acamprosate it may be more helpful for maintenance of abstinence. Neither topiramate nor gabapentin are FDA-approved for AUD but may be used for their affects on GABA.⁵ Gabapentin may also help patients experiencing alcohol withdrawal syndrome.^5,15 Mr. G did not have any concomitant medications or comorbid medical conditions, but these factors as well as any renal or hepatic dysfunction must be considered before initiating any medications.

OUTCOME Improved well-being

Mr. G’s treatment team initiates oral naltrexone 50 mg/d, which he tolerates well without complications. He stops drinking entirely and expresses an interest in transitioning to an injectable form of naltrexone in the future. In addition to taking medication, Mr. G wants to participate in psychotherapy. Mr. G thanks his team for the care he received in the hospital, telling them, “You all saved my life.” As he discusses his past issues with alcohol, Mr. G asks his physician how he could get involved to make changes to reduce excessive alcohol consumption in his community (Box^5,15-21).

Box

Bottom Line

Patients experiencing alcohol withdrawal can present with several layers of complexity. Failure to achieve acute stabilization may be life-threatening. After providing critical care, promptly start alcohol use disorder treatment for patients who expresses a desire to change.

Related Resources

• American Society of Addiction Medicine. The ASAM Clinical Practice Guideline on Alcohol Withdrawal Management. https://www.asam.org/quality-care/clinical-guidelines/alcohol-withdrawal-management-guideline
• American Psychiatric Association. The American Psychiatric Association Practice Guideline for the Pharmacological Treatment of Patients With Alcohol Use Disorder. American Psychiatric Association Publishing; 2018.

Drug Brand Names

Acamprosate • Campral
Disulfiram • Antabuse
Gabapentin • Neurontin
Naltrexone (injection) • Vivitrol
Naltrexone (oral) • ReVia
Topiramate • Topamax

CASE A difficult withdrawal

Three days after he stops drinking alcohol, Mr. G, age 49, presents to a detoxification center with his wife, who drove him there because she was concerned about his condition. She says her husband had been drinking alcohol every night for as long as she can remember. Despite numerous admissions to rehabilitation centers, Mr. G usually would resume drinking soon after he was discharged. Three days ago, Mr. G’s wife had told him she “could not take it anymore,” so he got rid of all his alcohol and stopped drinking. Mr. G’s wife felt he was doing fine the first day, but his condition increasingly worsened the second and third days. The triage nurse who attempts to interview Mr. G finds him tremulous, vomiting, and sweating. She notices that he seems preoccupied with pulling at his shirt, appearing to pick at things that are not there.

HISTORY Untreated depression, other comorbidities

Mr. G’s wife says he has never been psychiatrically hospitalized or exhibited suicidal behavior. Mr. G previously received care from a psychiatrist, who diagnosed him with major depressive disorder (MDD) and prescribed an antidepressant, though his wife cannot recall which specific medication. She shares it has been “a long time” since Mr. G has taken the antidepressant and the last time he received treatment for his MDD was 5 years ago. Mr. G’s wife says her husband had once abstained from alcohol use for >6 months following one of his stints at a rehabilitation center. She is not able to share many other details about Mr. G’s previous stays at rehabilitation centers, but says he always had “a rough time.”

She says Mr. G had been drinking an average of 10 drinks each night, usually within 4 hours. He has no history of nicotine or illicit substance use and has held a corporate job for the last 18 years. Several years ago, a physician had diagnosed Mr. G with hypertension and high cholesterol, but he did not follow up for treatment. Mr. G’s wife also recalls a physician told her husband he had a fatty liver. His family history includes heart disease and cancer.

[polldaddy:12041618]

The author’s observations

The treatment team observed several elements of alcohol withdrawal and classified Mr. G as a priority patient. If the team had completed the Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol–Revised scale (CIWA-Ar) (Table 1¹), Mr. G would score ≥10. While the protocol for initiating treatment for patients experiencing alcohol withdrawal varies by institution, patients with moderate to severe scores on the CIWA-Ar when experiencing withdrawal typically are managed with pharmacotherapy to address their symptoms.¹ Given the timeline of his last drink as reported by his wife, Mr. G is on the brink of experiencing a cascade of symptoms concerning for delirium tremens (DTs).² Table 2² provides a timeline and symptoms related to alcohol withdrawal. To prevent further exacerbation of symptoms, which could lead to DTs, Mr. G’s treatment team will likely initiate a benzodiazepine, using either scheduled or symptom-driven dosing.³

Two neurotransmitters that play a role in DTs are glutamate (excitatory) and GABA (inhibitory). In a normal state, the competing actions of these neurotransmitters balance each other. Acute alcohol intake causes a shift in the excitatory and inhibitory levels, with more inhibition taking place, thus causing disequilibrium. If chronic alcohol use continues, the amount of GABA inhibition reduction is related to downregulation of receptors.^2,4 Excitation increases by way of upregulation of the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors.^2,4,5 The goal is to achieve equilibrium of the neurotransmitters, even though the balance is different from when alcohol was not present.^2,4

If alcohol is suddenly removed following chronic use, there is unchecked glutamate excitation related to a blunted GABA state. This added increase in the excitation of glutamate leads to withdrawal symptoms.^2,4 Table 3^2,4,5 depicts the neuro­transmitter equilibrium of GABA and glutamate relative to alcohol use.

EVALUATION Bleeding gums and bruising

The treatment team admits Mr. G to the triage bay and contacts the addiction psychiatrist. The physician orders laboratory tests to assess nutritional deficits and electrolyte abnormalities. Mr. G is also placed on routine assessments with symptom-triggered therapy. An assessment reveals bleeding gums and bruises, which are believed to be a result of thrombocytopenia (low blood platelet count).

[polldaddy:12041627]

Continue to: The author's observations

 

 

The author’s observations

Though regular clinical assessment of PEth varies, it is considered to have high sensitivity and specificity to detect alcohol use.⁶ When ethanol is present, the phospholipase D enzyme acts upon phosphatidylcholine, forming a direct biomarker, PEth, on the surface of the red blood cell.^6,7 PEth’s half-life ranges from 4.5 to 12 days,⁶ and it can be detected in blood for 3 to 4 weeks after alcohol ingestion.^6,7 A PEth value <20 ng/mL indicates light or no alcohol consumption; 20 to 199 ng/mL indicates significant consumption; and >200 ng/mL indicates heavy consumption.⁷ Since Mr. G has a history of chronic alcohol use, his PEth level is expected to be >200 ng/mL.

AST/ALT and MCV are indirect biomarkers, meaning the tests are not alcohol-specific and the role of alcohol is instead observed by the damage to the body with excessive use over time.⁷ The expected AST:ALT ratio is 2:1. This is related to 3 mechanisms. The first is a decrease in ALT usually relative to B6 deficiency in individuals with alcohol use disorder (AUD). Another mechanism is related to alcohol’s propensity to affect mitochondria, which is a source for AST. Additionally, AST is also found in higher proportions in the kidneys, heart, and muscles.⁸

An MCV <100 fL would be within the normal range (80 to 100 fL) for red blood cells. While the reasons for an enlarged red blood cell (or macrocyte) are extensive, alcohol can be a factor once other causes are excluded. Additional laboratory tests and a peripheral blood smear test can help in this investigation. Alcohol disrupts the complete maturation of red blood cells.^9,10 If the cause of the macrocyte is alcohol-related and alcohol use is terminated, those enlarged cells can resolve in an average of 3 months.⁹

Vitamin B1 levels >200 nmol/L would be within normal range (74 to 222 nmol/L). Mr. G’s chronic alcohol use would likely cause him to be vitamin B1–deficient. The deficiency is usually related to diet, malabsorption, and the cells’ impaired ability to utilize vitamin B1. A consequence of vitamin B1 deficiency is Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome.¹¹

Due to his chronic alcohol use, Mr. G’s magnesium stores most likely would be below normal range (1.7 to 2.2 mg/dL). Acting as a diuretic, alcohol depletes magnesium and other electrolytes. The intracellular shift that occurs to balance the deficit causes the body to use its normal stores of magnesium, which leads to further magnesium depletion. Other common causes include nutritional deficiency and decreased gastrointestinal absorption.¹² The bleeding the physician suspected was a result of drinking likely occurred through direct and indirect mechanisms that affect platelets.^9,13 Platelets can show improvement 1 week after drinking cessation. Some evidence suggests the risk of seizure or DTs increases significantly with a platelet count <119,000 µL per unit of blood.¹³

Continue to: TREATMENT Pharmacotherapy for alcohol use disorder

TREATMENT Pharmacotherapy for alcohol use disorder

As Mr. G’s condition starts to stabilize, he discusses treatment options for AUD with his physician. At the end of the discussion, Mr. G expresses an interest in starting a medication. The doctor reviews his laboratory results and available treatment options.

[polldaddy:12041630]

The author’s observations

Of the 3 FDA-approved medications for treating AUD (disulfiram, acamprosate, and naltrexone), naltrexone has been shown to decrease heavy drinking days^5,14 and comes in oral and injectable forms. Reducing drinking is achieved by reducing the rewarding effects of alcohol^5,14 and alcohol cravings.⁵ Disulfiram often has poor adherence, and like acamprosate it may be more helpful for maintenance of abstinence. Neither topiramate nor gabapentin are FDA-approved for AUD but may be used for their affects on GABA.⁵ Gabapentin may also help patients experiencing alcohol withdrawal syndrome.^5,15 Mr. G did not have any concomitant medications or comorbid medical conditions, but these factors as well as any renal or hepatic dysfunction must be considered before initiating any medications.

OUTCOME Improved well-being

Mr. G’s treatment team initiates oral naltrexone 50 mg/d, which he tolerates well without complications. He stops drinking entirely and expresses an interest in transitioning to an injectable form of naltrexone in the future. In addition to taking medication, Mr. G wants to participate in psychotherapy. Mr. G thanks his team for the care he received in the hospital, telling them, “You all saved my life.” As he discusses his past issues with alcohol, Mr. G asks his physician how he could get involved to make changes to reduce excessive alcohol consumption in his community (Box^5,15-21).

Box

Bottom Line

Patients experiencing alcohol withdrawal can present with several layers of complexity. Failure to achieve acute stabilization may be life-threatening. After providing critical care, promptly start alcohol use disorder treatment for patients who expresses a desire to change.

Related Resources

• American Society of Addiction Medicine. The ASAM Clinical Practice Guideline on Alcohol Withdrawal Management. https://www.asam.org/quality-care/clinical-guidelines/alcohol-withdrawal-management-guideline
• American Psychiatric Association. The American Psychiatric Association Practice Guideline for the Pharmacological Treatment of Patients With Alcohol Use Disorder. American Psychiatric Association Publishing; 2018.

Drug Brand Names

Acamprosate • Campral
Disulfiram • Antabuse
Gabapentin • Neurontin
Naltrexone (injection) • Vivitrol
Naltrexone (oral) • ReVia
Topiramate • Topamax

CASE A difficult withdrawal

Three days after he stops drinking alcohol, Mr. G, age 49, presents to a detoxification center with his wife, who drove him there because she was concerned about his condition. She says her husband had been drinking alcohol every night for as long as she can remember. Despite numerous admissions to rehabilitation centers, Mr. G usually would resume drinking soon after he was discharged. Three days ago, Mr. G’s wife had told him she “could not take it anymore,” so he got rid of all his alcohol and stopped drinking. Mr. G’s wife felt he was doing fine the first day, but his condition increasingly worsened the second and third days. The triage nurse who attempts to interview Mr. G finds him tremulous, vomiting, and sweating. She notices that he seems preoccupied with pulling at his shirt, appearing to pick at things that are not there.

HISTORY Untreated depression, other comorbidities

Mr. G’s wife says he has never been psychiatrically hospitalized or exhibited suicidal behavior. Mr. G previously received care from a psychiatrist, who diagnosed him with major depressive disorder (MDD) and prescribed an antidepressant, though his wife cannot recall which specific medication. She shares it has been “a long time” since Mr. G has taken the antidepressant and the last time he received treatment for his MDD was 5 years ago. Mr. G’s wife says her husband had once abstained from alcohol use for >6 months following one of his stints at a rehabilitation center. She is not able to share many other details about Mr. G’s previous stays at rehabilitation centers, but says he always had “a rough time.”

She says Mr. G had been drinking an average of 10 drinks each night, usually within 4 hours. He has no history of nicotine or illicit substance use and has held a corporate job for the last 18 years. Several years ago, a physician had diagnosed Mr. G with hypertension and high cholesterol, but he did not follow up for treatment. Mr. G’s wife also recalls a physician told her husband he had a fatty liver. His family history includes heart disease and cancer.

[polldaddy:12041618]

The author’s observations

The treatment team observed several elements of alcohol withdrawal and classified Mr. G as a priority patient. If the team had completed the Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol–Revised scale (CIWA-Ar) (Table 1¹), Mr. G would score ≥10. While the protocol for initiating treatment for patients experiencing alcohol withdrawal varies by institution, patients with moderate to severe scores on the CIWA-Ar when experiencing withdrawal typically are managed with pharmacotherapy to address their symptoms.¹ Given the timeline of his last drink as reported by his wife, Mr. G is on the brink of experiencing a cascade of symptoms concerning for delirium tremens (DTs).² Table 2² provides a timeline and symptoms related to alcohol withdrawal. To prevent further exacerbation of symptoms, which could lead to DTs, Mr. G’s treatment team will likely initiate a benzodiazepine, using either scheduled or symptom-driven dosing.³

Two neurotransmitters that play a role in DTs are glutamate (excitatory) and GABA (inhibitory). In a normal state, the competing actions of these neurotransmitters balance each other. Acute alcohol intake causes a shift in the excitatory and inhibitory levels, with more inhibition taking place, thus causing disequilibrium. If chronic alcohol use continues, the amount of GABA inhibition reduction is related to downregulation of receptors.^2,4 Excitation increases by way of upregulation of the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors.^2,4,5 The goal is to achieve equilibrium of the neurotransmitters, even though the balance is different from when alcohol was not present.^2,4

If alcohol is suddenly removed following chronic use, there is unchecked glutamate excitation related to a blunted GABA state. This added increase in the excitation of glutamate leads to withdrawal symptoms.^2,4 Table 3^2,4,5 depicts the neuro­transmitter equilibrium of GABA and glutamate relative to alcohol use.

EVALUATION Bleeding gums and bruising

The treatment team admits Mr. G to the triage bay and contacts the addiction psychiatrist. The physician orders laboratory tests to assess nutritional deficits and electrolyte abnormalities. Mr. G is also placed on routine assessments with symptom-triggered therapy. An assessment reveals bleeding gums and bruises, which are believed to be a result of thrombocytopenia (low blood platelet count).

[polldaddy:12041627]

Continue to: The author's observations

 

 

The author’s observations

Though regular clinical assessment of PEth varies, it is considered to have high sensitivity and specificity to detect alcohol use.⁶ When ethanol is present, the phospholipase D enzyme acts upon phosphatidylcholine, forming a direct biomarker, PEth, on the surface of the red blood cell.^6,7 PEth’s half-life ranges from 4.5 to 12 days,⁶ and it can be detected in blood for 3 to 4 weeks after alcohol ingestion.^6,7 A PEth value <20 ng/mL indicates light or no alcohol consumption; 20 to 199 ng/mL indicates significant consumption; and >200 ng/mL indicates heavy consumption.⁷ Since Mr. G has a history of chronic alcohol use, his PEth level is expected to be >200 ng/mL.

AST/ALT and MCV are indirect biomarkers, meaning the tests are not alcohol-specific and the role of alcohol is instead observed by the damage to the body with excessive use over time.⁷ The expected AST:ALT ratio is 2:1. This is related to 3 mechanisms. The first is a decrease in ALT usually relative to B6 deficiency in individuals with alcohol use disorder (AUD). Another mechanism is related to alcohol’s propensity to affect mitochondria, which is a source for AST. Additionally, AST is also found in higher proportions in the kidneys, heart, and muscles.⁸

An MCV <100 fL would be within the normal range (80 to 100 fL) for red blood cells. While the reasons for an enlarged red blood cell (or macrocyte) are extensive, alcohol can be a factor once other causes are excluded. Additional laboratory tests and a peripheral blood smear test can help in this investigation. Alcohol disrupts the complete maturation of red blood cells.^9,10 If the cause of the macrocyte is alcohol-related and alcohol use is terminated, those enlarged cells can resolve in an average of 3 months.⁹

Vitamin B1 levels >200 nmol/L would be within normal range (74 to 222 nmol/L). Mr. G’s chronic alcohol use would likely cause him to be vitamin B1–deficient. The deficiency is usually related to diet, malabsorption, and the cells’ impaired ability to utilize vitamin B1. A consequence of vitamin B1 deficiency is Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome.¹¹

Due to his chronic alcohol use, Mr. G’s magnesium stores most likely would be below normal range (1.7 to 2.2 mg/dL). Acting as a diuretic, alcohol depletes magnesium and other electrolytes. The intracellular shift that occurs to balance the deficit causes the body to use its normal stores of magnesium, which leads to further magnesium depletion. Other common causes include nutritional deficiency and decreased gastrointestinal absorption.¹² The bleeding the physician suspected was a result of drinking likely occurred through direct and indirect mechanisms that affect platelets.^9,13 Platelets can show improvement 1 week after drinking cessation. Some evidence suggests the risk of seizure or DTs increases significantly with a platelet count <119,000 µL per unit of blood.¹³

Continue to: TREATMENT Pharmacotherapy for alcohol use disorder

TREATMENT Pharmacotherapy for alcohol use disorder

As Mr. G’s condition starts to stabilize, he discusses treatment options for AUD with his physician. At the end of the discussion, Mr. G expresses an interest in starting a medication. The doctor reviews his laboratory results and available treatment options.

[polldaddy:12041630]

The author’s observations

Of the 3 FDA-approved medications for treating AUD (disulfiram, acamprosate, and naltrexone), naltrexone has been shown to decrease heavy drinking days^5,14 and comes in oral and injectable forms. Reducing drinking is achieved by reducing the rewarding effects of alcohol^5,14 and alcohol cravings.⁵ Disulfiram often has poor adherence, and like acamprosate it may be more helpful for maintenance of abstinence. Neither topiramate nor gabapentin are FDA-approved for AUD but may be used for their affects on GABA.⁵ Gabapentin may also help patients experiencing alcohol withdrawal syndrome.^5,15 Mr. G did not have any concomitant medications or comorbid medical conditions, but these factors as well as any renal or hepatic dysfunction must be considered before initiating any medications.

OUTCOME Improved well-being

Mr. G’s treatment team initiates oral naltrexone 50 mg/d, which he tolerates well without complications. He stops drinking entirely and expresses an interest in transitioning to an injectable form of naltrexone in the future. In addition to taking medication, Mr. G wants to participate in psychotherapy. Mr. G thanks his team for the care he received in the hospital, telling them, “You all saved my life.” As he discusses his past issues with alcohol, Mr. G asks his physician how he could get involved to make changes to reduce excessive alcohol consumption in his community (Box^5,15-21).

Box

Bottom Line

Patients experiencing alcohol withdrawal can present with several layers of complexity. Failure to achieve acute stabilization may be life-threatening. After providing critical care, promptly start alcohol use disorder treatment for patients who expresses a desire to change.

Related Resources

• American Society of Addiction Medicine. The ASAM Clinical Practice Guideline on Alcohol Withdrawal Management. https://www.asam.org/quality-care/clinical-guidelines/alcohol-withdrawal-management-guideline
• American Psychiatric Association. The American Psychiatric Association Practice Guideline for the Pharmacological Treatment of Patients With Alcohol Use Disorder. American Psychiatric Association Publishing; 2018.

Drug Brand Names

Acamprosate • Campral
Disulfiram • Antabuse
Gabapentin • Neurontin
Naltrexone (injection) • Vivitrol
Naltrexone (oral) • ReVia
Topiramate • Topamax

Expansions in telehealth services and increased use of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) were associated with significant decreases in fatal drug overdoses during the pandemic, a new study of Medicare beneficiaries shows.

Telehealth services for opioid use disorder (OUD) were used far more often during the pandemic than before COVID-19, and those who used them were 33% less likely to die of a drug overdose.

Investigators also found a significant increase in MOUD use during the pandemic. Fatal drug overdoses were 59% less likely among individuals who received MOUD from an opioid treatment program and 38% less likely among those treated with buprenorphine in an office-based setting.

The results come as policymakers are preparing for the end of the public health emergency that prompted the expansion of OUD-related telehealth and MOUD prescribing and are deciding whether to make those expansions permanent.

“The expansion of telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic appears to have had positive effects on patients receiving MOUD, improved retention among patients who received MOUD, and lowered risks for both nonfatal and fatal overdose,” lead investigator Christopher M. Jones, PharmD, DrPH, director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, told this news organization. “Our results suggest that telehealth is a valuable tool in the toolbox for expanding access to and improving retention on MOUD.”

The findings were published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Increase in treatment

The study included 105,162 Medicare beneficiaries who began OUD treatment between March and August in 2019 (prepandemic cohort; 67.6%

aged 45-74 years), and 70,479 who began treatment between March and August of 2020 (pandemic cohort; 66.3% aged 45-74 years).

Participants had not received OUD treatment in the 6 months leading up to study enrollment and were followed for 6 months after treatment began.

Significantly more study participants received OUD-related telehealth services during the pandemic than prior to 2019 (19.6% vs. 0.6%; P < .001). Receipt of MOUD was also significantly higher in the pandemic cohort (12.6% vs. 10.8%; P < .001).

The rate of drug overdose deaths was higher in the pandemic cohort (5.1 deaths vs. 3.7 deaths per 1,000 beneficiaries; P < .001). But the percentage of deaths from drug overdoses did not differ between groups (4.8% in the prepandemic cohort vs. 5.1% in the pandemic cohort; P = .49).

In the pandemic cohort, fatal drug overdoses were 33% less likely among those who received OUD-related telehealth services (adjusted odds ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-0.92); 59% less likely among those who received MOUD from opioid treatment programs (aOR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.25-0.68), and 38% less likely among those who received buprenorphine in office-based settings (aOR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.43-0.91).

Risk of fatal overdose was significantly lower among women and those aged 65 years and older. There were no significant differences in risk based on urban or rural residency or on ethnicity.

“Against the backdrop of a highly potent illicit drug supply driven by illicit fentanyl and fentanyl analogues and historically large increases in overdose deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic, MOUD was still highly effective at reducing risk for fatal overdose,” Dr. Jones said.

While the use of buprenorphine in office-based settings was associated with a decreased risk of overdose death, use of extended-release naltrexone was not.

“Prior research has demonstrated the effectiveness of extended-release naltrexone in the treatment of opioid use disorder,” Dr. Jones said. “However, research has also shown that patients have challenges getting started, or inducted, on extended-release naltrexone.”

An earlier study by Dr. Jones and colleagues showed that rates of retention were lower with extended-release naltrexone, compared with buprenorphine in office-based settings or MOUD from opioid treatment programs.

The new study included only a small number of individuals who were receiving extended-release naltrexone, which may have influenced the findings. In addition, challenges with induction and retention may be driving the results, Dr. Jones noted.

“Efforts to improve induction and retention with extended-release naltrexone are important areas for future research and clinical practice,” he added.
 

An important engagement tool

A number of questions about telehealth care for OUD remain, including whether increased access to care accounts for the reduction in drug overdose risk that the investigators found or whether other factors are at play.

“There is still more we need to understand about telehealth, such as the quality of care provided and the particular aspects of care provided by telehealth and how this influences health outcomes,” Dr. Jones said.

The results also suggest treatments for OUD are still not finding their way to patients who might benefit, he added.

“Despite the positive findings and the prior research showing that MOUD is highly effective, we found that only one in five patients received telehealth services and only one in eight received any MOUD. This really underscores the need to expand these services across clinical settings,” he added.

These and earlier findings demonstrate the potential benefits of continuing pandemic-era expansion of OUD-related telehealth services and MOUD access, Dr. Jones said.

In preparation for the end of the public health emergency on May 1, the Drug Enforcement Agency recently released a proposal that would allow providers to prescribe a 30-day supply of buprenorphine, but for patients to receive additional prescriptions, a face-to-face meeting would be required. The proposal has drawn criticism from addiction medicine specialists.

The current study didn’t explore if or how the proposal might affect patients with OUD or whether it could blunt the positive effects of the findings.

“Prior research shows that keeping individuals engaged in treatment, including on medications, is a critical part of reducing the negative health and social impacts of opioid use disorder. Our results suggest that telehealth can be an important tool in helping patients engage in and stay connected in care,” said Dr. Jones.

The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Johnson reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Expansions in telehealth services and increased use of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) were associated with significant decreases in fatal drug overdoses during the pandemic, a new study of Medicare beneficiaries shows.

Telehealth services for opioid use disorder (OUD) were used far more often during the pandemic than before COVID-19, and those who used them were 33% less likely to die of a drug overdose.

Investigators also found a significant increase in MOUD use during the pandemic. Fatal drug overdoses were 59% less likely among individuals who received MOUD from an opioid treatment program and 38% less likely among those treated with buprenorphine in an office-based setting.

The results come as policymakers are preparing for the end of the public health emergency that prompted the expansion of OUD-related telehealth and MOUD prescribing and are deciding whether to make those expansions permanent.

“The expansion of telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic appears to have had positive effects on patients receiving MOUD, improved retention among patients who received MOUD, and lowered risks for both nonfatal and fatal overdose,” lead investigator Christopher M. Jones, PharmD, DrPH, director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, told this news organization. “Our results suggest that telehealth is a valuable tool in the toolbox for expanding access to and improving retention on MOUD.”

The findings were published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Increase in treatment

The study included 105,162 Medicare beneficiaries who began OUD treatment between March and August in 2019 (prepandemic cohort; 67.6%

aged 45-74 years), and 70,479 who began treatment between March and August of 2020 (pandemic cohort; 66.3% aged 45-74 years).

Participants had not received OUD treatment in the 6 months leading up to study enrollment and were followed for 6 months after treatment began.

Significantly more study participants received OUD-related telehealth services during the pandemic than prior to 2019 (19.6% vs. 0.6%; P < .001). Receipt of MOUD was also significantly higher in the pandemic cohort (12.6% vs. 10.8%; P < .001).

The rate of drug overdose deaths was higher in the pandemic cohort (5.1 deaths vs. 3.7 deaths per 1,000 beneficiaries; P < .001). But the percentage of deaths from drug overdoses did not differ between groups (4.8% in the prepandemic cohort vs. 5.1% in the pandemic cohort; P = .49).

In the pandemic cohort, fatal drug overdoses were 33% less likely among those who received OUD-related telehealth services (adjusted odds ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-0.92); 59% less likely among those who received MOUD from opioid treatment programs (aOR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.25-0.68), and 38% less likely among those who received buprenorphine in office-based settings (aOR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.43-0.91).

Risk of fatal overdose was significantly lower among women and those aged 65 years and older. There were no significant differences in risk based on urban or rural residency or on ethnicity.

“Against the backdrop of a highly potent illicit drug supply driven by illicit fentanyl and fentanyl analogues and historically large increases in overdose deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic, MOUD was still highly effective at reducing risk for fatal overdose,” Dr. Jones said.

While the use of buprenorphine in office-based settings was associated with a decreased risk of overdose death, use of extended-release naltrexone was not.

“Prior research has demonstrated the effectiveness of extended-release naltrexone in the treatment of opioid use disorder,” Dr. Jones said. “However, research has also shown that patients have challenges getting started, or inducted, on extended-release naltrexone.”

An earlier study by Dr. Jones and colleagues showed that rates of retention were lower with extended-release naltrexone, compared with buprenorphine in office-based settings or MOUD from opioid treatment programs.

The new study included only a small number of individuals who were receiving extended-release naltrexone, which may have influenced the findings. In addition, challenges with induction and retention may be driving the results, Dr. Jones noted.

“Efforts to improve induction and retention with extended-release naltrexone are important areas for future research and clinical practice,” he added.
 

An important engagement tool

A number of questions about telehealth care for OUD remain, including whether increased access to care accounts for the reduction in drug overdose risk that the investigators found or whether other factors are at play.

“There is still more we need to understand about telehealth, such as the quality of care provided and the particular aspects of care provided by telehealth and how this influences health outcomes,” Dr. Jones said.

The results also suggest treatments for OUD are still not finding their way to patients who might benefit, he added.

“Despite the positive findings and the prior research showing that MOUD is highly effective, we found that only one in five patients received telehealth services and only one in eight received any MOUD. This really underscores the need to expand these services across clinical settings,” he added.

These and earlier findings demonstrate the potential benefits of continuing pandemic-era expansion of OUD-related telehealth services and MOUD access, Dr. Jones said.

In preparation for the end of the public health emergency on May 1, the Drug Enforcement Agency recently released a proposal that would allow providers to prescribe a 30-day supply of buprenorphine, but for patients to receive additional prescriptions, a face-to-face meeting would be required. The proposal has drawn criticism from addiction medicine specialists.

The current study didn’t explore if or how the proposal might affect patients with OUD or whether it could blunt the positive effects of the findings.

“Prior research shows that keeping individuals engaged in treatment, including on medications, is a critical part of reducing the negative health and social impacts of opioid use disorder. Our results suggest that telehealth can be an important tool in helping patients engage in and stay connected in care,” said Dr. Jones.

The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Johnson reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Expansions in telehealth services and increased use of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) were associated with significant decreases in fatal drug overdoses during the pandemic, a new study of Medicare beneficiaries shows.

Telehealth services for opioid use disorder (OUD) were used far more often during the pandemic than before COVID-19, and those who used them were 33% less likely to die of a drug overdose.

Investigators also found a significant increase in MOUD use during the pandemic. Fatal drug overdoses were 59% less likely among individuals who received MOUD from an opioid treatment program and 38% less likely among those treated with buprenorphine in an office-based setting.

The results come as policymakers are preparing for the end of the public health emergency that prompted the expansion of OUD-related telehealth and MOUD prescribing and are deciding whether to make those expansions permanent.

“The expansion of telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic appears to have had positive effects on patients receiving MOUD, improved retention among patients who received MOUD, and lowered risks for both nonfatal and fatal overdose,” lead investigator Christopher M. Jones, PharmD, DrPH, director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, told this news organization. “Our results suggest that telehealth is a valuable tool in the toolbox for expanding access to and improving retention on MOUD.”

The findings were published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Increase in treatment

The study included 105,162 Medicare beneficiaries who began OUD treatment between March and August in 2019 (prepandemic cohort; 67.6%

aged 45-74 years), and 70,479 who began treatment between March and August of 2020 (pandemic cohort; 66.3% aged 45-74 years).

Participants had not received OUD treatment in the 6 months leading up to study enrollment and were followed for 6 months after treatment began.

Significantly more study participants received OUD-related telehealth services during the pandemic than prior to 2019 (19.6% vs. 0.6%; P < .001). Receipt of MOUD was also significantly higher in the pandemic cohort (12.6% vs. 10.8%; P < .001).

The rate of drug overdose deaths was higher in the pandemic cohort (5.1 deaths vs. 3.7 deaths per 1,000 beneficiaries; P < .001). But the percentage of deaths from drug overdoses did not differ between groups (4.8% in the prepandemic cohort vs. 5.1% in the pandemic cohort; P = .49).

In the pandemic cohort, fatal drug overdoses were 33% less likely among those who received OUD-related telehealth services (adjusted odds ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-0.92); 59% less likely among those who received MOUD from opioid treatment programs (aOR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.25-0.68), and 38% less likely among those who received buprenorphine in office-based settings (aOR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.43-0.91).

Risk of fatal overdose was significantly lower among women and those aged 65 years and older. There were no significant differences in risk based on urban or rural residency or on ethnicity.

“Against the backdrop of a highly potent illicit drug supply driven by illicit fentanyl and fentanyl analogues and historically large increases in overdose deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic, MOUD was still highly effective at reducing risk for fatal overdose,” Dr. Jones said.

While the use of buprenorphine in office-based settings was associated with a decreased risk of overdose death, use of extended-release naltrexone was not.

“Prior research has demonstrated the effectiveness of extended-release naltrexone in the treatment of opioid use disorder,” Dr. Jones said. “However, research has also shown that patients have challenges getting started, or inducted, on extended-release naltrexone.”

An earlier study by Dr. Jones and colleagues showed that rates of retention were lower with extended-release naltrexone, compared with buprenorphine in office-based settings or MOUD from opioid treatment programs.

The new study included only a small number of individuals who were receiving extended-release naltrexone, which may have influenced the findings. In addition, challenges with induction and retention may be driving the results, Dr. Jones noted.

“Efforts to improve induction and retention with extended-release naltrexone are important areas for future research and clinical practice,” he added.
 

An important engagement tool

A number of questions about telehealth care for OUD remain, including whether increased access to care accounts for the reduction in drug overdose risk that the investigators found or whether other factors are at play.

“There is still more we need to understand about telehealth, such as the quality of care provided and the particular aspects of care provided by telehealth and how this influences health outcomes,” Dr. Jones said.

The results also suggest treatments for OUD are still not finding their way to patients who might benefit, he added.

“Despite the positive findings and the prior research showing that MOUD is highly effective, we found that only one in five patients received telehealth services and only one in eight received any MOUD. This really underscores the need to expand these services across clinical settings,” he added.

These and earlier findings demonstrate the potential benefits of continuing pandemic-era expansion of OUD-related telehealth services and MOUD access, Dr. Jones said.

In preparation for the end of the public health emergency on May 1, the Drug Enforcement Agency recently released a proposal that would allow providers to prescribe a 30-day supply of buprenorphine, but for patients to receive additional prescriptions, a face-to-face meeting would be required. The proposal has drawn criticism from addiction medicine specialists.

The current study didn’t explore if or how the proposal might affect patients with OUD or whether it could blunt the positive effects of the findings.

“Prior research shows that keeping individuals engaged in treatment, including on medications, is a critical part of reducing the negative health and social impacts of opioid use disorder. Our results suggest that telehealth can be an important tool in helping patients engage in and stay connected in care,” said Dr. Jones.

The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Johnson reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Drug Enforcement Administration is warning the public about a sharp increase in trafficking in fentanyl mixed with the animal tranquilizer xylazine, stating that the agency has seized mixtures of the two drugs in 48 states.

The DEA warning comes on the heels of a Food and Drug Administration announcement that it would begin more closely monitoring imports of the raw materials and bulk shipments of xylazine, also known as “tranq” and “zombie drug.”

Xylazine was first approved by the FDA in 1972 as a sedative and analgesic for use only in animals, but is increasingly being detected in illicit street drugs, and is often mixed with fentanyl, cocaine, and methamphetamine.

The FDA warned in November that naloxone (Narcan) would not reverse xylazine-related overdoses because the tranquilizer is not an opioid. It does suppress respiration and repeated exposures may lead to dependence and withdrawal, said the agency. Users are also experiencing severe necrosis at injection sites.

“Xylazine is making the deadliest drug threat our country has ever faced, fentanyl, even deadlier,” said DEA Administrator Anne Milgram in a statement. “The DEA Laboratory System is reporting that in 2022 approximately 23% of fentanyl powder and 7% of fentanyl pills seized by the DEA contained xylazine.”

Xylazine use has spread quickly, from its start in the Philadelphia area to the Northeast, the South, and most recently the West.

Citing data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the DEA said that 66% of the 107,735 overdose deaths for the year ending August 2022 involved synthetic opioids such as fentanyl. The DEA said that the Sinaloa Cartel and Jalisco Cartel in Mexico, using chemicals sourced from China, are primarily responsible for trafficking fentanyl in the United States.

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

The Drug Enforcement Administration is warning the public about a sharp increase in trafficking in fentanyl mixed with the animal tranquilizer xylazine, stating that the agency has seized mixtures of the two drugs in 48 states.

The DEA warning comes on the heels of a Food and Drug Administration announcement that it would begin more closely monitoring imports of the raw materials and bulk shipments of xylazine, also known as “tranq” and “zombie drug.”

Xylazine was first approved by the FDA in 1972 as a sedative and analgesic for use only in animals, but is increasingly being detected in illicit street drugs, and is often mixed with fentanyl, cocaine, and methamphetamine.

The FDA warned in November that naloxone (Narcan) would not reverse xylazine-related overdoses because the tranquilizer is not an opioid. It does suppress respiration and repeated exposures may lead to dependence and withdrawal, said the agency. Users are also experiencing severe necrosis at injection sites.

“Xylazine is making the deadliest drug threat our country has ever faced, fentanyl, even deadlier,” said DEA Administrator Anne Milgram in a statement. “The DEA Laboratory System is reporting that in 2022 approximately 23% of fentanyl powder and 7% of fentanyl pills seized by the DEA contained xylazine.”

Xylazine use has spread quickly, from its start in the Philadelphia area to the Northeast, the South, and most recently the West.

Citing data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the DEA said that 66% of the 107,735 overdose deaths for the year ending August 2022 involved synthetic opioids such as fentanyl. The DEA said that the Sinaloa Cartel and Jalisco Cartel in Mexico, using chemicals sourced from China, are primarily responsible for trafficking fentanyl in the United States.

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

The Drug Enforcement Administration is warning the public about a sharp increase in trafficking in fentanyl mixed with the animal tranquilizer xylazine, stating that the agency has seized mixtures of the two drugs in 48 states.

The DEA warning comes on the heels of a Food and Drug Administration announcement that it would begin more closely monitoring imports of the raw materials and bulk shipments of xylazine, also known as “tranq” and “zombie drug.”

Xylazine was first approved by the FDA in 1972 as a sedative and analgesic for use only in animals, but is increasingly being detected in illicit street drugs, and is often mixed with fentanyl, cocaine, and methamphetamine.

The FDA warned in November that naloxone (Narcan) would not reverse xylazine-related overdoses because the tranquilizer is not an opioid. It does suppress respiration and repeated exposures may lead to dependence and withdrawal, said the agency. Users are also experiencing severe necrosis at injection sites.

“Xylazine is making the deadliest drug threat our country has ever faced, fentanyl, even deadlier,” said DEA Administrator Anne Milgram in a statement. “The DEA Laboratory System is reporting that in 2022 approximately 23% of fentanyl powder and 7% of fentanyl pills seized by the DEA contained xylazine.”

Xylazine use has spread quickly, from its start in the Philadelphia area to the Northeast, the South, and most recently the West.

Citing data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the DEA said that 66% of the 107,735 overdose deaths for the year ending August 2022 involved synthetic opioids such as fentanyl. The DEA said that the Sinaloa Cartel and Jalisco Cartel in Mexico, using chemicals sourced from China, are primarily responsible for trafficking fentanyl in the United States.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved over-the-counter sales of the overdose reversal agent Narcan (naloxone, Emergent BioSolutions). Greater access to the drug should mean more lives saved. However, it’s unclear how much the nasal spray will cost and whether pharmacies will stock the product openly on shelves. 

Currently, major pharmacy chains such as CVS and Walgreens make naloxone available without prescription, but consumers have to ask a pharmacist to dispense the drug.

“The major question is what is it going to cost,” Brian Hurley, MD, MBA, president-elect of the American Society of Addiction Medicine, said in an interview. “In order for people to access it they have to be able to afford it.”

“We won’t accomplish much if people can’t afford to buy Narcan,” said Chuck Ingoglia, president and CEO of the National Council for Mental Wellbeing, in a statement. Still, he applauded the FDA.

“No single approach will end overdose deaths but making Narcan easy to obtain and widely available likely will save countless lives annually,” he said.

“The timeline for availability and price of this OTC product is determined by the manufacturer,” the FDA said in a statement.

Commissioner Robert M. Califf, MD, called for the drug’s manufacturer to “make accessibility to the product a priority by making it available as soon as possible and at an affordable price.”

Emergent BioSolutions did not comment on cost. It said in a statement that the spray “will be available on U.S. shelves and at online retailers by the late summer,” after it has adapted Narcan for direct-to-consumer use, including more consumer-oriented packaging.

Naloxone’s cost varies, depending on geographic location and whether it is generic. According to GoodRX, a box containing two doses of generic naloxone costs $31-$100, depending on location and coupon availability.

A two-dose box of Narcan costs $135-$140. Emergent reported a 14% decline in naloxone sales in 2022 – to $373.7 million – blaming it in part on the introduction of generic formulations.

Dr. Hurley said he expects those who purchase Narcan at a drug store will primarily already be shopping there. It may or may not be those who most often experience overdose, such as people leaving incarceration or experiencing homelessness.

Having Narcan available over-the-counter “is an important supplement but it doesn’t replace the existing array of naloxone distribution programs,” Dr. Hurley said.

The FDA has encouraged naloxone manufacturers to seek OTC approval for the medication since at least 2019, when it designed a model label for a theoretical OTC product.

In November, the agency said it had determined that some naloxone products had the potential to be safe and effective for OTC use and again urged drugmakers to seek such an approval.

Emergent BioSolutions was the first to pursue OTC approval, but another manufacturer – the nonprofit Harm Reduction Therapeutics – is awaiting approval of its application to sell its spray directly to consumers.

Scott Gottlieb, MD, who was the FDA commissioner from 2017 to 2019, said in a tweet that more work needed to be done.

“This regulatory move should be followed by a strong push by elected officials to support wider deployment of Narcan, getting more doses into the hands of at risk households and frontline workers,” he tweeted.

Mr. Ingoglia said that “Narcan represents a second chance. By giving people a second chance, we also give them an opportunity to enter treatment if they so choose. You can’t recover if you’re dead, and we shouldn’t turn our backs on those who may choose a pathway to recovery that includes treatment.”
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved over-the-counter sales of the overdose reversal agent Narcan (naloxone, Emergent BioSolutions). Greater access to the drug should mean more lives saved. However, it’s unclear how much the nasal spray will cost and whether pharmacies will stock the product openly on shelves. 

Currently, major pharmacy chains such as CVS and Walgreens make naloxone available without prescription, but consumers have to ask a pharmacist to dispense the drug.

“The major question is what is it going to cost,” Brian Hurley, MD, MBA, president-elect of the American Society of Addiction Medicine, said in an interview. “In order for people to access it they have to be able to afford it.”

“We won’t accomplish much if people can’t afford to buy Narcan,” said Chuck Ingoglia, president and CEO of the National Council for Mental Wellbeing, in a statement. Still, he applauded the FDA.

“No single approach will end overdose deaths but making Narcan easy to obtain and widely available likely will save countless lives annually,” he said.

“The timeline for availability and price of this OTC product is determined by the manufacturer,” the FDA said in a statement.

Commissioner Robert M. Califf, MD, called for the drug’s manufacturer to “make accessibility to the product a priority by making it available as soon as possible and at an affordable price.”

Emergent BioSolutions did not comment on cost. It said in a statement that the spray “will be available on U.S. shelves and at online retailers by the late summer,” after it has adapted Narcan for direct-to-consumer use, including more consumer-oriented packaging.

Naloxone’s cost varies, depending on geographic location and whether it is generic. According to GoodRX, a box containing two doses of generic naloxone costs $31-$100, depending on location and coupon availability.

A two-dose box of Narcan costs $135-$140. Emergent reported a 14% decline in naloxone sales in 2022 – to $373.7 million – blaming it in part on the introduction of generic formulations.

Dr. Hurley said he expects those who purchase Narcan at a drug store will primarily already be shopping there. It may or may not be those who most often experience overdose, such as people leaving incarceration or experiencing homelessness.

Having Narcan available over-the-counter “is an important supplement but it doesn’t replace the existing array of naloxone distribution programs,” Dr. Hurley said.

The FDA has encouraged naloxone manufacturers to seek OTC approval for the medication since at least 2019, when it designed a model label for a theoretical OTC product.

In November, the agency said it had determined that some naloxone products had the potential to be safe and effective for OTC use and again urged drugmakers to seek such an approval.

Emergent BioSolutions was the first to pursue OTC approval, but another manufacturer – the nonprofit Harm Reduction Therapeutics – is awaiting approval of its application to sell its spray directly to consumers.

Scott Gottlieb, MD, who was the FDA commissioner from 2017 to 2019, said in a tweet that more work needed to be done.

“This regulatory move should be followed by a strong push by elected officials to support wider deployment of Narcan, getting more doses into the hands of at risk households and frontline workers,” he tweeted.

Mr. Ingoglia said that “Narcan represents a second chance. By giving people a second chance, we also give them an opportunity to enter treatment if they so choose. You can’t recover if you’re dead, and we shouldn’t turn our backs on those who may choose a pathway to recovery that includes treatment.”
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved over-the-counter sales of the overdose reversal agent Narcan (naloxone, Emergent BioSolutions). Greater access to the drug should mean more lives saved. However, it’s unclear how much the nasal spray will cost and whether pharmacies will stock the product openly on shelves. 

Currently, major pharmacy chains such as CVS and Walgreens make naloxone available without prescription, but consumers have to ask a pharmacist to dispense the drug.

“The major question is what is it going to cost,” Brian Hurley, MD, MBA, president-elect of the American Society of Addiction Medicine, said in an interview. “In order for people to access it they have to be able to afford it.”

“We won’t accomplish much if people can’t afford to buy Narcan,” said Chuck Ingoglia, president and CEO of the National Council for Mental Wellbeing, in a statement. Still, he applauded the FDA.

“No single approach will end overdose deaths but making Narcan easy to obtain and widely available likely will save countless lives annually,” he said.

“The timeline for availability and price of this OTC product is determined by the manufacturer,” the FDA said in a statement.

Commissioner Robert M. Califf, MD, called for the drug’s manufacturer to “make accessibility to the product a priority by making it available as soon as possible and at an affordable price.”

Emergent BioSolutions did not comment on cost. It said in a statement that the spray “will be available on U.S. shelves and at online retailers by the late summer,” after it has adapted Narcan for direct-to-consumer use, including more consumer-oriented packaging.

Naloxone’s cost varies, depending on geographic location and whether it is generic. According to GoodRX, a box containing two doses of generic naloxone costs $31-$100, depending on location and coupon availability.

A two-dose box of Narcan costs $135-$140. Emergent reported a 14% decline in naloxone sales in 2022 – to $373.7 million – blaming it in part on the introduction of generic formulations.

Dr. Hurley said he expects those who purchase Narcan at a drug store will primarily already be shopping there. It may or may not be those who most often experience overdose, such as people leaving incarceration or experiencing homelessness.

Having Narcan available over-the-counter “is an important supplement but it doesn’t replace the existing array of naloxone distribution programs,” Dr. Hurley said.

The FDA has encouraged naloxone manufacturers to seek OTC approval for the medication since at least 2019, when it designed a model label for a theoretical OTC product.

In November, the agency said it had determined that some naloxone products had the potential to be safe and effective for OTC use and again urged drugmakers to seek such an approval.

Emergent BioSolutions was the first to pursue OTC approval, but another manufacturer – the nonprofit Harm Reduction Therapeutics – is awaiting approval of its application to sell its spray directly to consumers.

Scott Gottlieb, MD, who was the FDA commissioner from 2017 to 2019, said in a tweet that more work needed to be done.

“This regulatory move should be followed by a strong push by elected officials to support wider deployment of Narcan, getting more doses into the hands of at risk households and frontline workers,” he tweeted.

Mr. Ingoglia said that “Narcan represents a second chance. By giving people a second chance, we also give them an opportunity to enter treatment if they so choose. You can’t recover if you’re dead, and we shouldn’t turn our backs on those who may choose a pathway to recovery that includes treatment.”
 

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

Urine drug testing can be valuable for monitoring patients undergoing treatment with buprenorphine for opioid use disorder (OUD). However, some patients alter their test results by adding buprenorphine directly to their urine sample to imply adherence, a new study shows.

In the study, nearly 2% of all urine drug test specimens analyzed were suggestive of spiking and nearly 8% of patients had at least one specimen that was possibly spiked.

“I anticipate a much-needed increase” in the number of people gaining access to buprenorphine therapy, given elimination of the X waiver, first author Jarratt D. Pytell, MD, with University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in a statement.

“New prescribers of buprenorphine will need to learn how to conduct the increasingly complex initiation of treatment and then gauge whether it is successful or not,” added Dr. Pytell, a general internist and addiction medicine specialist.

“Spiking suggests that treatment is not working – especially in patients continuing illicit drug use. Detecting spiking allows clinicians to adjust or intensify the treatment plan,” Dr. Pytell said in an interview.

The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

A sign of elevated patient risk

In a cross-sectional study using Millennium Health’s proprietary urine drug test (UDT) database, researchers analyzed 507,735 urine specimens from 58,476 OUD patients collected between January 2017 and April 2022.

A total of 9546 (1.9%) specimens from 4,550 patients (7.6%) were suggestive of spiking.

UDT specimens suggestive of spiking had two times the odds of being positive for other opioids (fentanyl or heroin), compared with opioid negative samples.

UDT specimens obtained from primary care clinics, from patients aged 35-44 years, and from patients living in the South Atlantic region of the United States were also more likely to be suggestive of buprenorphine spiking.

“Our study demonstrated that a buprenorphine to norbuprenorphine ratio of less than 0.02 indicates the possibility of spiking,” Dr. Pytell said in an interview.

“Nevertheless, it is important to note that this cutoff is not a definitive standard and further controlled studies are necessary to determine its predictive value for spiking. But recognizing possible spiking is very important since it demonstrates a point of elevated risk for the patient and the treatment approach should be reconsidered,” Dr. Pytell said.

“At Millennium Health, we have been tracking the enormity of the drug use crisis. This study suggests that spiking is an important patient safety issue, and it is not uncommon,” study coauthor Eric Dawson, PharmD, vice president of clinical affairs, Millennium Health, said in a statement.

“Detection of spiking requires definitive drug testing. Immunoassay-based, point-of-care tests cannot detect spiking because they are generally incapable of quantitative analysis and differentiating buprenorphine from norbuprenorphine,” Dr. Dawson said.
 

Best practices?

“We need to develop best practices specific for this situation where a patient has added buprenorphine to the urine drug test specimen,” said Dr. Pytell.

“As with all unexpected findings, it is crucial for clinicians to approach this finding in a nonjudgmental manner and work with the patient to understand what might have motivated them to alter their urine specimen,” he added.

Dr. Pytell said a common reaction for clinicians might be to discontinue treatment. However, this is actually a time to try and engage with the patient.

“Clinicians should work collaboratively with patients to identify potential reasons for spiking and determine what changes may need to be made to better support the patient’s recovery,” Dr. Pytell said.

“This could include more frequent monitoring or referral to a higher level of care. In addition, clinicians should be aware that patients who engage in spiking may be experiencing other challenges that impact their ability to adhere to treatment, such as inadequate housing, mental health issues, or financial strain. Addressing these underlying issues may help patients overcome barriers to treatment adherence and reduce the likelihood of future spiking,” Dr. Pytell said.

This study was supported by Millennium Health. The authors have no relevant disclosures.

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

Urine drug testing can be valuable for monitoring patients undergoing treatment with buprenorphine for opioid use disorder (OUD). However, some patients alter their test results by adding buprenorphine directly to their urine sample to imply adherence, a new study shows.

In the study, nearly 2% of all urine drug test specimens analyzed were suggestive of spiking and nearly 8% of patients had at least one specimen that was possibly spiked.

“I anticipate a much-needed increase” in the number of people gaining access to buprenorphine therapy, given elimination of the X waiver, first author Jarratt D. Pytell, MD, with University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in a statement.

“New prescribers of buprenorphine will need to learn how to conduct the increasingly complex initiation of treatment and then gauge whether it is successful or not,” added Dr. Pytell, a general internist and addiction medicine specialist.

“Spiking suggests that treatment is not working – especially in patients continuing illicit drug use. Detecting spiking allows clinicians to adjust or intensify the treatment plan,” Dr. Pytell said in an interview.

The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

A sign of elevated patient risk

In a cross-sectional study using Millennium Health’s proprietary urine drug test (UDT) database, researchers analyzed 507,735 urine specimens from 58,476 OUD patients collected between January 2017 and April 2022.

A total of 9546 (1.9%) specimens from 4,550 patients (7.6%) were suggestive of spiking.

UDT specimens suggestive of spiking had two times the odds of being positive for other opioids (fentanyl or heroin), compared with opioid negative samples.

UDT specimens obtained from primary care clinics, from patients aged 35-44 years, and from patients living in the South Atlantic region of the United States were also more likely to be suggestive of buprenorphine spiking.

“Our study demonstrated that a buprenorphine to norbuprenorphine ratio of less than 0.02 indicates the possibility of spiking,” Dr. Pytell said in an interview.

“Nevertheless, it is important to note that this cutoff is not a definitive standard and further controlled studies are necessary to determine its predictive value for spiking. But recognizing possible spiking is very important since it demonstrates a point of elevated risk for the patient and the treatment approach should be reconsidered,” Dr. Pytell said.

“At Millennium Health, we have been tracking the enormity of the drug use crisis. This study suggests that spiking is an important patient safety issue, and it is not uncommon,” study coauthor Eric Dawson, PharmD, vice president of clinical affairs, Millennium Health, said in a statement.

“Detection of spiking requires definitive drug testing. Immunoassay-based, point-of-care tests cannot detect spiking because they are generally incapable of quantitative analysis and differentiating buprenorphine from norbuprenorphine,” Dr. Dawson said.
 

Best practices?

“We need to develop best practices specific for this situation where a patient has added buprenorphine to the urine drug test specimen,” said Dr. Pytell.

“As with all unexpected findings, it is crucial for clinicians to approach this finding in a nonjudgmental manner and work with the patient to understand what might have motivated them to alter their urine specimen,” he added.

Dr. Pytell said a common reaction for clinicians might be to discontinue treatment. However, this is actually a time to try and engage with the patient.

“Clinicians should work collaboratively with patients to identify potential reasons for spiking and determine what changes may need to be made to better support the patient’s recovery,” Dr. Pytell said.

“This could include more frequent monitoring or referral to a higher level of care. In addition, clinicians should be aware that patients who engage in spiking may be experiencing other challenges that impact their ability to adhere to treatment, such as inadequate housing, mental health issues, or financial strain. Addressing these underlying issues may help patients overcome barriers to treatment adherence and reduce the likelihood of future spiking,” Dr. Pytell said.

This study was supported by Millennium Health. The authors have no relevant disclosures.

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

Urine drug testing can be valuable for monitoring patients undergoing treatment with buprenorphine for opioid use disorder (OUD). However, some patients alter their test results by adding buprenorphine directly to their urine sample to imply adherence, a new study shows.

In the study, nearly 2% of all urine drug test specimens analyzed were suggestive of spiking and nearly 8% of patients had at least one specimen that was possibly spiked.

“I anticipate a much-needed increase” in the number of people gaining access to buprenorphine therapy, given elimination of the X waiver, first author Jarratt D. Pytell, MD, with University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in a statement.

“New prescribers of buprenorphine will need to learn how to conduct the increasingly complex initiation of treatment and then gauge whether it is successful or not,” added Dr. Pytell, a general internist and addiction medicine specialist.

“Spiking suggests that treatment is not working – especially in patients continuing illicit drug use. Detecting spiking allows clinicians to adjust or intensify the treatment plan,” Dr. Pytell said in an interview.

The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

A sign of elevated patient risk

In a cross-sectional study using Millennium Health’s proprietary urine drug test (UDT) database, researchers analyzed 507,735 urine specimens from 58,476 OUD patients collected between January 2017 and April 2022.

A total of 9546 (1.9%) specimens from 4,550 patients (7.6%) were suggestive of spiking.

UDT specimens suggestive of spiking had two times the odds of being positive for other opioids (fentanyl or heroin), compared with opioid negative samples.

UDT specimens obtained from primary care clinics, from patients aged 35-44 years, and from patients living in the South Atlantic region of the United States were also more likely to be suggestive of buprenorphine spiking.

“Our study demonstrated that a buprenorphine to norbuprenorphine ratio of less than 0.02 indicates the possibility of spiking,” Dr. Pytell said in an interview.

“Nevertheless, it is important to note that this cutoff is not a definitive standard and further controlled studies are necessary to determine its predictive value for spiking. But recognizing possible spiking is very important since it demonstrates a point of elevated risk for the patient and the treatment approach should be reconsidered,” Dr. Pytell said.

“At Millennium Health, we have been tracking the enormity of the drug use crisis. This study suggests that spiking is an important patient safety issue, and it is not uncommon,” study coauthor Eric Dawson, PharmD, vice president of clinical affairs, Millennium Health, said in a statement.

“Detection of spiking requires definitive drug testing. Immunoassay-based, point-of-care tests cannot detect spiking because they are generally incapable of quantitative analysis and differentiating buprenorphine from norbuprenorphine,” Dr. Dawson said.
 

Best practices?

“We need to develop best practices specific for this situation where a patient has added buprenorphine to the urine drug test specimen,” said Dr. Pytell.

“As with all unexpected findings, it is crucial for clinicians to approach this finding in a nonjudgmental manner and work with the patient to understand what might have motivated them to alter their urine specimen,” he added.

Dr. Pytell said a common reaction for clinicians might be to discontinue treatment. However, this is actually a time to try and engage with the patient.

“Clinicians should work collaboratively with patients to identify potential reasons for spiking and determine what changes may need to be made to better support the patient’s recovery,” Dr. Pytell said.

“This could include more frequent monitoring or referral to a higher level of care. In addition, clinicians should be aware that patients who engage in spiking may be experiencing other challenges that impact their ability to adhere to treatment, such as inadequate housing, mental health issues, or financial strain. Addressing these underlying issues may help patients overcome barriers to treatment adherence and reduce the likelihood of future spiking,” Dr. Pytell said.

This study was supported by Millennium Health. The authors have no relevant disclosures.

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

Substance use disorders (SUDs), including alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, or opioids, appear to share a common genetic signature, suggest new findings that researchers say could eventually lead to universal therapies to treat multiple and comorbid addictions.

“Genetics play a key role in determining health throughout our lives, but they are not destiny. Our hope with genomic studies is to further illuminate factors that may protect or predispose a person to substance use disorders – knowledge that can be used to expand preventative services and empower individuals to make informed decisions about drug use,” Nora Volkow, MD, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, said in news release.

“A better understanding of genetics also brings us one step closer to developing personalized interventions that are tailored to an individual’s unique biology, environment, and lived experience in order to provide the most benefits,” Dr. Volkow added.

The research was published online in Nature Mental Health.
 

Global research

Led by a team at the Washington University in St. Louis, the study included more than 150 collaborating investigators from around the world.

The risk of developing SUDs is influenced by a complex interplay between genetics and environmental factors. In a genomewide association study, the investigators looked for variations in the genome that were closely associated with SUDs in more than 1 million people of European ancestry and 92,630 people of African ancestry.

Among the European ancestry sample, they discovered 19 single-nucleotide polymorphisms that were significantly associated with general addiction risk and 47 genetic variants linked to specific SUDs – 9 for alcohol, 32 for tobacco, 5 for cannabis, and 1 for opioids.

The strongest gene signals consistent across the various SUDs mapped to areas in the genome involved in dopamine-signaling regulation, which reinforces the role of the dopamine system in addiction.

The genomic pattern also predicted higher risk of mental and physical illness, including psychiatric disorders, suicidal behavior, respiratory disease, heart disease, and chronic pain conditions. In children aged 9 or 10 years, presumably without any SUD, these genes correlated with parental substance use and externalizing behavior.

“Substance use disorders and mental disorders often co-occur, and we know that the most effective treatments help people address both issues at the same time. The shared genetic mechanisms between substance use and mental disorders revealed in this study underscore the importance of thinking about these disorders in tandem,” Joshua A. Gordon, MD, PhD, director of the National Institute of Mental Health, said in a news release.
 

Repurpose existing drugs for SUDs?

Separately, the genomic analysis of individuals of African ancestry showed only one genetic variation associated with general addiction risk and one substance-specific variation for risk of alcohol use disorder. The smaller sample size may be one reason for the more limited findings in this population.

“There is a tremendous need for treatments that target addiction generally, given patterns of the use of multiple substances, lifetime substance use, and severity seen in the clinic,” lead researcher Alexander Hatoum, PhD, at Washington University in St. Louis, said in a news release.

“Our study opens the door to identifying medications that may be leveraged to treat addiction broadly, which may be especially useful for treating more severe forms, including addiction to multiple substances,” Dr. Hatoum added.

As part of the study, the researchers compiled a list of approved and investigational pharmaceutical drugs that could potentially be repurposed to treat SUDs.

The list includes more than 100 drugs to investigate in future clinical trials, including those that can influence regulation of dopamine signaling.

This research was supported by NIDA, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, NIMH, the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and the National Institute on Aging.

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

Substance use disorders (SUDs), including alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, or opioids, appear to share a common genetic signature, suggest new findings that researchers say could eventually lead to universal therapies to treat multiple and comorbid addictions.

“Genetics play a key role in determining health throughout our lives, but they are not destiny. Our hope with genomic studies is to further illuminate factors that may protect or predispose a person to substance use disorders – knowledge that can be used to expand preventative services and empower individuals to make informed decisions about drug use,” Nora Volkow, MD, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, said in news release.

“A better understanding of genetics also brings us one step closer to developing personalized interventions that are tailored to an individual’s unique biology, environment, and lived experience in order to provide the most benefits,” Dr. Volkow added.

The research was published online in Nature Mental Health.
 

Global research

Led by a team at the Washington University in St. Louis, the study included more than 150 collaborating investigators from around the world.

The risk of developing SUDs is influenced by a complex interplay between genetics and environmental factors. In a genomewide association study, the investigators looked for variations in the genome that were closely associated with SUDs in more than 1 million people of European ancestry and 92,630 people of African ancestry.

Among the European ancestry sample, they discovered 19 single-nucleotide polymorphisms that were significantly associated with general addiction risk and 47 genetic variants linked to specific SUDs – 9 for alcohol, 32 for tobacco, 5 for cannabis, and 1 for opioids.

The strongest gene signals consistent across the various SUDs mapped to areas in the genome involved in dopamine-signaling regulation, which reinforces the role of the dopamine system in addiction.

The genomic pattern also predicted higher risk of mental and physical illness, including psychiatric disorders, suicidal behavior, respiratory disease, heart disease, and chronic pain conditions. In children aged 9 or 10 years, presumably without any SUD, these genes correlated with parental substance use and externalizing behavior.

“Substance use disorders and mental disorders often co-occur, and we know that the most effective treatments help people address both issues at the same time. The shared genetic mechanisms between substance use and mental disorders revealed in this study underscore the importance of thinking about these disorders in tandem,” Joshua A. Gordon, MD, PhD, director of the National Institute of Mental Health, said in a news release.
 

Repurpose existing drugs for SUDs?

Separately, the genomic analysis of individuals of African ancestry showed only one genetic variation associated with general addiction risk and one substance-specific variation for risk of alcohol use disorder. The smaller sample size may be one reason for the more limited findings in this population.

“There is a tremendous need for treatments that target addiction generally, given patterns of the use of multiple substances, lifetime substance use, and severity seen in the clinic,” lead researcher Alexander Hatoum, PhD, at Washington University in St. Louis, said in a news release.

“Our study opens the door to identifying medications that may be leveraged to treat addiction broadly, which may be especially useful for treating more severe forms, including addiction to multiple substances,” Dr. Hatoum added.

As part of the study, the researchers compiled a list of approved and investigational pharmaceutical drugs that could potentially be repurposed to treat SUDs.

The list includes more than 100 drugs to investigate in future clinical trials, including those that can influence regulation of dopamine signaling.

This research was supported by NIDA, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, NIMH, the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and the National Institute on Aging.

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

Substance use disorders (SUDs), including alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, or opioids, appear to share a common genetic signature, suggest new findings that researchers say could eventually lead to universal therapies to treat multiple and comorbid addictions.

“Genetics play a key role in determining health throughout our lives, but they are not destiny. Our hope with genomic studies is to further illuminate factors that may protect or predispose a person to substance use disorders – knowledge that can be used to expand preventative services and empower individuals to make informed decisions about drug use,” Nora Volkow, MD, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, said in news release.

“A better understanding of genetics also brings us one step closer to developing personalized interventions that are tailored to an individual’s unique biology, environment, and lived experience in order to provide the most benefits,” Dr. Volkow added.

The research was published online in Nature Mental Health.
 

Global research

Led by a team at the Washington University in St. Louis, the study included more than 150 collaborating investigators from around the world.

The risk of developing SUDs is influenced by a complex interplay between genetics and environmental factors. In a genomewide association study, the investigators looked for variations in the genome that were closely associated with SUDs in more than 1 million people of European ancestry and 92,630 people of African ancestry.

Among the European ancestry sample, they discovered 19 single-nucleotide polymorphisms that were significantly associated with general addiction risk and 47 genetic variants linked to specific SUDs – 9 for alcohol, 32 for tobacco, 5 for cannabis, and 1 for opioids.

The strongest gene signals consistent across the various SUDs mapped to areas in the genome involved in dopamine-signaling regulation, which reinforces the role of the dopamine system in addiction.

The genomic pattern also predicted higher risk of mental and physical illness, including psychiatric disorders, suicidal behavior, respiratory disease, heart disease, and chronic pain conditions. In children aged 9 or 10 years, presumably without any SUD, these genes correlated with parental substance use and externalizing behavior.

“Substance use disorders and mental disorders often co-occur, and we know that the most effective treatments help people address both issues at the same time. The shared genetic mechanisms between substance use and mental disorders revealed in this study underscore the importance of thinking about these disorders in tandem,” Joshua A. Gordon, MD, PhD, director of the National Institute of Mental Health, said in a news release.
 

Repurpose existing drugs for SUDs?

Separately, the genomic analysis of individuals of African ancestry showed only one genetic variation associated with general addiction risk and one substance-specific variation for risk of alcohol use disorder. The smaller sample size may be one reason for the more limited findings in this population.

“There is a tremendous need for treatments that target addiction generally, given patterns of the use of multiple substances, lifetime substance use, and severity seen in the clinic,” lead researcher Alexander Hatoum, PhD, at Washington University in St. Louis, said in a news release.

“Our study opens the door to identifying medications that may be leveraged to treat addiction broadly, which may be especially useful for treating more severe forms, including addiction to multiple substances,” Dr. Hatoum added.

As part of the study, the researchers compiled a list of approved and investigational pharmaceutical drugs that could potentially be repurposed to treat SUDs.

The list includes more than 100 drugs to investigate in future clinical trials, including those that can influence regulation of dopamine signaling.

This research was supported by NIDA, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, NIMH, the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and the National Institute on Aging.

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