User login
Moms’ cooing swapped with morphine for newborns in withdrawal
Four years ago, Atrium Health, in Charlotte, N.C., embarked on a dramatic change in how it cares for newborns exposed to opioids in the womb.
Until then, most of the 700 or so babies who underwent opioid withdrawal each year in the hospital system spent their first weeks in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), isolated from their parents and treated with regular doses of morphine to ease their symptoms.
Now, most babies stay in the hospital for just a few days under a new approach called Eat, Sleep, Console. These young patients stay in private rooms where they can bond with their parents and volunteer caregivers. The usual course of treatment is no longer extended therapy with opioid replacements. Instead, mothers are encouraged to stay overnight and are taught how to sooth their babies with swaddling, rocking, and cooing.
As a result, the average length of stay for newborns with neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) has dropped from 12 days to 6. Use of morphine has fallen by 79%, from 2.25 to 0.45 mg/kg per stay, according to results of a quality improvement pilot project at one of Atrium’s community hospitals.
Similar outcomes from other hospitals around the country have led to widespread uptake of Eat, Sleep, Console since its advent in 2017. That year, according to federal data, seven newborns were diagnosed with NAS for every 1,000 births.
Advocates say the family-centric model helps parents feel less stigmatized and more confident in their ability to care for their babies, who can have symptoms such as irritability and difficulty feeding for months.
The approach “really empowers families to do what they do best, which is take care of each other,” Douglas Dodds, MD, a pediatrician who led the effort at Atrium, told this news organization.
Questioning the old protocols
Numerous state perinatal collaboratives, hospital associations, and health systems say the program is the new standard of care for infants with NAS and neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome (NOWS).
Twenty-six hospitals have adopted Eat, Sleep, Console as part of a clinical trial sponsored by the National Institutes of Health and a program called Advancing Clinical Trials in Neonatal Opioid Withdrawal Syndrome (ACT NOW). Researchers are comparing the approach to previous care protocols in regard to 12 outcomes, including time to medical readiness for discharge, frequency of opioid replacement therapy, and safety problems, such as seizures during treatment.
The transition has been swift. Less than a decade ago, most hospitals used the Finnegan Neonatal Abstinence Scoring System, which was developed in the 1970s to assess babies whose mothers had used heroin during pregnancy.
The Finnegan score entails monitoring babies every 3 hours for 21 symptoms, including high-pitched crying, sneezing, gastrointestinal problems, and yawning. If a baby scores an 8 or more three times in a row, most protocols using the traditional Finnegan approach recommend that providers move infants to an NICU, where they receive morphine or methadone. Once opioid replacement therapy is started, the protocols require a gradual weaning that lasts 3-4 weeks.
As the opioid epidemic grew and NICUs around the country began to fill with babies experiencing NAS or NOW, some clinicians began to question the Finnegan-driven approach.
“You have these miserable babies who are going through this really tough experience, and our first move is to separate them from their moms,” said Matthew Grossman, MD, a pediatric hospitalist at Yale New Haven Children’s Hospital, New Haven, Conn., who created Eat, Sleep, Console.
Dr. Grossman, associate professor and vice chair for quality in the department of pediatrics at Yale University, said he noticed that when mothers stayed overnight with their babies, the infants tended to have fewer withdrawal symptoms. Indeed, previous studies had demonstrated the benefits of breastfeeding and allowing mothers and babies to share a room.
“If you think of mom as a medicine, then you can’t put the baby in a unit where the mom can’t be there,” Dr. Grossman told this news organization. “It would be like taking a kid with pneumonia and putting him in a unit that doesn’t have antibiotics.”
Despite its prominence, the Finnegan score has never been validated for guiding the treatment of NAS. In addition, Finnegan scores can be inconsistent, and the assessment requires disturbing an infant to check signs such as its startle reflex, which, as Dr. Grossman and his fellow researchers pointed out, flies in the face of American Academy of Pediatrics’ recommendations to prioritize swaddling and minimize stimulation for infants with NAS.
By contrast, Eat, Sleep, Console offers a simplified assessment. Interventions are called for if a baby eats less than an ounce of food at a time/does not breastfeed, sleeps less than an hour at a stretch, or takes more than 10 minutes to be consoled. After nonpharmacologic interventions have been tried, doses of medication are used as needed. Babies who are doing well can be discharged in as few as 4 days.
Quashing bias against parents with substance abuse disorder
Even with the promise of shorter stays and better care, switching to nonpharmacologic care presents hurdles for hospitals. Among these is a lack of physical space for mothers to room with their babies in a quiet environment.
“In many community hospitals, the only place for infants to go is a neonatal intensive care unit, outside of the newborn nursery,” said Stephen Patrick, MD, MPH, associate professor and director of the Center for Child Health Policy at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., who researches stigma associated with opioid use during pregnancy.
Administrators at SSM St. Mary’s Hospital in St. Louis initially balked at providing private rooms for mothers and their babies with NAS and NOWS, according to Kimberly Spence, MD, a neonatologist at SSM Health. She said the initial plan was to put the babies in a busy, brightly lit nursery.
But resistance waned as the hospital convinced health plans to pay for private rooms for the 5-7 days it typically takes a baby to go through withdrawal, said Dr. Spence, associate professor of pediatrics at Saint Louis University.
“We were able to provide enough data that this is evidence-based medicine and babies do better with their moms, and that ethically, this is the right thing to do, to reduce transfers to an NICU,” she said.
In addition, news stories about the family-centric approach and shorter stays for infants, along with SSM’s launch of an outpatient clinic to treat pregnant women with opioid use disorder, helped the system to attract more patients and increase its market share, said Dr. Spence.
Another challenge was getting physicians and nurses to set aside any judgments of parents with substance abuse disorder, according to Dr. Grossman and others.
“A lot of faculty and staff on the medical team didn’t feel like we should trust moms with their babies’ medical care” at SSM, Dr. Spence said.
Some hospitals conduct anti-bias training to teach providers that substance abuse is a disease that deserves proper medical treatment and not the moral failing of a patient. Such education may involve explaining that babies’ outcomes are improved when women undergo treatment with methadone or buprenorphine during pregnancy, even though use of those medications does pose a risk of NAS.
Creating a system that supports parents with substance abuse disorders may help to change perceptions. At Atrium Health, some staff members now enjoy working with these families because they can make a profound impact, Dr. Dodds said. He said they’ve learned that families suffering from substance abuse disorder “are not that different than any other family.”
Dr. Dodds, Dr. Patrick, Dr. Spence, and Dr. Grossman reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Four years ago, Atrium Health, in Charlotte, N.C., embarked on a dramatic change in how it cares for newborns exposed to opioids in the womb.
Until then, most of the 700 or so babies who underwent opioid withdrawal each year in the hospital system spent their first weeks in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), isolated from their parents and treated with regular doses of morphine to ease their symptoms.
Now, most babies stay in the hospital for just a few days under a new approach called Eat, Sleep, Console. These young patients stay in private rooms where they can bond with their parents and volunteer caregivers. The usual course of treatment is no longer extended therapy with opioid replacements. Instead, mothers are encouraged to stay overnight and are taught how to sooth their babies with swaddling, rocking, and cooing.
As a result, the average length of stay for newborns with neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) has dropped from 12 days to 6. Use of morphine has fallen by 79%, from 2.25 to 0.45 mg/kg per stay, according to results of a quality improvement pilot project at one of Atrium’s community hospitals.
Similar outcomes from other hospitals around the country have led to widespread uptake of Eat, Sleep, Console since its advent in 2017. That year, according to federal data, seven newborns were diagnosed with NAS for every 1,000 births.
Advocates say the family-centric model helps parents feel less stigmatized and more confident in their ability to care for their babies, who can have symptoms such as irritability and difficulty feeding for months.
The approach “really empowers families to do what they do best, which is take care of each other,” Douglas Dodds, MD, a pediatrician who led the effort at Atrium, told this news organization.
Questioning the old protocols
Numerous state perinatal collaboratives, hospital associations, and health systems say the program is the new standard of care for infants with NAS and neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome (NOWS).
Twenty-six hospitals have adopted Eat, Sleep, Console as part of a clinical trial sponsored by the National Institutes of Health and a program called Advancing Clinical Trials in Neonatal Opioid Withdrawal Syndrome (ACT NOW). Researchers are comparing the approach to previous care protocols in regard to 12 outcomes, including time to medical readiness for discharge, frequency of opioid replacement therapy, and safety problems, such as seizures during treatment.
The transition has been swift. Less than a decade ago, most hospitals used the Finnegan Neonatal Abstinence Scoring System, which was developed in the 1970s to assess babies whose mothers had used heroin during pregnancy.
The Finnegan score entails monitoring babies every 3 hours for 21 symptoms, including high-pitched crying, sneezing, gastrointestinal problems, and yawning. If a baby scores an 8 or more three times in a row, most protocols using the traditional Finnegan approach recommend that providers move infants to an NICU, where they receive morphine or methadone. Once opioid replacement therapy is started, the protocols require a gradual weaning that lasts 3-4 weeks.
As the opioid epidemic grew and NICUs around the country began to fill with babies experiencing NAS or NOW, some clinicians began to question the Finnegan-driven approach.
“You have these miserable babies who are going through this really tough experience, and our first move is to separate them from their moms,” said Matthew Grossman, MD, a pediatric hospitalist at Yale New Haven Children’s Hospital, New Haven, Conn., who created Eat, Sleep, Console.
Dr. Grossman, associate professor and vice chair for quality in the department of pediatrics at Yale University, said he noticed that when mothers stayed overnight with their babies, the infants tended to have fewer withdrawal symptoms. Indeed, previous studies had demonstrated the benefits of breastfeeding and allowing mothers and babies to share a room.
“If you think of mom as a medicine, then you can’t put the baby in a unit where the mom can’t be there,” Dr. Grossman told this news organization. “It would be like taking a kid with pneumonia and putting him in a unit that doesn’t have antibiotics.”
Despite its prominence, the Finnegan score has never been validated for guiding the treatment of NAS. In addition, Finnegan scores can be inconsistent, and the assessment requires disturbing an infant to check signs such as its startle reflex, which, as Dr. Grossman and his fellow researchers pointed out, flies in the face of American Academy of Pediatrics’ recommendations to prioritize swaddling and minimize stimulation for infants with NAS.
By contrast, Eat, Sleep, Console offers a simplified assessment. Interventions are called for if a baby eats less than an ounce of food at a time/does not breastfeed, sleeps less than an hour at a stretch, or takes more than 10 minutes to be consoled. After nonpharmacologic interventions have been tried, doses of medication are used as needed. Babies who are doing well can be discharged in as few as 4 days.
Quashing bias against parents with substance abuse disorder
Even with the promise of shorter stays and better care, switching to nonpharmacologic care presents hurdles for hospitals. Among these is a lack of physical space for mothers to room with their babies in a quiet environment.
“In many community hospitals, the only place for infants to go is a neonatal intensive care unit, outside of the newborn nursery,” said Stephen Patrick, MD, MPH, associate professor and director of the Center for Child Health Policy at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., who researches stigma associated with opioid use during pregnancy.
Administrators at SSM St. Mary’s Hospital in St. Louis initially balked at providing private rooms for mothers and their babies with NAS and NOWS, according to Kimberly Spence, MD, a neonatologist at SSM Health. She said the initial plan was to put the babies in a busy, brightly lit nursery.
But resistance waned as the hospital convinced health plans to pay for private rooms for the 5-7 days it typically takes a baby to go through withdrawal, said Dr. Spence, associate professor of pediatrics at Saint Louis University.
“We were able to provide enough data that this is evidence-based medicine and babies do better with their moms, and that ethically, this is the right thing to do, to reduce transfers to an NICU,” she said.
In addition, news stories about the family-centric approach and shorter stays for infants, along with SSM’s launch of an outpatient clinic to treat pregnant women with opioid use disorder, helped the system to attract more patients and increase its market share, said Dr. Spence.
Another challenge was getting physicians and nurses to set aside any judgments of parents with substance abuse disorder, according to Dr. Grossman and others.
“A lot of faculty and staff on the medical team didn’t feel like we should trust moms with their babies’ medical care” at SSM, Dr. Spence said.
Some hospitals conduct anti-bias training to teach providers that substance abuse is a disease that deserves proper medical treatment and not the moral failing of a patient. Such education may involve explaining that babies’ outcomes are improved when women undergo treatment with methadone or buprenorphine during pregnancy, even though use of those medications does pose a risk of NAS.
Creating a system that supports parents with substance abuse disorders may help to change perceptions. At Atrium Health, some staff members now enjoy working with these families because they can make a profound impact, Dr. Dodds said. He said they’ve learned that families suffering from substance abuse disorder “are not that different than any other family.”
Dr. Dodds, Dr. Patrick, Dr. Spence, and Dr. Grossman reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Four years ago, Atrium Health, in Charlotte, N.C., embarked on a dramatic change in how it cares for newborns exposed to opioids in the womb.
Until then, most of the 700 or so babies who underwent opioid withdrawal each year in the hospital system spent their first weeks in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), isolated from their parents and treated with regular doses of morphine to ease their symptoms.
Now, most babies stay in the hospital for just a few days under a new approach called Eat, Sleep, Console. These young patients stay in private rooms where they can bond with their parents and volunteer caregivers. The usual course of treatment is no longer extended therapy with opioid replacements. Instead, mothers are encouraged to stay overnight and are taught how to sooth their babies with swaddling, rocking, and cooing.
As a result, the average length of stay for newborns with neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) has dropped from 12 days to 6. Use of morphine has fallen by 79%, from 2.25 to 0.45 mg/kg per stay, according to results of a quality improvement pilot project at one of Atrium’s community hospitals.
Similar outcomes from other hospitals around the country have led to widespread uptake of Eat, Sleep, Console since its advent in 2017. That year, according to federal data, seven newborns were diagnosed with NAS for every 1,000 births.
Advocates say the family-centric model helps parents feel less stigmatized and more confident in their ability to care for their babies, who can have symptoms such as irritability and difficulty feeding for months.
The approach “really empowers families to do what they do best, which is take care of each other,” Douglas Dodds, MD, a pediatrician who led the effort at Atrium, told this news organization.
Questioning the old protocols
Numerous state perinatal collaboratives, hospital associations, and health systems say the program is the new standard of care for infants with NAS and neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome (NOWS).
Twenty-six hospitals have adopted Eat, Sleep, Console as part of a clinical trial sponsored by the National Institutes of Health and a program called Advancing Clinical Trials in Neonatal Opioid Withdrawal Syndrome (ACT NOW). Researchers are comparing the approach to previous care protocols in regard to 12 outcomes, including time to medical readiness for discharge, frequency of opioid replacement therapy, and safety problems, such as seizures during treatment.
The transition has been swift. Less than a decade ago, most hospitals used the Finnegan Neonatal Abstinence Scoring System, which was developed in the 1970s to assess babies whose mothers had used heroin during pregnancy.
The Finnegan score entails monitoring babies every 3 hours for 21 symptoms, including high-pitched crying, sneezing, gastrointestinal problems, and yawning. If a baby scores an 8 or more three times in a row, most protocols using the traditional Finnegan approach recommend that providers move infants to an NICU, where they receive morphine or methadone. Once opioid replacement therapy is started, the protocols require a gradual weaning that lasts 3-4 weeks.
As the opioid epidemic grew and NICUs around the country began to fill with babies experiencing NAS or NOW, some clinicians began to question the Finnegan-driven approach.
“You have these miserable babies who are going through this really tough experience, and our first move is to separate them from their moms,” said Matthew Grossman, MD, a pediatric hospitalist at Yale New Haven Children’s Hospital, New Haven, Conn., who created Eat, Sleep, Console.
Dr. Grossman, associate professor and vice chair for quality in the department of pediatrics at Yale University, said he noticed that when mothers stayed overnight with their babies, the infants tended to have fewer withdrawal symptoms. Indeed, previous studies had demonstrated the benefits of breastfeeding and allowing mothers and babies to share a room.
“If you think of mom as a medicine, then you can’t put the baby in a unit where the mom can’t be there,” Dr. Grossman told this news organization. “It would be like taking a kid with pneumonia and putting him in a unit that doesn’t have antibiotics.”
Despite its prominence, the Finnegan score has never been validated for guiding the treatment of NAS. In addition, Finnegan scores can be inconsistent, and the assessment requires disturbing an infant to check signs such as its startle reflex, which, as Dr. Grossman and his fellow researchers pointed out, flies in the face of American Academy of Pediatrics’ recommendations to prioritize swaddling and minimize stimulation for infants with NAS.
By contrast, Eat, Sleep, Console offers a simplified assessment. Interventions are called for if a baby eats less than an ounce of food at a time/does not breastfeed, sleeps less than an hour at a stretch, or takes more than 10 minutes to be consoled. After nonpharmacologic interventions have been tried, doses of medication are used as needed. Babies who are doing well can be discharged in as few as 4 days.
Quashing bias against parents with substance abuse disorder
Even with the promise of shorter stays and better care, switching to nonpharmacologic care presents hurdles for hospitals. Among these is a lack of physical space for mothers to room with their babies in a quiet environment.
“In many community hospitals, the only place for infants to go is a neonatal intensive care unit, outside of the newborn nursery,” said Stephen Patrick, MD, MPH, associate professor and director of the Center for Child Health Policy at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., who researches stigma associated with opioid use during pregnancy.
Administrators at SSM St. Mary’s Hospital in St. Louis initially balked at providing private rooms for mothers and their babies with NAS and NOWS, according to Kimberly Spence, MD, a neonatologist at SSM Health. She said the initial plan was to put the babies in a busy, brightly lit nursery.
But resistance waned as the hospital convinced health plans to pay for private rooms for the 5-7 days it typically takes a baby to go through withdrawal, said Dr. Spence, associate professor of pediatrics at Saint Louis University.
“We were able to provide enough data that this is evidence-based medicine and babies do better with their moms, and that ethically, this is the right thing to do, to reduce transfers to an NICU,” she said.
In addition, news stories about the family-centric approach and shorter stays for infants, along with SSM’s launch of an outpatient clinic to treat pregnant women with opioid use disorder, helped the system to attract more patients and increase its market share, said Dr. Spence.
Another challenge was getting physicians and nurses to set aside any judgments of parents with substance abuse disorder, according to Dr. Grossman and others.
“A lot of faculty and staff on the medical team didn’t feel like we should trust moms with their babies’ medical care” at SSM, Dr. Spence said.
Some hospitals conduct anti-bias training to teach providers that substance abuse is a disease that deserves proper medical treatment and not the moral failing of a patient. Such education may involve explaining that babies’ outcomes are improved when women undergo treatment with methadone or buprenorphine during pregnancy, even though use of those medications does pose a risk of NAS.
Creating a system that supports parents with substance abuse disorders may help to change perceptions. At Atrium Health, some staff members now enjoy working with these families because they can make a profound impact, Dr. Dodds said. He said they’ve learned that families suffering from substance abuse disorder “are not that different than any other family.”
Dr. Dodds, Dr. Patrick, Dr. Spence, and Dr. Grossman reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
No increase in overdose deaths with take-home methadone
new research shows.
Overdose deaths both with and without methadone rose sharply in March 2020, when the policy was announced. Of note, methadone-related deaths decreased in the following months, whereas deaths not involving methadone continued to increase.
“Coupled with research demonstrating improved patient satisfaction, treatment access, and engagement from these policies, these findings can inform decisions about permanently expanding take-home methadone,” the investigators wrote.
The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
An essential tool
Before the pandemic, patients seeking methadone treatment for OUD in the United States had to visit a federally certified opioid treatment clinic every day to receive the medication.
In response to the pandemic, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration instituted a new policy that allowed states to request exceptions to provide take-home methadone for up to 4 weeks for stable patients and up to 2 weeks for those who were less stable.
To determine the effect of this policy change on overdose death rates, researchers analyzed data on overdose deaths from January 2019 to August 2021.
Overall, the percentage of deaths involving methadone decreased from 4.5% in 2019 to 3.2% in 2021.
The investigators found a sharp increase in all overdose deaths in March 2020. Deaths that did not involve methadone increased by an average of 78.12 more each month before March 2020, increased by an average of 1,078.27 during March 2020, and then continued to increase by an average of 69.07 more each month after March 2020.
Overdose deaths involving methadone increased by a similar amount in March 2020, stabilized, and then decreased 0.05% per month.
Researchers attributed the increase in methadone-related deaths in March 2020 with the rise in overall drug overdose deaths driven by illicitly made fentanyl in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic.
A study published in JAMA Network Open in March 2022 showed that methadone and other medications to treat OUD are widely underutilized.
That research cited concern over misuse as a key reason for clinicians’ reluctance to prescribe the drugs. The researchers of the current study hope that these new findings lay some of these fears to rest.
“Treatment is an essential tool to stop the addiction and overdose crises, but it is vastly underused,” Nora Volkow, MD, coinvestigator, and director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, said in a press release. “This evidence adds significant weight to the argument that effective treatment for substance use disorders should be offered in an accessible and practical way that works for people who need it.”
The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health. The authors reported no relevant disclosures related to the study.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
new research shows.
Overdose deaths both with and without methadone rose sharply in March 2020, when the policy was announced. Of note, methadone-related deaths decreased in the following months, whereas deaths not involving methadone continued to increase.
“Coupled with research demonstrating improved patient satisfaction, treatment access, and engagement from these policies, these findings can inform decisions about permanently expanding take-home methadone,” the investigators wrote.
The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
An essential tool
Before the pandemic, patients seeking methadone treatment for OUD in the United States had to visit a federally certified opioid treatment clinic every day to receive the medication.
In response to the pandemic, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration instituted a new policy that allowed states to request exceptions to provide take-home methadone for up to 4 weeks for stable patients and up to 2 weeks for those who were less stable.
To determine the effect of this policy change on overdose death rates, researchers analyzed data on overdose deaths from January 2019 to August 2021.
Overall, the percentage of deaths involving methadone decreased from 4.5% in 2019 to 3.2% in 2021.
The investigators found a sharp increase in all overdose deaths in March 2020. Deaths that did not involve methadone increased by an average of 78.12 more each month before March 2020, increased by an average of 1,078.27 during March 2020, and then continued to increase by an average of 69.07 more each month after March 2020.
Overdose deaths involving methadone increased by a similar amount in March 2020, stabilized, and then decreased 0.05% per month.
Researchers attributed the increase in methadone-related deaths in March 2020 with the rise in overall drug overdose deaths driven by illicitly made fentanyl in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic.
A study published in JAMA Network Open in March 2022 showed that methadone and other medications to treat OUD are widely underutilized.
That research cited concern over misuse as a key reason for clinicians’ reluctance to prescribe the drugs. The researchers of the current study hope that these new findings lay some of these fears to rest.
“Treatment is an essential tool to stop the addiction and overdose crises, but it is vastly underused,” Nora Volkow, MD, coinvestigator, and director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, said in a press release. “This evidence adds significant weight to the argument that effective treatment for substance use disorders should be offered in an accessible and practical way that works for people who need it.”
The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health. The authors reported no relevant disclosures related to the study.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
new research shows.
Overdose deaths both with and without methadone rose sharply in March 2020, when the policy was announced. Of note, methadone-related deaths decreased in the following months, whereas deaths not involving methadone continued to increase.
“Coupled with research demonstrating improved patient satisfaction, treatment access, and engagement from these policies, these findings can inform decisions about permanently expanding take-home methadone,” the investigators wrote.
The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
An essential tool
Before the pandemic, patients seeking methadone treatment for OUD in the United States had to visit a federally certified opioid treatment clinic every day to receive the medication.
In response to the pandemic, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration instituted a new policy that allowed states to request exceptions to provide take-home methadone for up to 4 weeks for stable patients and up to 2 weeks for those who were less stable.
To determine the effect of this policy change on overdose death rates, researchers analyzed data on overdose deaths from January 2019 to August 2021.
Overall, the percentage of deaths involving methadone decreased from 4.5% in 2019 to 3.2% in 2021.
The investigators found a sharp increase in all overdose deaths in March 2020. Deaths that did not involve methadone increased by an average of 78.12 more each month before March 2020, increased by an average of 1,078.27 during March 2020, and then continued to increase by an average of 69.07 more each month after March 2020.
Overdose deaths involving methadone increased by a similar amount in March 2020, stabilized, and then decreased 0.05% per month.
Researchers attributed the increase in methadone-related deaths in March 2020 with the rise in overall drug overdose deaths driven by illicitly made fentanyl in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic.
A study published in JAMA Network Open in March 2022 showed that methadone and other medications to treat OUD are widely underutilized.
That research cited concern over misuse as a key reason for clinicians’ reluctance to prescribe the drugs. The researchers of the current study hope that these new findings lay some of these fears to rest.
“Treatment is an essential tool to stop the addiction and overdose crises, but it is vastly underused,” Nora Volkow, MD, coinvestigator, and director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, said in a press release. “This evidence adds significant weight to the argument that effective treatment for substance use disorders should be offered in an accessible and practical way that works for people who need it.”
The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health. The authors reported no relevant disclosures related to the study.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA PSYCHIATRY
Global data provide new insight into problem gambling
Across the globe few individuals at risk for gambling problems seek help for the issue, new research shows.
In the first study to examine global prevalence of help-seeking for problem gambling, the systematic review showed that
“Our findings suggest a considerable need for help among those experiencing problems related to their gambling,” Rimke Bijker, PhD, of the University of Auckland (New Zealand) and colleagues wrote.
The findings were published online in Addiction.
A public health concern
An increase in online gambling and stress and isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic led to experts sounding the alarm about gambling disorders. But despite its emergence as a public health concern, systematic investigation of help-seeking for problem gambling has been lacking, the investigators noted.
In their review, they included 24 studies conducted between 2010 and 2020 and involving a total of 188,234 individuals. More than 70% of the studies were conducted in Australia and New Zealand and 25% were conducted in the United States and Canada.
The overall prevalence of help-seeking for problem gambling among adults worldwide was 0.23% (95% confidence interval, 0.16-0.33).
Prevalence estimates were significantly higher in studies assessing lifetime help-seeking (0.50%; 95% CI, 0.35-0.71), compared with studies that examined current help-seeking (0.14%; 95% CI, 0.1-0.2, P < .001).
There were no significant differences in prevalence by gambling participation, region, type of help-seeking (professional only or mixed options), or year of data collection.
Gambling severity was measured by the Problem Gambling Severity Index as low risk, as moderate risk, or as problem gambling. Help-seeking was highest in the problem gambling and the moderate-risk groups, compared with the low-risk group (20.63%, 3.73%, and 0.27%, respectively; P < .001).
“A public health approach to gambling problems should be grounded in robust evidence on what people currently do to minimize and reduce their gambling harm and this should be inclusive of professional and nonprofessional support and self-help,” the investigators wrote.
Around 40% of individuals with problem gambling recover with or without professional oversight, they added.
Historically, gambling interventions have focused on those with more severe gambling problems. To truly address the issue, gambling reduction efforts should consider individuals with problems across the full continuum of risk, including those experiencing less severe problem gambling, the researchers wrote.
They added that those with more severe gambling issues “are likely to have comorbidities and may require more intensive interventions, guided by professionals,” such as general practitioners, psychiatrists, or psychologists.
Those with a less severe form “may prefer non-professional options and self-help strategies, which highlights the importance of information on such sources of help being promoted and easily accessible,” the investigators wrote.
No funding source for the study was reported. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Across the globe few individuals at risk for gambling problems seek help for the issue, new research shows.
In the first study to examine global prevalence of help-seeking for problem gambling, the systematic review showed that
“Our findings suggest a considerable need for help among those experiencing problems related to their gambling,” Rimke Bijker, PhD, of the University of Auckland (New Zealand) and colleagues wrote.
The findings were published online in Addiction.
A public health concern
An increase in online gambling and stress and isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic led to experts sounding the alarm about gambling disorders. But despite its emergence as a public health concern, systematic investigation of help-seeking for problem gambling has been lacking, the investigators noted.
In their review, they included 24 studies conducted between 2010 and 2020 and involving a total of 188,234 individuals. More than 70% of the studies were conducted in Australia and New Zealand and 25% were conducted in the United States and Canada.
The overall prevalence of help-seeking for problem gambling among adults worldwide was 0.23% (95% confidence interval, 0.16-0.33).
Prevalence estimates were significantly higher in studies assessing lifetime help-seeking (0.50%; 95% CI, 0.35-0.71), compared with studies that examined current help-seeking (0.14%; 95% CI, 0.1-0.2, P < .001).
There were no significant differences in prevalence by gambling participation, region, type of help-seeking (professional only or mixed options), or year of data collection.
Gambling severity was measured by the Problem Gambling Severity Index as low risk, as moderate risk, or as problem gambling. Help-seeking was highest in the problem gambling and the moderate-risk groups, compared with the low-risk group (20.63%, 3.73%, and 0.27%, respectively; P < .001).
“A public health approach to gambling problems should be grounded in robust evidence on what people currently do to minimize and reduce their gambling harm and this should be inclusive of professional and nonprofessional support and self-help,” the investigators wrote.
Around 40% of individuals with problem gambling recover with or without professional oversight, they added.
Historically, gambling interventions have focused on those with more severe gambling problems. To truly address the issue, gambling reduction efforts should consider individuals with problems across the full continuum of risk, including those experiencing less severe problem gambling, the researchers wrote.
They added that those with more severe gambling issues “are likely to have comorbidities and may require more intensive interventions, guided by professionals,” such as general practitioners, psychiatrists, or psychologists.
Those with a less severe form “may prefer non-professional options and self-help strategies, which highlights the importance of information on such sources of help being promoted and easily accessible,” the investigators wrote.
No funding source for the study was reported. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Across the globe few individuals at risk for gambling problems seek help for the issue, new research shows.
In the first study to examine global prevalence of help-seeking for problem gambling, the systematic review showed that
“Our findings suggest a considerable need for help among those experiencing problems related to their gambling,” Rimke Bijker, PhD, of the University of Auckland (New Zealand) and colleagues wrote.
The findings were published online in Addiction.
A public health concern
An increase in online gambling and stress and isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic led to experts sounding the alarm about gambling disorders. But despite its emergence as a public health concern, systematic investigation of help-seeking for problem gambling has been lacking, the investigators noted.
In their review, they included 24 studies conducted between 2010 and 2020 and involving a total of 188,234 individuals. More than 70% of the studies were conducted in Australia and New Zealand and 25% were conducted in the United States and Canada.
The overall prevalence of help-seeking for problem gambling among adults worldwide was 0.23% (95% confidence interval, 0.16-0.33).
Prevalence estimates were significantly higher in studies assessing lifetime help-seeking (0.50%; 95% CI, 0.35-0.71), compared with studies that examined current help-seeking (0.14%; 95% CI, 0.1-0.2, P < .001).
There were no significant differences in prevalence by gambling participation, region, type of help-seeking (professional only or mixed options), or year of data collection.
Gambling severity was measured by the Problem Gambling Severity Index as low risk, as moderate risk, or as problem gambling. Help-seeking was highest in the problem gambling and the moderate-risk groups, compared with the low-risk group (20.63%, 3.73%, and 0.27%, respectively; P < .001).
“A public health approach to gambling problems should be grounded in robust evidence on what people currently do to minimize and reduce their gambling harm and this should be inclusive of professional and nonprofessional support and self-help,” the investigators wrote.
Around 40% of individuals with problem gambling recover with or without professional oversight, they added.
Historically, gambling interventions have focused on those with more severe gambling problems. To truly address the issue, gambling reduction efforts should consider individuals with problems across the full continuum of risk, including those experiencing less severe problem gambling, the researchers wrote.
They added that those with more severe gambling issues “are likely to have comorbidities and may require more intensive interventions, guided by professionals,” such as general practitioners, psychiatrists, or psychologists.
Those with a less severe form “may prefer non-professional options and self-help strategies, which highlights the importance of information on such sources of help being promoted and easily accessible,” the investigators wrote.
No funding source for the study was reported. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ADDICTION
Alcohol’s detrimental impact on the brain explained?
Results of a large observational study suggest brain iron accumulation is a “plausible pathway” through which alcohol negatively affects cognition, study Anya Topiwala, MD, PhD, senior clinical researcher, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, England, said in an interview.
Study participants who drank 56 grams of alcohol a week had higher brain iron levels. The U.K. guideline for “low risk” alcohol consumption is less than 14 units weekly, or 112 grams.
“We are finding harmful associations with iron within those low-risk alcohol intake guidelines,” said Dr. Topiwala.
The study was published online in PLOS Medicine.
Early intervention opportunity?
Previous research suggests higher brain iron may be involved in the pathophysiology of Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases. However, it’s unclear whether deposition plays a role in alcohol’s effect on the brain and if it does, whether this could present an opportunity for early intervention with, for example, chelating agents.
The study included 20,729 participants in the UK Biobank study, which recruited volunteers from 2006 to 2010. Participants had a mean age of 54.8 years, and 48.6% were female.
Participants self-identified as current, never, or previous alcohol consumers. For current drinkers, researchers calculated the total weekly number of U.K. units of alcohol consumed. One unit is 8 grams. A standard drink in the United States is 14 grams. They categorized weekly consumption into quintiles and used the lowest quintile as the reference category.
Participants underwent MRI to determine brain iron levels. Areas of interest were deep brain structures in the basal ganglia.
Mean weekly alcohol consumption was 17.7 units, which is higher than U.K. guidelines for low-risk consumption. “Half of the sample were drinking above what is recommended,” said Dr. Topiwala.
Alcohol consumption was associated with markers of higher iron in the bilateral putamen (beta, 0.08 standard deviation; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.09; P < .001), caudate (beta, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.04-0.07; P < .001), and substantia nigra (beta, 0.03; 95% CI; 0.02-0.05; P < .001).
Poorer performance
Drinking more than 7 units (56 grams) weekly was associated with higher susceptibility for all brain regions, except the thalamus.
Controlling for menopause status did not alter associations between alcohol and susceptibility for any brain region. This was also the case when excluding blood pressure and cholesterol as covariates.
There were significant interactions with age in the bilateral putamen and caudate but not with sex, smoking, or Townsend Deprivation Index, which includes such factors as unemployment and living conditions.
To gather data on liver iron levels, participants underwent abdominal imaging at the same time as brain imaging. Dr. Topiwala explained that the liver is a primary storage center for iron, so it was used as “a kind of surrogate marker” of iron in the body.
The researchers showed an indirect effect of alcohol through systemic iron. A 1 SD increase in weekly alcohol consumption was associated with a 0.05 mg/g (95% CI, 0.02-0.07; P < .001) increase in liver iron. In addition, a 1 mg/g increase in liver iron was associated with a 0.44 (95% CI, 0.35-0.52; P < .001) SD increase in left putamen susceptibility.
In this sample, 32% (95% CI, 22-49; P < .001) of alcohol’s total effect on left putamen susceptibility was mediated via higher systemic iron levels.
To minimize the impact of other factors influencing the association between alcohol consumption and brain iron – and the possibility that people with more brain iron drink more – researchers used Mendelian randomization that considers genetically predicted alcohol intake. This analysis supported findings of associations between alcohol consumption and brain iron.
Participants completed a cognitive battery, which included trail-making tests that reflect executive function, puzzle tests that assess fluid intelligence or logic and reasoning, and task-based tests using the “Snap” card game to measure reaction time.
Investigators found the more iron that was present in certain brain regions, the poorer participants’ cognitive performance.
Patients should know about the risks of moderate alcohol intake so they can make decisions about drinking, said Dr. Topiwala. “They should be aware that 14 units of alcohol per week is not a zero risk.”
Novel research
Commenting for this news organization, Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations, Alzheimer’s Association, noted the study’s large size as a strength of the research.
She noted previous research has shown an association between higher iron levels and alcohol dependence and worse cognitive function, but the potential connection of brain iron levels, moderate alcohol consumption, and cognition has not been studied to date.
“This paper aims to look at whether there is a potential biological link between moderate alcohol consumption and cognition through iron-related pathways.”
The authors suggest more work is needed to understand whether alcohol consumption impacts iron-related biologies to affect downstream cognition, said Dr. Snyder. “Although this study does not answer that question, it does highlight some important questions.”
Study authors received funding from Wellcome Trust, UK Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, BHF Centre of Research Excellence, British Heart Foundation, NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, China Scholarship Council, and Li Ka Shing Centre for Health Information and Discovery. Dr. Topiwala has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Results of a large observational study suggest brain iron accumulation is a “plausible pathway” through which alcohol negatively affects cognition, study Anya Topiwala, MD, PhD, senior clinical researcher, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, England, said in an interview.
Study participants who drank 56 grams of alcohol a week had higher brain iron levels. The U.K. guideline for “low risk” alcohol consumption is less than 14 units weekly, or 112 grams.
“We are finding harmful associations with iron within those low-risk alcohol intake guidelines,” said Dr. Topiwala.
The study was published online in PLOS Medicine.
Early intervention opportunity?
Previous research suggests higher brain iron may be involved in the pathophysiology of Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases. However, it’s unclear whether deposition plays a role in alcohol’s effect on the brain and if it does, whether this could present an opportunity for early intervention with, for example, chelating agents.
The study included 20,729 participants in the UK Biobank study, which recruited volunteers from 2006 to 2010. Participants had a mean age of 54.8 years, and 48.6% were female.
Participants self-identified as current, never, or previous alcohol consumers. For current drinkers, researchers calculated the total weekly number of U.K. units of alcohol consumed. One unit is 8 grams. A standard drink in the United States is 14 grams. They categorized weekly consumption into quintiles and used the lowest quintile as the reference category.
Participants underwent MRI to determine brain iron levels. Areas of interest were deep brain structures in the basal ganglia.
Mean weekly alcohol consumption was 17.7 units, which is higher than U.K. guidelines for low-risk consumption. “Half of the sample were drinking above what is recommended,” said Dr. Topiwala.
Alcohol consumption was associated with markers of higher iron in the bilateral putamen (beta, 0.08 standard deviation; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.09; P < .001), caudate (beta, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.04-0.07; P < .001), and substantia nigra (beta, 0.03; 95% CI; 0.02-0.05; P < .001).
Poorer performance
Drinking more than 7 units (56 grams) weekly was associated with higher susceptibility for all brain regions, except the thalamus.
Controlling for menopause status did not alter associations between alcohol and susceptibility for any brain region. This was also the case when excluding blood pressure and cholesterol as covariates.
There were significant interactions with age in the bilateral putamen and caudate but not with sex, smoking, or Townsend Deprivation Index, which includes such factors as unemployment and living conditions.
To gather data on liver iron levels, participants underwent abdominal imaging at the same time as brain imaging. Dr. Topiwala explained that the liver is a primary storage center for iron, so it was used as “a kind of surrogate marker” of iron in the body.
The researchers showed an indirect effect of alcohol through systemic iron. A 1 SD increase in weekly alcohol consumption was associated with a 0.05 mg/g (95% CI, 0.02-0.07; P < .001) increase in liver iron. In addition, a 1 mg/g increase in liver iron was associated with a 0.44 (95% CI, 0.35-0.52; P < .001) SD increase in left putamen susceptibility.
In this sample, 32% (95% CI, 22-49; P < .001) of alcohol’s total effect on left putamen susceptibility was mediated via higher systemic iron levels.
To minimize the impact of other factors influencing the association between alcohol consumption and brain iron – and the possibility that people with more brain iron drink more – researchers used Mendelian randomization that considers genetically predicted alcohol intake. This analysis supported findings of associations between alcohol consumption and brain iron.
Participants completed a cognitive battery, which included trail-making tests that reflect executive function, puzzle tests that assess fluid intelligence or logic and reasoning, and task-based tests using the “Snap” card game to measure reaction time.
Investigators found the more iron that was present in certain brain regions, the poorer participants’ cognitive performance.
Patients should know about the risks of moderate alcohol intake so they can make decisions about drinking, said Dr. Topiwala. “They should be aware that 14 units of alcohol per week is not a zero risk.”
Novel research
Commenting for this news organization, Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations, Alzheimer’s Association, noted the study’s large size as a strength of the research.
She noted previous research has shown an association between higher iron levels and alcohol dependence and worse cognitive function, but the potential connection of brain iron levels, moderate alcohol consumption, and cognition has not been studied to date.
“This paper aims to look at whether there is a potential biological link between moderate alcohol consumption and cognition through iron-related pathways.”
The authors suggest more work is needed to understand whether alcohol consumption impacts iron-related biologies to affect downstream cognition, said Dr. Snyder. “Although this study does not answer that question, it does highlight some important questions.”
Study authors received funding from Wellcome Trust, UK Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, BHF Centre of Research Excellence, British Heart Foundation, NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, China Scholarship Council, and Li Ka Shing Centre for Health Information and Discovery. Dr. Topiwala has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Results of a large observational study suggest brain iron accumulation is a “plausible pathway” through which alcohol negatively affects cognition, study Anya Topiwala, MD, PhD, senior clinical researcher, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, England, said in an interview.
Study participants who drank 56 grams of alcohol a week had higher brain iron levels. The U.K. guideline for “low risk” alcohol consumption is less than 14 units weekly, or 112 grams.
“We are finding harmful associations with iron within those low-risk alcohol intake guidelines,” said Dr. Topiwala.
The study was published online in PLOS Medicine.
Early intervention opportunity?
Previous research suggests higher brain iron may be involved in the pathophysiology of Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases. However, it’s unclear whether deposition plays a role in alcohol’s effect on the brain and if it does, whether this could present an opportunity for early intervention with, for example, chelating agents.
The study included 20,729 participants in the UK Biobank study, which recruited volunteers from 2006 to 2010. Participants had a mean age of 54.8 years, and 48.6% were female.
Participants self-identified as current, never, or previous alcohol consumers. For current drinkers, researchers calculated the total weekly number of U.K. units of alcohol consumed. One unit is 8 grams. A standard drink in the United States is 14 grams. They categorized weekly consumption into quintiles and used the lowest quintile as the reference category.
Participants underwent MRI to determine brain iron levels. Areas of interest were deep brain structures in the basal ganglia.
Mean weekly alcohol consumption was 17.7 units, which is higher than U.K. guidelines for low-risk consumption. “Half of the sample were drinking above what is recommended,” said Dr. Topiwala.
Alcohol consumption was associated with markers of higher iron in the bilateral putamen (beta, 0.08 standard deviation; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.09; P < .001), caudate (beta, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.04-0.07; P < .001), and substantia nigra (beta, 0.03; 95% CI; 0.02-0.05; P < .001).
Poorer performance
Drinking more than 7 units (56 grams) weekly was associated with higher susceptibility for all brain regions, except the thalamus.
Controlling for menopause status did not alter associations between alcohol and susceptibility for any brain region. This was also the case when excluding blood pressure and cholesterol as covariates.
There were significant interactions with age in the bilateral putamen and caudate but not with sex, smoking, or Townsend Deprivation Index, which includes such factors as unemployment and living conditions.
To gather data on liver iron levels, participants underwent abdominal imaging at the same time as brain imaging. Dr. Topiwala explained that the liver is a primary storage center for iron, so it was used as “a kind of surrogate marker” of iron in the body.
The researchers showed an indirect effect of alcohol through systemic iron. A 1 SD increase in weekly alcohol consumption was associated with a 0.05 mg/g (95% CI, 0.02-0.07; P < .001) increase in liver iron. In addition, a 1 mg/g increase in liver iron was associated with a 0.44 (95% CI, 0.35-0.52; P < .001) SD increase in left putamen susceptibility.
In this sample, 32% (95% CI, 22-49; P < .001) of alcohol’s total effect on left putamen susceptibility was mediated via higher systemic iron levels.
To minimize the impact of other factors influencing the association between alcohol consumption and brain iron – and the possibility that people with more brain iron drink more – researchers used Mendelian randomization that considers genetically predicted alcohol intake. This analysis supported findings of associations between alcohol consumption and brain iron.
Participants completed a cognitive battery, which included trail-making tests that reflect executive function, puzzle tests that assess fluid intelligence or logic and reasoning, and task-based tests using the “Snap” card game to measure reaction time.
Investigators found the more iron that was present in certain brain regions, the poorer participants’ cognitive performance.
Patients should know about the risks of moderate alcohol intake so they can make decisions about drinking, said Dr. Topiwala. “They should be aware that 14 units of alcohol per week is not a zero risk.”
Novel research
Commenting for this news organization, Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations, Alzheimer’s Association, noted the study’s large size as a strength of the research.
She noted previous research has shown an association between higher iron levels and alcohol dependence and worse cognitive function, but the potential connection of brain iron levels, moderate alcohol consumption, and cognition has not been studied to date.
“This paper aims to look at whether there is a potential biological link between moderate alcohol consumption and cognition through iron-related pathways.”
The authors suggest more work is needed to understand whether alcohol consumption impacts iron-related biologies to affect downstream cognition, said Dr. Snyder. “Although this study does not answer that question, it does highlight some important questions.”
Study authors received funding from Wellcome Trust, UK Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, BHF Centre of Research Excellence, British Heart Foundation, NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, China Scholarship Council, and Li Ka Shing Centre for Health Information and Discovery. Dr. Topiwala has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM PLOS MEDICINE
Moderate drinking shows more benefit for older vs. younger adults
The health risks and benefits of moderate alcohol consumption are complex and remain a hot topic of debate. The data suggest that small amounts of alcohol may reduce the risk of certain health outcomes over time, but increase the risk of others, wrote Dana Bryazka, MS, a researcher at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues, in a paper published in the Lancet.
“The amount of alcohol that minimizes health loss is likely to depend on the distribution of underlying causes of disease burden in a given population. Since this distribution varies widely by geography, age, sex, and time, the level of alcohol consumption associated with the lowest risk to health would depend on the age structure and disease composition of that population,” the researchers wrote.
“We estimate that 1.78 million people worldwide died due to alcohol use in 2020,” Ms. Bryazka said in an interview. “It is important that alcohol consumption guidelines and policies are updated to minimize this harm, particularly in the populations at greatest risk,” she said.
“Existing alcohol consumption guidelines frequently vary by sex, with higher consumption thresholds set for males compared to females. Interestingly, with the currently available data we do not see evidence that risk of alcohol use varies by sex,” she noted.
Methods and results
In the study, the researchers conducted a systematic analysis of burden-weighted dose-response relative risk curves across 22 health outcomes. They used disease rates from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2020 for the years 1990-2020 for 21 regions, including 204 countries and territories. The data were analyzed by 5-year age group, sex, and year for individuals aged 15-95 years and older. The researchers estimated the theoretical minimum risk exposure level (TMREL) and nondrinker equivalent (NDE), meaning the amount of alcohol at which the health risk equals that of a nondrinker.
One standard drink was defined as 10 g of pure alcohol, equivalent to a small glass of red wine (100 mL or 3.4 fluid ounces) at 13% alcohol by volume, a can or bottle of beer (375 mL or 12 fluid ounces) at 3.5% alcohol by volume, or a shot of whiskey or other spirits (30 mL or 1.0 fluid ounces) at 40% alcohol by volume.
Overall, the TMREL was low regardless of age, sex, time, or geography, and varied from 0 to 1.87 standard drinks per day. However, it was lowest for males aged 15-39 years (0.136 drinks per day) and only slightly higher for females aged 15-39 (0.273), representing 1-2 tenths of a standard drink.
For adults aged 40 and older without any underlying health conditions, drinking a small amount of alcohol may provide some benefits, such as reducing the risk of ischemic heart disease, stroke, and diabetes, the researchers noted. In general, for individuals aged 40-64 years, TMRELs ranged from about half a standard drink per day (0.527 drinks for males and 0.562 standard drinks per day for females) to almost two standard drinks (1.69 standard drinks per day for males and 1.82 for females). For those older than 65 years, the TMRELs represented just over 3 standard drinks per day (3.19 for males and 3.51 for females). For individuals aged 40 years and older, the distribution of disease burden varied by region, but was J-shaped across all regions, the researchers noted.
The researchers also found that those individuals consuming harmful amounts of alcohol were most likely to be aged 15-39 (59.1%) and male (76.9%).
The study findings were limited by several factors including the observational design and lack of data on drinking patterns, such as binge drinking, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the lack of data reflecting patterns of alcohol consumption during the COVID-19 pandemic, and exclusion of outcomes often associated with alcohol use, such as depression, anxiety, and dementia, that might reduce estimates of TMREL and NDE.
However, the results add to the ongoing discussion of the relationship between moderate alcohol consumption and health, the researchers said.
“The findings of this study support the development of tailored guidelines and recommendations on alcohol consumption by age and across regions and highlight that existing low consumption thresholds are too high for younger populations in all regions,” they concluded.
Consider individual factors when counseling patients
The takeaway message for primary care is that alcohol consumed in moderation can reduce the risk of ischemic heart disease, stroke, and diabetes, Ms. Bryazka noted. “However, it also increases the risk of many cancers, intentional and unintentional injuries, and infectious diseases like tuberculosis,” she said. “Of these health outcomes, young people are most likely to experience injuries, and as a result, we find that there are significant health risks associated with consuming alcohol for young people. Among older individuals, the relative proportions of these outcomes vary by geography, and so do the risks associated with consuming alcohol,” she explained.
“Importantly, our analysis was conducted at the population level; when evaluating risk at the individual level, it is also important to consider other factors such as the presence of comorbidities and interactions between alcohol and medications,” she emphasized.
Health and alcohol interaction is complicated
“These findings seemingly contradict a previous [Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study] estimate published in The Lancet, which emphasized that any alcohol use, regardless of amount, leads to health loss across populations,” wrote Robyn Burton, PhD, and Nick Sheron, MD, both of King’s College, London, in an accompanying comment.
However, the novel methods of weighting relative risk curves according to levels of underlying disease drive the difference in results, along with disaggregated estimates by age, sex, and region, they said.
“Across most geographical regions in this latest analysis, injuries accounted for most alcohol-related harm in younger age groups. This led to a minimum risk level of zero, or very close to zero, among individuals aged 15-39 years across all geographical regions,” which is lower than the level for older adults because of the shift in alcohol-related disease burden towards cardiovascular disease and cancers, they said. “This highlights the need to consider existing rates of disease in a population when trying to determine the total harm posed by alcohol,” the commentators wrote.
In an additional commentary, Tony Rao, MD, a visiting clinical research fellow in psychiatry at King’s College, London, noted that “the elephant in the room with this study is the interpretation of risk based on outcomes for cardiovascular disease – particularly in older people. We know that any purported health benefits from alcohol on the heart and circulation are balanced out by the increased risk from other conditions such as cancer, liver disease, and mental disorders such as depression and dementia,” Dr. Rao said. “If we are to simply draw the conclusion that older people should continue or start drinking small amounts because it protects against diseases affecting heart and circulation – which still remains controversial – other lifestyle changes or the use of drugs targeted at individual cardiovascular disorders seem like a less harmful way of improving health and wellbeing.”
Data can guide clinical practice
No previous study has examined the effect of the theoretical minimum risk of alcohol consumption by geography, age, sex, and time in the context of background disease rates, said Noel Deep, MD, in an interview.
“This study enabled the researchers to quantify the proportion of the population that consumed alcohol in amounts that exceeded the thresholds by location, age, sex, and year, and this can serve as a guide in our efforts to target the control of alcohol intake by individuals,” said Dr. Deep, a general internist in private practice in Antigo, Wisc. He also serves as chief medical officer and a staff physician at Aspirus Langlade Hospital in Antigo.
The first take-home message for clinicians is that even low levels of alcohol consumption can have deleterious effects on the health of patients, and patients should be advised accordingly based on the prevalence of diseases in that community and geographic area, Dr. Deep said. “Secondly, clinicians should also consider the risk of alcohol consumption on all forms of health impacts in a given population rather than just focusing on alcohol-related health conditions,” he added.
“This study provides us with the data to tailor our efforts in educating the clinicians and the public about the relationship between alcohol consumption and disease outcomes based on the observed disease rates in each population,” Dr. Deep explained. “The data should provide another reason for physicians to advise their younger patients, especially the younger males, to avoid or minimize alcohol use,” he said. The data also can help clinicians formulate public health messaging and community education to reduce harmful alcohol use, he added.
As for additional research, Dr. Deep said he would like to see data on the difference in the health-related effects of alcohol in binge-drinkers vs. those who regularly consume alcohol on a daily basis. “It would probably also be helpful to figure out what type of alcohol is being studied and the quality of the alcohol,” he said.
The study was supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Ms. Bryazka and colleagues had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Burton disclosed serving as a consultant to the World Health Organization European Office for the Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases. Dr. Sheron had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Internal Medicine News.
The study was supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
The health risks and benefits of moderate alcohol consumption are complex and remain a hot topic of debate. The data suggest that small amounts of alcohol may reduce the risk of certain health outcomes over time, but increase the risk of others, wrote Dana Bryazka, MS, a researcher at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues, in a paper published in the Lancet.
“The amount of alcohol that minimizes health loss is likely to depend on the distribution of underlying causes of disease burden in a given population. Since this distribution varies widely by geography, age, sex, and time, the level of alcohol consumption associated with the lowest risk to health would depend on the age structure and disease composition of that population,” the researchers wrote.
“We estimate that 1.78 million people worldwide died due to alcohol use in 2020,” Ms. Bryazka said in an interview. “It is important that alcohol consumption guidelines and policies are updated to minimize this harm, particularly in the populations at greatest risk,” she said.
“Existing alcohol consumption guidelines frequently vary by sex, with higher consumption thresholds set for males compared to females. Interestingly, with the currently available data we do not see evidence that risk of alcohol use varies by sex,” she noted.
Methods and results
In the study, the researchers conducted a systematic analysis of burden-weighted dose-response relative risk curves across 22 health outcomes. They used disease rates from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2020 for the years 1990-2020 for 21 regions, including 204 countries and territories. The data were analyzed by 5-year age group, sex, and year for individuals aged 15-95 years and older. The researchers estimated the theoretical minimum risk exposure level (TMREL) and nondrinker equivalent (NDE), meaning the amount of alcohol at which the health risk equals that of a nondrinker.
One standard drink was defined as 10 g of pure alcohol, equivalent to a small glass of red wine (100 mL or 3.4 fluid ounces) at 13% alcohol by volume, a can or bottle of beer (375 mL or 12 fluid ounces) at 3.5% alcohol by volume, or a shot of whiskey or other spirits (30 mL or 1.0 fluid ounces) at 40% alcohol by volume.
Overall, the TMREL was low regardless of age, sex, time, or geography, and varied from 0 to 1.87 standard drinks per day. However, it was lowest for males aged 15-39 years (0.136 drinks per day) and only slightly higher for females aged 15-39 (0.273), representing 1-2 tenths of a standard drink.
For adults aged 40 and older without any underlying health conditions, drinking a small amount of alcohol may provide some benefits, such as reducing the risk of ischemic heart disease, stroke, and diabetes, the researchers noted. In general, for individuals aged 40-64 years, TMRELs ranged from about half a standard drink per day (0.527 drinks for males and 0.562 standard drinks per day for females) to almost two standard drinks (1.69 standard drinks per day for males and 1.82 for females). For those older than 65 years, the TMRELs represented just over 3 standard drinks per day (3.19 for males and 3.51 for females). For individuals aged 40 years and older, the distribution of disease burden varied by region, but was J-shaped across all regions, the researchers noted.
The researchers also found that those individuals consuming harmful amounts of alcohol were most likely to be aged 15-39 (59.1%) and male (76.9%).
The study findings were limited by several factors including the observational design and lack of data on drinking patterns, such as binge drinking, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the lack of data reflecting patterns of alcohol consumption during the COVID-19 pandemic, and exclusion of outcomes often associated with alcohol use, such as depression, anxiety, and dementia, that might reduce estimates of TMREL and NDE.
However, the results add to the ongoing discussion of the relationship between moderate alcohol consumption and health, the researchers said.
“The findings of this study support the development of tailored guidelines and recommendations on alcohol consumption by age and across regions and highlight that existing low consumption thresholds are too high for younger populations in all regions,” they concluded.
Consider individual factors when counseling patients
The takeaway message for primary care is that alcohol consumed in moderation can reduce the risk of ischemic heart disease, stroke, and diabetes, Ms. Bryazka noted. “However, it also increases the risk of many cancers, intentional and unintentional injuries, and infectious diseases like tuberculosis,” she said. “Of these health outcomes, young people are most likely to experience injuries, and as a result, we find that there are significant health risks associated with consuming alcohol for young people. Among older individuals, the relative proportions of these outcomes vary by geography, and so do the risks associated with consuming alcohol,” she explained.
“Importantly, our analysis was conducted at the population level; when evaluating risk at the individual level, it is also important to consider other factors such as the presence of comorbidities and interactions between alcohol and medications,” she emphasized.
Health and alcohol interaction is complicated
“These findings seemingly contradict a previous [Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study] estimate published in The Lancet, which emphasized that any alcohol use, regardless of amount, leads to health loss across populations,” wrote Robyn Burton, PhD, and Nick Sheron, MD, both of King’s College, London, in an accompanying comment.
However, the novel methods of weighting relative risk curves according to levels of underlying disease drive the difference in results, along with disaggregated estimates by age, sex, and region, they said.
“Across most geographical regions in this latest analysis, injuries accounted for most alcohol-related harm in younger age groups. This led to a minimum risk level of zero, or very close to zero, among individuals aged 15-39 years across all geographical regions,” which is lower than the level for older adults because of the shift in alcohol-related disease burden towards cardiovascular disease and cancers, they said. “This highlights the need to consider existing rates of disease in a population when trying to determine the total harm posed by alcohol,” the commentators wrote.
In an additional commentary, Tony Rao, MD, a visiting clinical research fellow in psychiatry at King’s College, London, noted that “the elephant in the room with this study is the interpretation of risk based on outcomes for cardiovascular disease – particularly in older people. We know that any purported health benefits from alcohol on the heart and circulation are balanced out by the increased risk from other conditions such as cancer, liver disease, and mental disorders such as depression and dementia,” Dr. Rao said. “If we are to simply draw the conclusion that older people should continue or start drinking small amounts because it protects against diseases affecting heart and circulation – which still remains controversial – other lifestyle changes or the use of drugs targeted at individual cardiovascular disorders seem like a less harmful way of improving health and wellbeing.”
Data can guide clinical practice
No previous study has examined the effect of the theoretical minimum risk of alcohol consumption by geography, age, sex, and time in the context of background disease rates, said Noel Deep, MD, in an interview.
“This study enabled the researchers to quantify the proportion of the population that consumed alcohol in amounts that exceeded the thresholds by location, age, sex, and year, and this can serve as a guide in our efforts to target the control of alcohol intake by individuals,” said Dr. Deep, a general internist in private practice in Antigo, Wisc. He also serves as chief medical officer and a staff physician at Aspirus Langlade Hospital in Antigo.
The first take-home message for clinicians is that even low levels of alcohol consumption can have deleterious effects on the health of patients, and patients should be advised accordingly based on the prevalence of diseases in that community and geographic area, Dr. Deep said. “Secondly, clinicians should also consider the risk of alcohol consumption on all forms of health impacts in a given population rather than just focusing on alcohol-related health conditions,” he added.
“This study provides us with the data to tailor our efforts in educating the clinicians and the public about the relationship between alcohol consumption and disease outcomes based on the observed disease rates in each population,” Dr. Deep explained. “The data should provide another reason for physicians to advise their younger patients, especially the younger males, to avoid or minimize alcohol use,” he said. The data also can help clinicians formulate public health messaging and community education to reduce harmful alcohol use, he added.
As for additional research, Dr. Deep said he would like to see data on the difference in the health-related effects of alcohol in binge-drinkers vs. those who regularly consume alcohol on a daily basis. “It would probably also be helpful to figure out what type of alcohol is being studied and the quality of the alcohol,” he said.
The study was supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Ms. Bryazka and colleagues had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Burton disclosed serving as a consultant to the World Health Organization European Office for the Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases. Dr. Sheron had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Internal Medicine News.
The study was supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
The health risks and benefits of moderate alcohol consumption are complex and remain a hot topic of debate. The data suggest that small amounts of alcohol may reduce the risk of certain health outcomes over time, but increase the risk of others, wrote Dana Bryazka, MS, a researcher at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues, in a paper published in the Lancet.
“The amount of alcohol that minimizes health loss is likely to depend on the distribution of underlying causes of disease burden in a given population. Since this distribution varies widely by geography, age, sex, and time, the level of alcohol consumption associated with the lowest risk to health would depend on the age structure and disease composition of that population,” the researchers wrote.
“We estimate that 1.78 million people worldwide died due to alcohol use in 2020,” Ms. Bryazka said in an interview. “It is important that alcohol consumption guidelines and policies are updated to minimize this harm, particularly in the populations at greatest risk,” she said.
“Existing alcohol consumption guidelines frequently vary by sex, with higher consumption thresholds set for males compared to females. Interestingly, with the currently available data we do not see evidence that risk of alcohol use varies by sex,” she noted.
Methods and results
In the study, the researchers conducted a systematic analysis of burden-weighted dose-response relative risk curves across 22 health outcomes. They used disease rates from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2020 for the years 1990-2020 for 21 regions, including 204 countries and territories. The data were analyzed by 5-year age group, sex, and year for individuals aged 15-95 years and older. The researchers estimated the theoretical minimum risk exposure level (TMREL) and nondrinker equivalent (NDE), meaning the amount of alcohol at which the health risk equals that of a nondrinker.
One standard drink was defined as 10 g of pure alcohol, equivalent to a small glass of red wine (100 mL or 3.4 fluid ounces) at 13% alcohol by volume, a can or bottle of beer (375 mL or 12 fluid ounces) at 3.5% alcohol by volume, or a shot of whiskey or other spirits (30 mL or 1.0 fluid ounces) at 40% alcohol by volume.
Overall, the TMREL was low regardless of age, sex, time, or geography, and varied from 0 to 1.87 standard drinks per day. However, it was lowest for males aged 15-39 years (0.136 drinks per day) and only slightly higher for females aged 15-39 (0.273), representing 1-2 tenths of a standard drink.
For adults aged 40 and older without any underlying health conditions, drinking a small amount of alcohol may provide some benefits, such as reducing the risk of ischemic heart disease, stroke, and diabetes, the researchers noted. In general, for individuals aged 40-64 years, TMRELs ranged from about half a standard drink per day (0.527 drinks for males and 0.562 standard drinks per day for females) to almost two standard drinks (1.69 standard drinks per day for males and 1.82 for females). For those older than 65 years, the TMRELs represented just over 3 standard drinks per day (3.19 for males and 3.51 for females). For individuals aged 40 years and older, the distribution of disease burden varied by region, but was J-shaped across all regions, the researchers noted.
The researchers also found that those individuals consuming harmful amounts of alcohol were most likely to be aged 15-39 (59.1%) and male (76.9%).
The study findings were limited by several factors including the observational design and lack of data on drinking patterns, such as binge drinking, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the lack of data reflecting patterns of alcohol consumption during the COVID-19 pandemic, and exclusion of outcomes often associated with alcohol use, such as depression, anxiety, and dementia, that might reduce estimates of TMREL and NDE.
However, the results add to the ongoing discussion of the relationship between moderate alcohol consumption and health, the researchers said.
“The findings of this study support the development of tailored guidelines and recommendations on alcohol consumption by age and across regions and highlight that existing low consumption thresholds are too high for younger populations in all regions,” they concluded.
Consider individual factors when counseling patients
The takeaway message for primary care is that alcohol consumed in moderation can reduce the risk of ischemic heart disease, stroke, and diabetes, Ms. Bryazka noted. “However, it also increases the risk of many cancers, intentional and unintentional injuries, and infectious diseases like tuberculosis,” she said. “Of these health outcomes, young people are most likely to experience injuries, and as a result, we find that there are significant health risks associated with consuming alcohol for young people. Among older individuals, the relative proportions of these outcomes vary by geography, and so do the risks associated with consuming alcohol,” she explained.
“Importantly, our analysis was conducted at the population level; when evaluating risk at the individual level, it is also important to consider other factors such as the presence of comorbidities and interactions between alcohol and medications,” she emphasized.
Health and alcohol interaction is complicated
“These findings seemingly contradict a previous [Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study] estimate published in The Lancet, which emphasized that any alcohol use, regardless of amount, leads to health loss across populations,” wrote Robyn Burton, PhD, and Nick Sheron, MD, both of King’s College, London, in an accompanying comment.
However, the novel methods of weighting relative risk curves according to levels of underlying disease drive the difference in results, along with disaggregated estimates by age, sex, and region, they said.
“Across most geographical regions in this latest analysis, injuries accounted for most alcohol-related harm in younger age groups. This led to a minimum risk level of zero, or very close to zero, among individuals aged 15-39 years across all geographical regions,” which is lower than the level for older adults because of the shift in alcohol-related disease burden towards cardiovascular disease and cancers, they said. “This highlights the need to consider existing rates of disease in a population when trying to determine the total harm posed by alcohol,” the commentators wrote.
In an additional commentary, Tony Rao, MD, a visiting clinical research fellow in psychiatry at King’s College, London, noted that “the elephant in the room with this study is the interpretation of risk based on outcomes for cardiovascular disease – particularly in older people. We know that any purported health benefits from alcohol on the heart and circulation are balanced out by the increased risk from other conditions such as cancer, liver disease, and mental disorders such as depression and dementia,” Dr. Rao said. “If we are to simply draw the conclusion that older people should continue or start drinking small amounts because it protects against diseases affecting heart and circulation – which still remains controversial – other lifestyle changes or the use of drugs targeted at individual cardiovascular disorders seem like a less harmful way of improving health and wellbeing.”
Data can guide clinical practice
No previous study has examined the effect of the theoretical minimum risk of alcohol consumption by geography, age, sex, and time in the context of background disease rates, said Noel Deep, MD, in an interview.
“This study enabled the researchers to quantify the proportion of the population that consumed alcohol in amounts that exceeded the thresholds by location, age, sex, and year, and this can serve as a guide in our efforts to target the control of alcohol intake by individuals,” said Dr. Deep, a general internist in private practice in Antigo, Wisc. He also serves as chief medical officer and a staff physician at Aspirus Langlade Hospital in Antigo.
The first take-home message for clinicians is that even low levels of alcohol consumption can have deleterious effects on the health of patients, and patients should be advised accordingly based on the prevalence of diseases in that community and geographic area, Dr. Deep said. “Secondly, clinicians should also consider the risk of alcohol consumption on all forms of health impacts in a given population rather than just focusing on alcohol-related health conditions,” he added.
“This study provides us with the data to tailor our efforts in educating the clinicians and the public about the relationship between alcohol consumption and disease outcomes based on the observed disease rates in each population,” Dr. Deep explained. “The data should provide another reason for physicians to advise their younger patients, especially the younger males, to avoid or minimize alcohol use,” he said. The data also can help clinicians formulate public health messaging and community education to reduce harmful alcohol use, he added.
As for additional research, Dr. Deep said he would like to see data on the difference in the health-related effects of alcohol in binge-drinkers vs. those who regularly consume alcohol on a daily basis. “It would probably also be helpful to figure out what type of alcohol is being studied and the quality of the alcohol,” he said.
The study was supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Ms. Bryazka and colleagues had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Burton disclosed serving as a consultant to the World Health Organization European Office for the Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases. Dr. Sheron had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Internal Medicine News.
The study was supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
FROM THE LANCET
Antidepressants may curb opioid overdose
Investigators analyzed insurance claims for more than 200,000 adults with a history of depression. Of these, 8,200 experienced adverse events (AEs) during the year after initiation of opioid therapy.
However, the risk for an AE such as overdose and other forms of self-harm was reduced among patients who had been treated with antidepressants for at least 6 weeks.
The take-home message is that clinicians and health systems need to be more aware that individuals in pain are more likely to be depressed and at higher risk for AEs – so the depression should be treated “more liberally,” corresponding author Bradley Stein, MD, PhD, a practicing psychiatrist in Pittsburgh and director of the Rand Corporation Opioid Policy Center, told this news organization.
“If you are treating someone with pain, particularly chronic pain, it’s critically important to better assess their depression and not to attribute depressive symptoms only to pain,” Dr. Stein said.
The findings were published online in Psychiatric Services.
Promising approach?
Opioid treatment for pain “complicates the interactions among pain, depression, and self-harm,” the investigators write. Individuals with depression receiving long-term opioid therapy are two to three times more likely to misuse opioids, compared with individuals who do not have depression.
Although comorbid depression “substantially increases overdose and suicide risk, it remains underdiagnosed and undertreated among individuals with chronic pain,” the researchers note. They add that increasing access to depression treatment may be a “potentially promising approach to preventing overdoses and suicide” in these patients.
“We know that individuals using opioids who have a history of depression are more likely to have negative outcomes, such as overdoses and self-harm events,” Dr. Stein said. “We wanted to see whether antidepressants, which would treat depression in these individuals, would help with that.”
The researchers assessed a database of commercial insurance claims of adults with a history of depression who received opioids between 2007 and 2017 (n = 283,374). The data included 336,599 opioid treatment episodes.
To be included in the study, patients had to have been diagnosed with depression before they filled their first opioid prescription.
The “outcome of interest” was time from the beginning of an opioid episode until an adverse event, such as opioid poisoning, overdose of nonopioid controlled or illicit substances, or self-harm unrelated to overdose.
Participants were followed from the onset of the opioid episode until an AE occurred, loss to follow-up, or week 52, whichever came first.
The “key independent variable” was filling an antidepressant prescription. The patient’s sex and age were considered to be independent variables as well.
Teasing out antidepressant effect
Of participants with a history of depression treatment, 8,203 experienced at least one AE during the 12 months after treatment initiation (n = 47,486 AEs). Approximately half (50.8%) filled an antidepressant prescription at least once during the 12 months after the opioid episode began.
AEs were more likely among men than among women. The highest risk was in patients aged 18-24 years.
After adjusting for age and sex, participants who had received antidepressants had a greater risk for all adverse outcomes during the first 6 weeks of antidepressant treatment. However, those who had received antidepressants for 6 weeks or longer were at reduced risk for all adverse outcomes.
“We took advantage of the fact that, for most people, antidepressants take a while to work and aren’t immediately effective, so we were able to use that difference in our research,” Dr. Stein said.
“We wouldn’t expect to see an immediate effect of antidepressants, so the difference between what we saw immediately after the person had started treatment and the time it took for the antidepressant to be effective enabled us to tease out the effect of the antidepressant,” he added.
Consider CBT?
Andrew Saxon, MD, professor, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, said clinicians “tend to think categorically and give people diagnoses that are clear-cut.” But neurobiologically, “it may be hard to distinguish where chronic pain ends and depression begins, or whether there’s some commonality.”
For patients with chronic pain and those taking opioids, “we need to be very attuned to the possibility or likelihood that they have major depression and other psychiatric diagnoses, like PTSD and anxiety disorders, which are very common,” said Dr. Saxon, who is also the director of the Center of Excellence in Substance Abuse Treatment and Education at the VA Puget Sound Health Care System. He was not involved with the current research.
He noted that treating those disorders “is a very important component of managing chronic pain.” However, “patients just starting antidepressants need to be carefully monitored when they’re getting stabilized on their antidepressants because they can have side effects, particularly early on, that can destabilize them.”
Dr. Saxon added that beyond pharmacotherapy, cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for pain might be an even better intervention for addressing both pain and depression.
Also commenting for this article, Brian Hurley, MD, an addiction medicine specialist and the medical director of the Division of Substance Abuse Prevention and Control for the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, said: “In the context of the largest wave of overdose mortality in U.S. history, we know comparatively little about the impact of mental health interventions that mitigate overdose risks.”
This study “contributes important new information that treating depression with antidepressant medications reduces overdose and self-harm risks for people who are prescribed opioids,” said Dr. Hurley, who is also the president-elect of the American Society of Addiction Medicine.
It also “underscores the general importance of integrated mental health and substance use disorder treatment in both primary care and in mental health settings,” added Dr. Hurley, who was not involved with the study.
The study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The investigators and commenters reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Investigators analyzed insurance claims for more than 200,000 adults with a history of depression. Of these, 8,200 experienced adverse events (AEs) during the year after initiation of opioid therapy.
However, the risk for an AE such as overdose and other forms of self-harm was reduced among patients who had been treated with antidepressants for at least 6 weeks.
The take-home message is that clinicians and health systems need to be more aware that individuals in pain are more likely to be depressed and at higher risk for AEs – so the depression should be treated “more liberally,” corresponding author Bradley Stein, MD, PhD, a practicing psychiatrist in Pittsburgh and director of the Rand Corporation Opioid Policy Center, told this news organization.
“If you are treating someone with pain, particularly chronic pain, it’s critically important to better assess their depression and not to attribute depressive symptoms only to pain,” Dr. Stein said.
The findings were published online in Psychiatric Services.
Promising approach?
Opioid treatment for pain “complicates the interactions among pain, depression, and self-harm,” the investigators write. Individuals with depression receiving long-term opioid therapy are two to three times more likely to misuse opioids, compared with individuals who do not have depression.
Although comorbid depression “substantially increases overdose and suicide risk, it remains underdiagnosed and undertreated among individuals with chronic pain,” the researchers note. They add that increasing access to depression treatment may be a “potentially promising approach to preventing overdoses and suicide” in these patients.
“We know that individuals using opioids who have a history of depression are more likely to have negative outcomes, such as overdoses and self-harm events,” Dr. Stein said. “We wanted to see whether antidepressants, which would treat depression in these individuals, would help with that.”
The researchers assessed a database of commercial insurance claims of adults with a history of depression who received opioids between 2007 and 2017 (n = 283,374). The data included 336,599 opioid treatment episodes.
To be included in the study, patients had to have been diagnosed with depression before they filled their first opioid prescription.
The “outcome of interest” was time from the beginning of an opioid episode until an adverse event, such as opioid poisoning, overdose of nonopioid controlled or illicit substances, or self-harm unrelated to overdose.
Participants were followed from the onset of the opioid episode until an AE occurred, loss to follow-up, or week 52, whichever came first.
The “key independent variable” was filling an antidepressant prescription. The patient’s sex and age were considered to be independent variables as well.
Teasing out antidepressant effect
Of participants with a history of depression treatment, 8,203 experienced at least one AE during the 12 months after treatment initiation (n = 47,486 AEs). Approximately half (50.8%) filled an antidepressant prescription at least once during the 12 months after the opioid episode began.
AEs were more likely among men than among women. The highest risk was in patients aged 18-24 years.
After adjusting for age and sex, participants who had received antidepressants had a greater risk for all adverse outcomes during the first 6 weeks of antidepressant treatment. However, those who had received antidepressants for 6 weeks or longer were at reduced risk for all adverse outcomes.
“We took advantage of the fact that, for most people, antidepressants take a while to work and aren’t immediately effective, so we were able to use that difference in our research,” Dr. Stein said.
“We wouldn’t expect to see an immediate effect of antidepressants, so the difference between what we saw immediately after the person had started treatment and the time it took for the antidepressant to be effective enabled us to tease out the effect of the antidepressant,” he added.
Consider CBT?
Andrew Saxon, MD, professor, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, said clinicians “tend to think categorically and give people diagnoses that are clear-cut.” But neurobiologically, “it may be hard to distinguish where chronic pain ends and depression begins, or whether there’s some commonality.”
For patients with chronic pain and those taking opioids, “we need to be very attuned to the possibility or likelihood that they have major depression and other psychiatric diagnoses, like PTSD and anxiety disorders, which are very common,” said Dr. Saxon, who is also the director of the Center of Excellence in Substance Abuse Treatment and Education at the VA Puget Sound Health Care System. He was not involved with the current research.
He noted that treating those disorders “is a very important component of managing chronic pain.” However, “patients just starting antidepressants need to be carefully monitored when they’re getting stabilized on their antidepressants because they can have side effects, particularly early on, that can destabilize them.”
Dr. Saxon added that beyond pharmacotherapy, cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for pain might be an even better intervention for addressing both pain and depression.
Also commenting for this article, Brian Hurley, MD, an addiction medicine specialist and the medical director of the Division of Substance Abuse Prevention and Control for the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, said: “In the context of the largest wave of overdose mortality in U.S. history, we know comparatively little about the impact of mental health interventions that mitigate overdose risks.”
This study “contributes important new information that treating depression with antidepressant medications reduces overdose and self-harm risks for people who are prescribed opioids,” said Dr. Hurley, who is also the president-elect of the American Society of Addiction Medicine.
It also “underscores the general importance of integrated mental health and substance use disorder treatment in both primary care and in mental health settings,” added Dr. Hurley, who was not involved with the study.
The study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The investigators and commenters reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Investigators analyzed insurance claims for more than 200,000 adults with a history of depression. Of these, 8,200 experienced adverse events (AEs) during the year after initiation of opioid therapy.
However, the risk for an AE such as overdose and other forms of self-harm was reduced among patients who had been treated with antidepressants for at least 6 weeks.
The take-home message is that clinicians and health systems need to be more aware that individuals in pain are more likely to be depressed and at higher risk for AEs – so the depression should be treated “more liberally,” corresponding author Bradley Stein, MD, PhD, a practicing psychiatrist in Pittsburgh and director of the Rand Corporation Opioid Policy Center, told this news organization.
“If you are treating someone with pain, particularly chronic pain, it’s critically important to better assess their depression and not to attribute depressive symptoms only to pain,” Dr. Stein said.
The findings were published online in Psychiatric Services.
Promising approach?
Opioid treatment for pain “complicates the interactions among pain, depression, and self-harm,” the investigators write. Individuals with depression receiving long-term opioid therapy are two to three times more likely to misuse opioids, compared with individuals who do not have depression.
Although comorbid depression “substantially increases overdose and suicide risk, it remains underdiagnosed and undertreated among individuals with chronic pain,” the researchers note. They add that increasing access to depression treatment may be a “potentially promising approach to preventing overdoses and suicide” in these patients.
“We know that individuals using opioids who have a history of depression are more likely to have negative outcomes, such as overdoses and self-harm events,” Dr. Stein said. “We wanted to see whether antidepressants, which would treat depression in these individuals, would help with that.”
The researchers assessed a database of commercial insurance claims of adults with a history of depression who received opioids between 2007 and 2017 (n = 283,374). The data included 336,599 opioid treatment episodes.
To be included in the study, patients had to have been diagnosed with depression before they filled their first opioid prescription.
The “outcome of interest” was time from the beginning of an opioid episode until an adverse event, such as opioid poisoning, overdose of nonopioid controlled or illicit substances, or self-harm unrelated to overdose.
Participants were followed from the onset of the opioid episode until an AE occurred, loss to follow-up, or week 52, whichever came first.
The “key independent variable” was filling an antidepressant prescription. The patient’s sex and age were considered to be independent variables as well.
Teasing out antidepressant effect
Of participants with a history of depression treatment, 8,203 experienced at least one AE during the 12 months after treatment initiation (n = 47,486 AEs). Approximately half (50.8%) filled an antidepressant prescription at least once during the 12 months after the opioid episode began.
AEs were more likely among men than among women. The highest risk was in patients aged 18-24 years.
After adjusting for age and sex, participants who had received antidepressants had a greater risk for all adverse outcomes during the first 6 weeks of antidepressant treatment. However, those who had received antidepressants for 6 weeks or longer were at reduced risk for all adverse outcomes.
“We took advantage of the fact that, for most people, antidepressants take a while to work and aren’t immediately effective, so we were able to use that difference in our research,” Dr. Stein said.
“We wouldn’t expect to see an immediate effect of antidepressants, so the difference between what we saw immediately after the person had started treatment and the time it took for the antidepressant to be effective enabled us to tease out the effect of the antidepressant,” he added.
Consider CBT?
Andrew Saxon, MD, professor, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, said clinicians “tend to think categorically and give people diagnoses that are clear-cut.” But neurobiologically, “it may be hard to distinguish where chronic pain ends and depression begins, or whether there’s some commonality.”
For patients with chronic pain and those taking opioids, “we need to be very attuned to the possibility or likelihood that they have major depression and other psychiatric diagnoses, like PTSD and anxiety disorders, which are very common,” said Dr. Saxon, who is also the director of the Center of Excellence in Substance Abuse Treatment and Education at the VA Puget Sound Health Care System. He was not involved with the current research.
He noted that treating those disorders “is a very important component of managing chronic pain.” However, “patients just starting antidepressants need to be carefully monitored when they’re getting stabilized on their antidepressants because they can have side effects, particularly early on, that can destabilize them.”
Dr. Saxon added that beyond pharmacotherapy, cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for pain might be an even better intervention for addressing both pain and depression.
Also commenting for this article, Brian Hurley, MD, an addiction medicine specialist and the medical director of the Division of Substance Abuse Prevention and Control for the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, said: “In the context of the largest wave of overdose mortality in U.S. history, we know comparatively little about the impact of mental health interventions that mitigate overdose risks.”
This study “contributes important new information that treating depression with antidepressant medications reduces overdose and self-harm risks for people who are prescribed opioids,” said Dr. Hurley, who is also the president-elect of the American Society of Addiction Medicine.
It also “underscores the general importance of integrated mental health and substance use disorder treatment in both primary care and in mental health settings,” added Dr. Hurley, who was not involved with the study.
The study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The investigators and commenters reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM PSYCHIATRIC SERVICES
High residual liver cancer risk in HCV-cured cirrhosis
A new study confirms the very high risk of hepatocellular carcinoma faced by patients with cirrhosis who have been cured of hepatitis C, a finding the researchers hope will encourage clinicians to communicate risk information to patients and encourage regular HCC screening.
On average, the predicted probability of HCC in cirrhosis patients was 410 times greater than the equivalent probability in the general population, the study team found.
Hamish Innes, PhD, with Public Health Scotland, Glasgow, and colleagues wrote.
“Central to this is ensuring that cured cirrhosis patients understand the risk of HCC and are provided with appropriate surveillance,” they added.
“Most patients with cirrhosis do not adhere to HCC screening guidelines,” Nina Beri, MD, medical oncologist with New York University Perlmutter Cancer Center, who wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview.
The “important” finding in this study “should be conveyed to patients, as this may help improve screening adherence rates,” Dr. Beri said.
The study was published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.
Findings may help promote screening uptake
Dr. Innes and colleagues compared the predicted probability of HCC in 1,803 Scottish adults (mean age, 50 years; 74% male) with cirrhosis and cured hepatitis C to the background risk in the general population of Scotland.
The mean predicted 3-year probability of HCC at the time of sustained viral response (SVR), determined using the aMAP prognostic model, was 3.64% (range, 0.012%-36.12%).
This contrasts with a 3-year HCC probability in the general population ranging from less than 0.0001% to 0.25% depending on demographics.
All patients with cirrhosis – even those at lowest risk – had a higher probability of HCC than the general population, but there was considerable heterogeneity from one patient to the next.
For example, the mean 3-year predicted probability was 18 times higher in the top quintile (9.8%) versus the lowest quintile (0.5%) of risk, the researchers found.
They could not identify a patient subgroup who exhibited a similar HCC risk profile to the general population, as was their hope going into the study.
Dr. Innes and colleagues have developed an online tool that allows clinicians to frame a patient›s 3-year HCC probability against the equivalent probability in the general population.
In the future, they said the scope of the tool could be extended by incorporating general population data from countries beyond Scotland.
“Our hope is that this tool will springboard patient-clinician discussions about HCC risk, and could mitigate low screening uptake,” Dr. Innes and colleagues wrote.
Curing HCV doesn’t eliminate risk
Commenting on the study, Nancy Reau, MD, section chief of hepatology at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, said curing HCV is “very important and significantly reduces risk for complications, but it doesn’t return you to the normal population.”
Dr. Reau’s advice to cirrhosis patients: “Get screened twice a year.”
Dr. Beri said, in addition to conveying this risk to patients, “it is also important to disseminate this information to the community and to primary care practices, particularly as some patients may not currently follow in a specialized liver disease clinic.”
Also weighing in, Amit Singal, MD, chief of hepatology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said this study highlights that underlying cirrhosis is “the strongest risk factor for the development of HCC.”
In contrast to other cancers, such as breast and colorectal cancer, in which high risk populations can be identified by readily available information such as age and sex, implementation of HCC screening programs requires identification of patients with cirrhosis, Dr. Singal noted.
“Underuse of HCC screening in clinical practice is often related to providers having difficulty at this step in the process and contributes to the high proportion of HCC detected at late stages,” he told this news organization.
“Availability of accurate noninvasive markers of fibrosis will hopefully help with better identification of patients with cirrhosis moving forward,” Dr. Singal said, “although we as hepatologists need to work closely with our primary care colleagues to ensure these tools are used routinely in at-risk patients, such as those with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, alcohol-associated liver disease, or history of cured (post-SVR) hepatitis C infection.”
The study was supported by the Medical Research Foundation and Public Health Scotland. Dr. Innes, Dr. Beri, Dr. Reau, and Dr. Singal reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A new study confirms the very high risk of hepatocellular carcinoma faced by patients with cirrhosis who have been cured of hepatitis C, a finding the researchers hope will encourage clinicians to communicate risk information to patients and encourage regular HCC screening.
On average, the predicted probability of HCC in cirrhosis patients was 410 times greater than the equivalent probability in the general population, the study team found.
Hamish Innes, PhD, with Public Health Scotland, Glasgow, and colleagues wrote.
“Central to this is ensuring that cured cirrhosis patients understand the risk of HCC and are provided with appropriate surveillance,” they added.
“Most patients with cirrhosis do not adhere to HCC screening guidelines,” Nina Beri, MD, medical oncologist with New York University Perlmutter Cancer Center, who wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview.
The “important” finding in this study “should be conveyed to patients, as this may help improve screening adherence rates,” Dr. Beri said.
The study was published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.
Findings may help promote screening uptake
Dr. Innes and colleagues compared the predicted probability of HCC in 1,803 Scottish adults (mean age, 50 years; 74% male) with cirrhosis and cured hepatitis C to the background risk in the general population of Scotland.
The mean predicted 3-year probability of HCC at the time of sustained viral response (SVR), determined using the aMAP prognostic model, was 3.64% (range, 0.012%-36.12%).
This contrasts with a 3-year HCC probability in the general population ranging from less than 0.0001% to 0.25% depending on demographics.
All patients with cirrhosis – even those at lowest risk – had a higher probability of HCC than the general population, but there was considerable heterogeneity from one patient to the next.
For example, the mean 3-year predicted probability was 18 times higher in the top quintile (9.8%) versus the lowest quintile (0.5%) of risk, the researchers found.
They could not identify a patient subgroup who exhibited a similar HCC risk profile to the general population, as was their hope going into the study.
Dr. Innes and colleagues have developed an online tool that allows clinicians to frame a patient›s 3-year HCC probability against the equivalent probability in the general population.
In the future, they said the scope of the tool could be extended by incorporating general population data from countries beyond Scotland.
“Our hope is that this tool will springboard patient-clinician discussions about HCC risk, and could mitigate low screening uptake,” Dr. Innes and colleagues wrote.
Curing HCV doesn’t eliminate risk
Commenting on the study, Nancy Reau, MD, section chief of hepatology at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, said curing HCV is “very important and significantly reduces risk for complications, but it doesn’t return you to the normal population.”
Dr. Reau’s advice to cirrhosis patients: “Get screened twice a year.”
Dr. Beri said, in addition to conveying this risk to patients, “it is also important to disseminate this information to the community and to primary care practices, particularly as some patients may not currently follow in a specialized liver disease clinic.”
Also weighing in, Amit Singal, MD, chief of hepatology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said this study highlights that underlying cirrhosis is “the strongest risk factor for the development of HCC.”
In contrast to other cancers, such as breast and colorectal cancer, in which high risk populations can be identified by readily available information such as age and sex, implementation of HCC screening programs requires identification of patients with cirrhosis, Dr. Singal noted.
“Underuse of HCC screening in clinical practice is often related to providers having difficulty at this step in the process and contributes to the high proportion of HCC detected at late stages,” he told this news organization.
“Availability of accurate noninvasive markers of fibrosis will hopefully help with better identification of patients with cirrhosis moving forward,” Dr. Singal said, “although we as hepatologists need to work closely with our primary care colleagues to ensure these tools are used routinely in at-risk patients, such as those with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, alcohol-associated liver disease, or history of cured (post-SVR) hepatitis C infection.”
The study was supported by the Medical Research Foundation and Public Health Scotland. Dr. Innes, Dr. Beri, Dr. Reau, and Dr. Singal reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A new study confirms the very high risk of hepatocellular carcinoma faced by patients with cirrhosis who have been cured of hepatitis C, a finding the researchers hope will encourage clinicians to communicate risk information to patients and encourage regular HCC screening.
On average, the predicted probability of HCC in cirrhosis patients was 410 times greater than the equivalent probability in the general population, the study team found.
Hamish Innes, PhD, with Public Health Scotland, Glasgow, and colleagues wrote.
“Central to this is ensuring that cured cirrhosis patients understand the risk of HCC and are provided with appropriate surveillance,” they added.
“Most patients with cirrhosis do not adhere to HCC screening guidelines,” Nina Beri, MD, medical oncologist with New York University Perlmutter Cancer Center, who wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview.
The “important” finding in this study “should be conveyed to patients, as this may help improve screening adherence rates,” Dr. Beri said.
The study was published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.
Findings may help promote screening uptake
Dr. Innes and colleagues compared the predicted probability of HCC in 1,803 Scottish adults (mean age, 50 years; 74% male) with cirrhosis and cured hepatitis C to the background risk in the general population of Scotland.
The mean predicted 3-year probability of HCC at the time of sustained viral response (SVR), determined using the aMAP prognostic model, was 3.64% (range, 0.012%-36.12%).
This contrasts with a 3-year HCC probability in the general population ranging from less than 0.0001% to 0.25% depending on demographics.
All patients with cirrhosis – even those at lowest risk – had a higher probability of HCC than the general population, but there was considerable heterogeneity from one patient to the next.
For example, the mean 3-year predicted probability was 18 times higher in the top quintile (9.8%) versus the lowest quintile (0.5%) of risk, the researchers found.
They could not identify a patient subgroup who exhibited a similar HCC risk profile to the general population, as was their hope going into the study.
Dr. Innes and colleagues have developed an online tool that allows clinicians to frame a patient›s 3-year HCC probability against the equivalent probability in the general population.
In the future, they said the scope of the tool could be extended by incorporating general population data from countries beyond Scotland.
“Our hope is that this tool will springboard patient-clinician discussions about HCC risk, and could mitigate low screening uptake,” Dr. Innes and colleagues wrote.
Curing HCV doesn’t eliminate risk
Commenting on the study, Nancy Reau, MD, section chief of hepatology at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, said curing HCV is “very important and significantly reduces risk for complications, but it doesn’t return you to the normal population.”
Dr. Reau’s advice to cirrhosis patients: “Get screened twice a year.”
Dr. Beri said, in addition to conveying this risk to patients, “it is also important to disseminate this information to the community and to primary care practices, particularly as some patients may not currently follow in a specialized liver disease clinic.”
Also weighing in, Amit Singal, MD, chief of hepatology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said this study highlights that underlying cirrhosis is “the strongest risk factor for the development of HCC.”
In contrast to other cancers, such as breast and colorectal cancer, in which high risk populations can be identified by readily available information such as age and sex, implementation of HCC screening programs requires identification of patients with cirrhosis, Dr. Singal noted.
“Underuse of HCC screening in clinical practice is often related to providers having difficulty at this step in the process and contributes to the high proportion of HCC detected at late stages,” he told this news organization.
“Availability of accurate noninvasive markers of fibrosis will hopefully help with better identification of patients with cirrhosis moving forward,” Dr. Singal said, “although we as hepatologists need to work closely with our primary care colleagues to ensure these tools are used routinely in at-risk patients, such as those with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, alcohol-associated liver disease, or history of cured (post-SVR) hepatitis C infection.”
The study was supported by the Medical Research Foundation and Public Health Scotland. Dr. Innes, Dr. Beri, Dr. Reau, and Dr. Singal reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
Compulsivity contributes to poor outcomes in body-focused repetitive behaviors
Although body-focused repetitive behaviors (BFRBs), specifically trichotillomania and skin-picking disorder, are similar in clinical presentation to aspects of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), the role of compulsivity in TTM and SPD has not been well studied, wrote Jon E. Grant, MD, of the University of Chicago and colleagues.
In a study published in the Journal of Psychiatric Research, the authors recruited 69 women and 22 men who met DSM-5 criteria for TTM and SPD. Participants completed diagnostic interviews, symptom inventories, and measures of disability/functioning. Compulsivity was measured using the 15-item Cambridge-Chicago Compulsivity Trait Scale (CHI-T). The average age of the participants was 30.9 years; 48 had TTM, 37 had SPD, and 2 had both conditions.
Overall, total CHI-T scores were significantly correlated with worse disability and quality of life, based on the Quality of Life Inventory (P = .0278) and the Sheehan Disability Scale (P = .0085) but not with severity of TTM or SPD symptoms. TTM and SPD symptoms were assessed using the Massachusetts General Hospital Hair Pulling Scale and the Skin Picking Symptom Symptom Assessment Scale.
“In the current study, we did not find a link between conventional symptom severity measures for BFRBs and disability or quality of life, whereas trans-diagnostic compulsivity did correlate with these clinically important parameters,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. “These findings might suggest the current symptom measures for BFRBs are not including an important aspect of the disease and that a fuller understanding of these symptoms requires measurement of compulsivity. Including validated measures of compulsivity in clinical trials of therapy or medication would also seem to be important for future work,” they said.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of a community sample that may not generalize to a clinical setting, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the cross-sectional design, which prevents conclusions about causality, the lack of a control group, and the relatively small sample size, they said.
However, the study is the first known to use a validated compulsivity measure to assess BFRBs, and the results suggest a clinically relevant impact of compulsivity on both psychosocial dysfunction and poor quality of life in this patient population, with possible implications for treatment, the researchers wrote.
The study received no outside funding. Lead author Dr. Grant disclosed research grants from Otsuka and Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, yearly compensation from Springer Publishing for acting as editor in chief of the Journal of Gambling Studies, and royalties from Oxford University Press, American Psychiatric Publishing, Norton Press, and McGraw Hill.
Although body-focused repetitive behaviors (BFRBs), specifically trichotillomania and skin-picking disorder, are similar in clinical presentation to aspects of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), the role of compulsivity in TTM and SPD has not been well studied, wrote Jon E. Grant, MD, of the University of Chicago and colleagues.
In a study published in the Journal of Psychiatric Research, the authors recruited 69 women and 22 men who met DSM-5 criteria for TTM and SPD. Participants completed diagnostic interviews, symptom inventories, and measures of disability/functioning. Compulsivity was measured using the 15-item Cambridge-Chicago Compulsivity Trait Scale (CHI-T). The average age of the participants was 30.9 years; 48 had TTM, 37 had SPD, and 2 had both conditions.
Overall, total CHI-T scores were significantly correlated with worse disability and quality of life, based on the Quality of Life Inventory (P = .0278) and the Sheehan Disability Scale (P = .0085) but not with severity of TTM or SPD symptoms. TTM and SPD symptoms were assessed using the Massachusetts General Hospital Hair Pulling Scale and the Skin Picking Symptom Symptom Assessment Scale.
“In the current study, we did not find a link between conventional symptom severity measures for BFRBs and disability or quality of life, whereas trans-diagnostic compulsivity did correlate with these clinically important parameters,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. “These findings might suggest the current symptom measures for BFRBs are not including an important aspect of the disease and that a fuller understanding of these symptoms requires measurement of compulsivity. Including validated measures of compulsivity in clinical trials of therapy or medication would also seem to be important for future work,” they said.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of a community sample that may not generalize to a clinical setting, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the cross-sectional design, which prevents conclusions about causality, the lack of a control group, and the relatively small sample size, they said.
However, the study is the first known to use a validated compulsivity measure to assess BFRBs, and the results suggest a clinically relevant impact of compulsivity on both psychosocial dysfunction and poor quality of life in this patient population, with possible implications for treatment, the researchers wrote.
The study received no outside funding. Lead author Dr. Grant disclosed research grants from Otsuka and Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, yearly compensation from Springer Publishing for acting as editor in chief of the Journal of Gambling Studies, and royalties from Oxford University Press, American Psychiatric Publishing, Norton Press, and McGraw Hill.
Although body-focused repetitive behaviors (BFRBs), specifically trichotillomania and skin-picking disorder, are similar in clinical presentation to aspects of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), the role of compulsivity in TTM and SPD has not been well studied, wrote Jon E. Grant, MD, of the University of Chicago and colleagues.
In a study published in the Journal of Psychiatric Research, the authors recruited 69 women and 22 men who met DSM-5 criteria for TTM and SPD. Participants completed diagnostic interviews, symptom inventories, and measures of disability/functioning. Compulsivity was measured using the 15-item Cambridge-Chicago Compulsivity Trait Scale (CHI-T). The average age of the participants was 30.9 years; 48 had TTM, 37 had SPD, and 2 had both conditions.
Overall, total CHI-T scores were significantly correlated with worse disability and quality of life, based on the Quality of Life Inventory (P = .0278) and the Sheehan Disability Scale (P = .0085) but not with severity of TTM or SPD symptoms. TTM and SPD symptoms were assessed using the Massachusetts General Hospital Hair Pulling Scale and the Skin Picking Symptom Symptom Assessment Scale.
“In the current study, we did not find a link between conventional symptom severity measures for BFRBs and disability or quality of life, whereas trans-diagnostic compulsivity did correlate with these clinically important parameters,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. “These findings might suggest the current symptom measures for BFRBs are not including an important aspect of the disease and that a fuller understanding of these symptoms requires measurement of compulsivity. Including validated measures of compulsivity in clinical trials of therapy or medication would also seem to be important for future work,” they said.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of a community sample that may not generalize to a clinical setting, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the cross-sectional design, which prevents conclusions about causality, the lack of a control group, and the relatively small sample size, they said.
However, the study is the first known to use a validated compulsivity measure to assess BFRBs, and the results suggest a clinically relevant impact of compulsivity on both psychosocial dysfunction and poor quality of life in this patient population, with possible implications for treatment, the researchers wrote.
The study received no outside funding. Lead author Dr. Grant disclosed research grants from Otsuka and Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, yearly compensation from Springer Publishing for acting as editor in chief of the Journal of Gambling Studies, and royalties from Oxford University Press, American Psychiatric Publishing, Norton Press, and McGraw Hill.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRIC RESEARCH
How to manage cancer pain when patients misuse opioids
Opioids remain a staple in pain management for cancer, but there is little guidance around how to treat patients who have a history of opioid misuse.
Recently,
“There is a tendency to ignore treatment of opioid use disorder in advanced cancer patients because people think: ‘Oh, this person has bigger fish to fry,’ but that’s not a very patient-centric way of looking at things,” senior author Jessica Merlin, MD, PhD, with the University of Pittsburgh, said in a news release.
“We know that opioid use disorder is a really important factor in quality of life, so addressing opioid addiction and prescription opioid misuse in people with advanced cancer is really critical,” Dr. Merlin added.
The study was published online in JAMA Oncology.
To improve care for people with advanced cancer and cancer-related pain, the researchers first assessed how clinicians currently treat patients with opioid complexity.
Using an online Delphi platform, the team invited 120 clinicians with expertise in palliative care, pain management, and addiction medicine to weigh in on three common clinical scenarios – a patient with a recent history of untreated opioid use disorder, a patient taking more opioids than prescribed, and a patient using nonprescribed benzodiazepines.
For a patient with cancer and a recent history of untreated opioid use disorder, regardless of prognosis, the panel deemed it appropriate to begin treatment with buprenorphine/naloxone for pain but inappropriate to refer the patient to a methadone clinic. The panel felt that going to a methadone clinic would be too burdensome for a patient with advanced cancer and not possible for those with limited prognoses.
“This underscores the importance of access to [opioid use disorder] treatment in cancer treatment settings, including non–addiction specialists waivered to prescribe buprenorphine/naloxone and addiction specialists for more complex cases,” the authors wrote.
For a patient with untreated opioid use disorder, the panel deemed split-dose methadone (two to three times daily) appropriate in those with limited prognosis of weeks to months but was uncertain about the suitability of this approach for patients with longer prognoses of a year or longer.
The appropriateness of initiating treatment with a full-agonist opioid was considered uncertain for a patient with limited prognosis and inappropriate for a patient with longer prognosis.
For a patient with cancer pain and no medical history of opioid use disorder but taking more opioids than prescribed, regardless of prognosis, the panel felt it was appropriate to increase monitoring and inappropriate to taper opioids. The panel was not certain about whether to increase opioids based on the patient’s account of what they need or transition to buprenorphine/naloxone.
For a patient with no history of opioid use disorder who was prescribed traditional opioids for pain and had a positive urine drug test for nonprescribed benzodiazepines, regardless of prognosis, the panel felt it was appropriate to continue opioids with close monitoring and inappropriate to taper opioids or transition to buprenorphine/naloxone.
The researchers said that improving education around buprenorphine and cancer pain management in the context of opioid use disorder or misuse is needed.
In a related editorial, two experts noted that the patients considered in this “important article” require considerable time and expertise from an interdisciplinary team.
“It is important that cancer centers establish and fund such teams mainly as a safety measure for these patients and also as a major contribution to the care of all patients with cancer,” wrote Joseph Arthur, MD, and Eduardo Bruera, MD, with the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
In the wider context, Dr. Arthur and Dr. Bruera highlighted how treatments for patients with advanced cancer have evolved over the past 3 decades, yet patients have continued to be given opioids to address cancer-related pain. Developing more sophisticated drugs that relieve pain without significant side effects or addictive properties is imperative.
Dr. Arthur and Dr. Bruera said the study authors “appropriately emphasize the value of delivering compassionate and expert care for these particularly complex cases and the importance of conducting research on the best ways to alleviate the suffering in this rapidly growing patient population.”
This research was supported by Cambia Health Foundation and the National Institute of Nursing Research. Dr. Merlin, Dr. Arthur, and Dr. Bruera reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Opioids remain a staple in pain management for cancer, but there is little guidance around how to treat patients who have a history of opioid misuse.
Recently,
“There is a tendency to ignore treatment of opioid use disorder in advanced cancer patients because people think: ‘Oh, this person has bigger fish to fry,’ but that’s not a very patient-centric way of looking at things,” senior author Jessica Merlin, MD, PhD, with the University of Pittsburgh, said in a news release.
“We know that opioid use disorder is a really important factor in quality of life, so addressing opioid addiction and prescription opioid misuse in people with advanced cancer is really critical,” Dr. Merlin added.
The study was published online in JAMA Oncology.
To improve care for people with advanced cancer and cancer-related pain, the researchers first assessed how clinicians currently treat patients with opioid complexity.
Using an online Delphi platform, the team invited 120 clinicians with expertise in palliative care, pain management, and addiction medicine to weigh in on three common clinical scenarios – a patient with a recent history of untreated opioid use disorder, a patient taking more opioids than prescribed, and a patient using nonprescribed benzodiazepines.
For a patient with cancer and a recent history of untreated opioid use disorder, regardless of prognosis, the panel deemed it appropriate to begin treatment with buprenorphine/naloxone for pain but inappropriate to refer the patient to a methadone clinic. The panel felt that going to a methadone clinic would be too burdensome for a patient with advanced cancer and not possible for those with limited prognoses.
“This underscores the importance of access to [opioid use disorder] treatment in cancer treatment settings, including non–addiction specialists waivered to prescribe buprenorphine/naloxone and addiction specialists for more complex cases,” the authors wrote.
For a patient with untreated opioid use disorder, the panel deemed split-dose methadone (two to three times daily) appropriate in those with limited prognosis of weeks to months but was uncertain about the suitability of this approach for patients with longer prognoses of a year or longer.
The appropriateness of initiating treatment with a full-agonist opioid was considered uncertain for a patient with limited prognosis and inappropriate for a patient with longer prognosis.
For a patient with cancer pain and no medical history of opioid use disorder but taking more opioids than prescribed, regardless of prognosis, the panel felt it was appropriate to increase monitoring and inappropriate to taper opioids. The panel was not certain about whether to increase opioids based on the patient’s account of what they need or transition to buprenorphine/naloxone.
For a patient with no history of opioid use disorder who was prescribed traditional opioids for pain and had a positive urine drug test for nonprescribed benzodiazepines, regardless of prognosis, the panel felt it was appropriate to continue opioids with close monitoring and inappropriate to taper opioids or transition to buprenorphine/naloxone.
The researchers said that improving education around buprenorphine and cancer pain management in the context of opioid use disorder or misuse is needed.
In a related editorial, two experts noted that the patients considered in this “important article” require considerable time and expertise from an interdisciplinary team.
“It is important that cancer centers establish and fund such teams mainly as a safety measure for these patients and also as a major contribution to the care of all patients with cancer,” wrote Joseph Arthur, MD, and Eduardo Bruera, MD, with the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
In the wider context, Dr. Arthur and Dr. Bruera highlighted how treatments for patients with advanced cancer have evolved over the past 3 decades, yet patients have continued to be given opioids to address cancer-related pain. Developing more sophisticated drugs that relieve pain without significant side effects or addictive properties is imperative.
Dr. Arthur and Dr. Bruera said the study authors “appropriately emphasize the value of delivering compassionate and expert care for these particularly complex cases and the importance of conducting research on the best ways to alleviate the suffering in this rapidly growing patient population.”
This research was supported by Cambia Health Foundation and the National Institute of Nursing Research. Dr. Merlin, Dr. Arthur, and Dr. Bruera reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Opioids remain a staple in pain management for cancer, but there is little guidance around how to treat patients who have a history of opioid misuse.
Recently,
“There is a tendency to ignore treatment of opioid use disorder in advanced cancer patients because people think: ‘Oh, this person has bigger fish to fry,’ but that’s not a very patient-centric way of looking at things,” senior author Jessica Merlin, MD, PhD, with the University of Pittsburgh, said in a news release.
“We know that opioid use disorder is a really important factor in quality of life, so addressing opioid addiction and prescription opioid misuse in people with advanced cancer is really critical,” Dr. Merlin added.
The study was published online in JAMA Oncology.
To improve care for people with advanced cancer and cancer-related pain, the researchers first assessed how clinicians currently treat patients with opioid complexity.
Using an online Delphi platform, the team invited 120 clinicians with expertise in palliative care, pain management, and addiction medicine to weigh in on three common clinical scenarios – a patient with a recent history of untreated opioid use disorder, a patient taking more opioids than prescribed, and a patient using nonprescribed benzodiazepines.
For a patient with cancer and a recent history of untreated opioid use disorder, regardless of prognosis, the panel deemed it appropriate to begin treatment with buprenorphine/naloxone for pain but inappropriate to refer the patient to a methadone clinic. The panel felt that going to a methadone clinic would be too burdensome for a patient with advanced cancer and not possible for those with limited prognoses.
“This underscores the importance of access to [opioid use disorder] treatment in cancer treatment settings, including non–addiction specialists waivered to prescribe buprenorphine/naloxone and addiction specialists for more complex cases,” the authors wrote.
For a patient with untreated opioid use disorder, the panel deemed split-dose methadone (two to three times daily) appropriate in those with limited prognosis of weeks to months but was uncertain about the suitability of this approach for patients with longer prognoses of a year or longer.
The appropriateness of initiating treatment with a full-agonist opioid was considered uncertain for a patient with limited prognosis and inappropriate for a patient with longer prognosis.
For a patient with cancer pain and no medical history of opioid use disorder but taking more opioids than prescribed, regardless of prognosis, the panel felt it was appropriate to increase monitoring and inappropriate to taper opioids. The panel was not certain about whether to increase opioids based on the patient’s account of what they need or transition to buprenorphine/naloxone.
For a patient with no history of opioid use disorder who was prescribed traditional opioids for pain and had a positive urine drug test for nonprescribed benzodiazepines, regardless of prognosis, the panel felt it was appropriate to continue opioids with close monitoring and inappropriate to taper opioids or transition to buprenorphine/naloxone.
The researchers said that improving education around buprenorphine and cancer pain management in the context of opioid use disorder or misuse is needed.
In a related editorial, two experts noted that the patients considered in this “important article” require considerable time and expertise from an interdisciplinary team.
“It is important that cancer centers establish and fund such teams mainly as a safety measure for these patients and also as a major contribution to the care of all patients with cancer,” wrote Joseph Arthur, MD, and Eduardo Bruera, MD, with the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
In the wider context, Dr. Arthur and Dr. Bruera highlighted how treatments for patients with advanced cancer have evolved over the past 3 decades, yet patients have continued to be given opioids to address cancer-related pain. Developing more sophisticated drugs that relieve pain without significant side effects or addictive properties is imperative.
Dr. Arthur and Dr. Bruera said the study authors “appropriately emphasize the value of delivering compassionate and expert care for these particularly complex cases and the importance of conducting research on the best ways to alleviate the suffering in this rapidly growing patient population.”
This research was supported by Cambia Health Foundation and the National Institute of Nursing Research. Dr. Merlin, Dr. Arthur, and Dr. Bruera reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA ONCOLOGY
Cannabis use causes spike in ED visits
Cannabis users had a 22% increased risk of an emergency department (ED) visit or hospitalization compared to nonusers, as determined from data from more than 30,000 individuals.
Although cannabis contains compounds similar to tobacco, “data published on the association between cannabis smoking and airways health have been contradictory,” and whether smoking cannabis increases a user’s risk of developing acute respiratory illness remains unclear, wrote Nicholas T. Vozoris, MD, of the University of Toronto, and colleagues.
In a study published in BMJ Open Respiratory Research, the investigators reviewed national health records data from 35,114 individuals aged 12-65 years for the period January 2009 to December 2015. Of these persons, 4,807 of the 6,425 who reported cannabis use in the past year were matched with 10,395 never-users who served as controls. The mean age of the study population at the index date was 35 years, and 42% were women; demographics were similar between users and control persons.
Overall, the odds of respiratory-related emergency department visits or hospitalizations were not significantly different between the cannabis users and the control persons (3.6% vs. 3.9%; odds ratio, 0.91). However, cannabis users had significantly greater odds of all-cause ED visits or hospitalizations (30.0% vs. 26.0%; OR, 1.22). All-cause mortality was 0.2% for both groups.
Respiratory problems were the second-highest reason for all-cause visits, the researchers noted. The lack of a difference in respiratory-related visits between cannabis users and nonusers conflicts somewhat with previous studies on this topic, which were limited, the researchers noted in their discussion.
The negative results also might stem from factors for which the researchers could not adjust, including insufficient cannabis smoke exposure among users in the study population, noninhalational cannabis use, which is less likely to have a respiratory effect, and possible secondhand exposure among control persons.
“It is also possible that our analysis might have been insufficiently powered to detect a significant signal with respect to the primary outcome,” they noted.
However, after the researchers controlled for multiple variables, the risk of an equally important morbidity outcome, all-cause ED visits or hospitalizations, was significantly greater among cannabis users than among control individuals, and respiratory reasons were the second most common cause for ED visits and hospitalizations in the all-cause outcome, they emphasized.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the retrospective and observational design and the inability to control for all confounding variables, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the use of self-reports and potential for bias, the inability to perform dose-response analysis, and the high number of infrequent cannabis users in the study population.
However, the results suggest that cannabis use is associated with an increased risk of serious health events and should be discouraged, although more research is needed to confirm the current study findings, they concluded.
Consider range of causes for cannabis emergency visits
“With growing numbers of states legalizing recreational use of cannabis, it’s important to understand whether cannabis use is associated with increased emergency department visits,” Robert D. Glatter, MD, an emergency medicine physician at Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, told this news organization.
Previous studies have shown an association between increased ED visits and cannabis use in states, especially with edibles, where cannabis is legal, and “the current study reinforces the elevated risk of ED visits along with hospitalizations,” he said.
“While the researchers found no increased risk of respiratory-related complaints among users compared to the general population, there was an associated increase in ED visits and hospitalizations, which is important to understand,” said Dr. Glatter, who was not involved in the study.
“While this observational study found that the incidence of respiratory complaints was not significantly different among frequent users of cannabis, the increased odds that cannabis users would require evaluation in the emergency room or even hospitalization was still apparent even after the investigators controlled for such factors as use of alcohol, tobacco, illicit drug use, or other mental health–related disorders,” Dr. Glatter noted.
“That said, it’s a bit surprising that with the continued popularity of vaping, especially among teens, there was still not any appreciable or significant increase in respiratory complaints observed. Beyond this finding, I was not surprised by the overall conclusions of the current study, as we continue to see an elevated number of patients presenting to the ED with adverse events related to cannabis use.”
Dr. Glatter noted that “the majority of patients we see in the ED are associated with use of edibles, since it takes longer for the person to feel the effects, leading the user to consume more of the product up front, with delayed effects lasting up to 12 hours. This is what gets people into trouble and leads to toxicity of cannabis, or ‘overdoses,’ “ he explained.
When consuming edible cannabis products, “[p]eople need to begin at low dosages and not take additional gummies up front, since it can take up to 2 or even 3 hours in some cases to feel the initial effects. With the drug’s effects lasting up to 12 hours, it’s especially important to avoid operating any motor vehicles, bicycles, or scooters, since reaction time is impaired, as well as overall judgment, balance, and fine motor skills,” Dr. Glatter said.
Cannabis can land users in the ED for a range of reasons, said Dr. Glatter. “According to the study, 15% of the emergency room visits and hospitalizations were due to acute trauma, 14% due to respiratory issues, and 13% to gastrointestinal illnesses. These effects were seen in first-time users but not those with chronic use, according to the study inclusion criteria.”
Cannabis use could result in physical injuries through “impaired judgment, coordination, combined with an altered state of consciousness or generalized drowsiness, that could contribute to an increase in motor vehicle collisions, along with an increased risk for falls leading to lacerations, fractures, contusions, or bruising,” said Dr. Glatter. “Cannabis may also lead to an altered sense of perception related to interactions with others, resulting in feelings of anxiety or restlessness culminating in physical altercations and other injuries.”
The current study indicates the need for understanding the potential physical and psychological effects of cannabis use, he said.
“Additional research is needed to better understand the relative percentage cases related to edibles vs. inhalation presenting to the ED,” he noted. “There is no question that edibles continue to present significant dangers for those who don’t read labels or remain poorly informed regarding their dosing as a result of delayed onset and longer duration,” he said. To help reduce risk of toxicity, the concept of a “high lasting 12-15 hours, as with edibles, as opposed to 3-4 hours from inhalation must be clearly stated on packaging and better communicated with users, as the toxicity with edibles is more often from lack of prior knowledge about onset of effects related to dosing.”
In addition, the “potential for psychosis to develop with more chronic cannabis use, along with cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome should be on every clinician’s radar,” Dr. Glatter emphasized.
“The bottom line is that as more states legalize the use of cannabis, it’s vital to also implement comprehensive public education efforts to provide users with the reported risks associated with not only inhalation (vaping or flower) but also edibles, which account for an increasingly greater percentage of ED visits and associated adverse effects,” he said.
The study was supported by the Lung Association–Ontario, as well as by grants from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. The researchers and Dr. Glatter have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Cannabis users had a 22% increased risk of an emergency department (ED) visit or hospitalization compared to nonusers, as determined from data from more than 30,000 individuals.
Although cannabis contains compounds similar to tobacco, “data published on the association between cannabis smoking and airways health have been contradictory,” and whether smoking cannabis increases a user’s risk of developing acute respiratory illness remains unclear, wrote Nicholas T. Vozoris, MD, of the University of Toronto, and colleagues.
In a study published in BMJ Open Respiratory Research, the investigators reviewed national health records data from 35,114 individuals aged 12-65 years for the period January 2009 to December 2015. Of these persons, 4,807 of the 6,425 who reported cannabis use in the past year were matched with 10,395 never-users who served as controls. The mean age of the study population at the index date was 35 years, and 42% were women; demographics were similar between users and control persons.
Overall, the odds of respiratory-related emergency department visits or hospitalizations were not significantly different between the cannabis users and the control persons (3.6% vs. 3.9%; odds ratio, 0.91). However, cannabis users had significantly greater odds of all-cause ED visits or hospitalizations (30.0% vs. 26.0%; OR, 1.22). All-cause mortality was 0.2% for both groups.
Respiratory problems were the second-highest reason for all-cause visits, the researchers noted. The lack of a difference in respiratory-related visits between cannabis users and nonusers conflicts somewhat with previous studies on this topic, which were limited, the researchers noted in their discussion.
The negative results also might stem from factors for which the researchers could not adjust, including insufficient cannabis smoke exposure among users in the study population, noninhalational cannabis use, which is less likely to have a respiratory effect, and possible secondhand exposure among control persons.
“It is also possible that our analysis might have been insufficiently powered to detect a significant signal with respect to the primary outcome,” they noted.
However, after the researchers controlled for multiple variables, the risk of an equally important morbidity outcome, all-cause ED visits or hospitalizations, was significantly greater among cannabis users than among control individuals, and respiratory reasons were the second most common cause for ED visits and hospitalizations in the all-cause outcome, they emphasized.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the retrospective and observational design and the inability to control for all confounding variables, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the use of self-reports and potential for bias, the inability to perform dose-response analysis, and the high number of infrequent cannabis users in the study population.
However, the results suggest that cannabis use is associated with an increased risk of serious health events and should be discouraged, although more research is needed to confirm the current study findings, they concluded.
Consider range of causes for cannabis emergency visits
“With growing numbers of states legalizing recreational use of cannabis, it’s important to understand whether cannabis use is associated with increased emergency department visits,” Robert D. Glatter, MD, an emergency medicine physician at Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, told this news organization.
Previous studies have shown an association between increased ED visits and cannabis use in states, especially with edibles, where cannabis is legal, and “the current study reinforces the elevated risk of ED visits along with hospitalizations,” he said.
“While the researchers found no increased risk of respiratory-related complaints among users compared to the general population, there was an associated increase in ED visits and hospitalizations, which is important to understand,” said Dr. Glatter, who was not involved in the study.
“While this observational study found that the incidence of respiratory complaints was not significantly different among frequent users of cannabis, the increased odds that cannabis users would require evaluation in the emergency room or even hospitalization was still apparent even after the investigators controlled for such factors as use of alcohol, tobacco, illicit drug use, or other mental health–related disorders,” Dr. Glatter noted.
“That said, it’s a bit surprising that with the continued popularity of vaping, especially among teens, there was still not any appreciable or significant increase in respiratory complaints observed. Beyond this finding, I was not surprised by the overall conclusions of the current study, as we continue to see an elevated number of patients presenting to the ED with adverse events related to cannabis use.”
Dr. Glatter noted that “the majority of patients we see in the ED are associated with use of edibles, since it takes longer for the person to feel the effects, leading the user to consume more of the product up front, with delayed effects lasting up to 12 hours. This is what gets people into trouble and leads to toxicity of cannabis, or ‘overdoses,’ “ he explained.
When consuming edible cannabis products, “[p]eople need to begin at low dosages and not take additional gummies up front, since it can take up to 2 or even 3 hours in some cases to feel the initial effects. With the drug’s effects lasting up to 12 hours, it’s especially important to avoid operating any motor vehicles, bicycles, or scooters, since reaction time is impaired, as well as overall judgment, balance, and fine motor skills,” Dr. Glatter said.
Cannabis can land users in the ED for a range of reasons, said Dr. Glatter. “According to the study, 15% of the emergency room visits and hospitalizations were due to acute trauma, 14% due to respiratory issues, and 13% to gastrointestinal illnesses. These effects were seen in first-time users but not those with chronic use, according to the study inclusion criteria.”
Cannabis use could result in physical injuries through “impaired judgment, coordination, combined with an altered state of consciousness or generalized drowsiness, that could contribute to an increase in motor vehicle collisions, along with an increased risk for falls leading to lacerations, fractures, contusions, or bruising,” said Dr. Glatter. “Cannabis may also lead to an altered sense of perception related to interactions with others, resulting in feelings of anxiety or restlessness culminating in physical altercations and other injuries.”
The current study indicates the need for understanding the potential physical and psychological effects of cannabis use, he said.
“Additional research is needed to better understand the relative percentage cases related to edibles vs. inhalation presenting to the ED,” he noted. “There is no question that edibles continue to present significant dangers for those who don’t read labels or remain poorly informed regarding their dosing as a result of delayed onset and longer duration,” he said. To help reduce risk of toxicity, the concept of a “high lasting 12-15 hours, as with edibles, as opposed to 3-4 hours from inhalation must be clearly stated on packaging and better communicated with users, as the toxicity with edibles is more often from lack of prior knowledge about onset of effects related to dosing.”
In addition, the “potential for psychosis to develop with more chronic cannabis use, along with cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome should be on every clinician’s radar,” Dr. Glatter emphasized.
“The bottom line is that as more states legalize the use of cannabis, it’s vital to also implement comprehensive public education efforts to provide users with the reported risks associated with not only inhalation (vaping or flower) but also edibles, which account for an increasingly greater percentage of ED visits and associated adverse effects,” he said.
The study was supported by the Lung Association–Ontario, as well as by grants from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. The researchers and Dr. Glatter have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Cannabis users had a 22% increased risk of an emergency department (ED) visit or hospitalization compared to nonusers, as determined from data from more than 30,000 individuals.
Although cannabis contains compounds similar to tobacco, “data published on the association between cannabis smoking and airways health have been contradictory,” and whether smoking cannabis increases a user’s risk of developing acute respiratory illness remains unclear, wrote Nicholas T. Vozoris, MD, of the University of Toronto, and colleagues.
In a study published in BMJ Open Respiratory Research, the investigators reviewed national health records data from 35,114 individuals aged 12-65 years for the period January 2009 to December 2015. Of these persons, 4,807 of the 6,425 who reported cannabis use in the past year were matched with 10,395 never-users who served as controls. The mean age of the study population at the index date was 35 years, and 42% were women; demographics were similar between users and control persons.
Overall, the odds of respiratory-related emergency department visits or hospitalizations were not significantly different between the cannabis users and the control persons (3.6% vs. 3.9%; odds ratio, 0.91). However, cannabis users had significantly greater odds of all-cause ED visits or hospitalizations (30.0% vs. 26.0%; OR, 1.22). All-cause mortality was 0.2% for both groups.
Respiratory problems were the second-highest reason for all-cause visits, the researchers noted. The lack of a difference in respiratory-related visits between cannabis users and nonusers conflicts somewhat with previous studies on this topic, which were limited, the researchers noted in their discussion.
The negative results also might stem from factors for which the researchers could not adjust, including insufficient cannabis smoke exposure among users in the study population, noninhalational cannabis use, which is less likely to have a respiratory effect, and possible secondhand exposure among control persons.
“It is also possible that our analysis might have been insufficiently powered to detect a significant signal with respect to the primary outcome,” they noted.
However, after the researchers controlled for multiple variables, the risk of an equally important morbidity outcome, all-cause ED visits or hospitalizations, was significantly greater among cannabis users than among control individuals, and respiratory reasons were the second most common cause for ED visits and hospitalizations in the all-cause outcome, they emphasized.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the retrospective and observational design and the inability to control for all confounding variables, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the use of self-reports and potential for bias, the inability to perform dose-response analysis, and the high number of infrequent cannabis users in the study population.
However, the results suggest that cannabis use is associated with an increased risk of serious health events and should be discouraged, although more research is needed to confirm the current study findings, they concluded.
Consider range of causes for cannabis emergency visits
“With growing numbers of states legalizing recreational use of cannabis, it’s important to understand whether cannabis use is associated with increased emergency department visits,” Robert D. Glatter, MD, an emergency medicine physician at Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, told this news organization.
Previous studies have shown an association between increased ED visits and cannabis use in states, especially with edibles, where cannabis is legal, and “the current study reinforces the elevated risk of ED visits along with hospitalizations,” he said.
“While the researchers found no increased risk of respiratory-related complaints among users compared to the general population, there was an associated increase in ED visits and hospitalizations, which is important to understand,” said Dr. Glatter, who was not involved in the study.
“While this observational study found that the incidence of respiratory complaints was not significantly different among frequent users of cannabis, the increased odds that cannabis users would require evaluation in the emergency room or even hospitalization was still apparent even after the investigators controlled for such factors as use of alcohol, tobacco, illicit drug use, or other mental health–related disorders,” Dr. Glatter noted.
“That said, it’s a bit surprising that with the continued popularity of vaping, especially among teens, there was still not any appreciable or significant increase in respiratory complaints observed. Beyond this finding, I was not surprised by the overall conclusions of the current study, as we continue to see an elevated number of patients presenting to the ED with adverse events related to cannabis use.”
Dr. Glatter noted that “the majority of patients we see in the ED are associated with use of edibles, since it takes longer for the person to feel the effects, leading the user to consume more of the product up front, with delayed effects lasting up to 12 hours. This is what gets people into trouble and leads to toxicity of cannabis, or ‘overdoses,’ “ he explained.
When consuming edible cannabis products, “[p]eople need to begin at low dosages and not take additional gummies up front, since it can take up to 2 or even 3 hours in some cases to feel the initial effects. With the drug’s effects lasting up to 12 hours, it’s especially important to avoid operating any motor vehicles, bicycles, or scooters, since reaction time is impaired, as well as overall judgment, balance, and fine motor skills,” Dr. Glatter said.
Cannabis can land users in the ED for a range of reasons, said Dr. Glatter. “According to the study, 15% of the emergency room visits and hospitalizations were due to acute trauma, 14% due to respiratory issues, and 13% to gastrointestinal illnesses. These effects were seen in first-time users but not those with chronic use, according to the study inclusion criteria.”
Cannabis use could result in physical injuries through “impaired judgment, coordination, combined with an altered state of consciousness or generalized drowsiness, that could contribute to an increase in motor vehicle collisions, along with an increased risk for falls leading to lacerations, fractures, contusions, or bruising,” said Dr. Glatter. “Cannabis may also lead to an altered sense of perception related to interactions with others, resulting in feelings of anxiety or restlessness culminating in physical altercations and other injuries.”
The current study indicates the need for understanding the potential physical and psychological effects of cannabis use, he said.
“Additional research is needed to better understand the relative percentage cases related to edibles vs. inhalation presenting to the ED,” he noted. “There is no question that edibles continue to present significant dangers for those who don’t read labels or remain poorly informed regarding their dosing as a result of delayed onset and longer duration,” he said. To help reduce risk of toxicity, the concept of a “high lasting 12-15 hours, as with edibles, as opposed to 3-4 hours from inhalation must be clearly stated on packaging and better communicated with users, as the toxicity with edibles is more often from lack of prior knowledge about onset of effects related to dosing.”
In addition, the “potential for psychosis to develop with more chronic cannabis use, along with cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome should be on every clinician’s radar,” Dr. Glatter emphasized.
“The bottom line is that as more states legalize the use of cannabis, it’s vital to also implement comprehensive public education efforts to provide users with the reported risks associated with not only inhalation (vaping or flower) but also edibles, which account for an increasingly greater percentage of ED visits and associated adverse effects,” he said.
The study was supported by the Lung Association–Ontario, as well as by grants from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. The researchers and Dr. Glatter have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.