Substance abuse最新文献

Background: The prevalence of marijuana use and its derivatives has surged over the past century, largely due to increasing legalization globally. Despite arguments advocating its benefits, marijuana smoking exposes the lungs to harmful combustion byproducts, leading to various respiratory issues such as asthma, pneumonia, emphysema, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Methods: We embarked on an extensive literature search, utilizing PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases, identifying 200 studies. After the elimination of duplicates, and meticulous review of abstracts and full texts, 55 studies were included in our analysis.

Results: Current literature demonstrates that marijuana use negatively impacts lung function, triggering symptoms like chronic cough, sputum production, and wheezing, and diminishing FEV1/FVC ratio in spirometry tests. Moreover, prolonged or chronic marijuana use augments the risk of respiratory function impairment. While the carcinogenic effects of marijuana are still contested, a weak correlation between marijuana use and lung cancer has been observed in some studies. Additionally, instances of other pathologies linked to marijuana use have been reported, including the development of COPD, pulmonary bullae, spontaneous pneumothorax, pleuritic pain, chronic pulmonary aspergillosis, hemoptysis, and pulmonary Langerhans cell histiocytosis.

Conclusions: The evidence underscores that marijuana use is detrimental to respiratory health. In light of the escalating trend of marijuana use, particularly among the youth, it is imperative to advocate public health messages discouraging its consumption.

While there is limited research in the field regarding the various dimensions of co-use of alcohol and opioid medication, particularly related to co-use and levels of severity, our research has shown 20% to 30% of community pharmacy patients receiving opioid pain medications are engaged in co-use. Co-use of alcohol and opioid medications is a significant risk factor for opioid-related overdose. Community pharmacy is a valuable yet underutilized resource and setting for addressing the US opioid epidemic, with an untapped potential for identification of and intervention for risks associated with co-use of alcohol and opioids. This commentary describing the "Co-use of Opioid Medications and Alcohol Prevention Study (COAPS)" offers an innovative and promising approach to mitigating serious risks associated with co-use of alcohol (risk and non-risk use) and opioids in community pharmacy. COAPS aim 1involves adapting an existing opioid misuse intervention to target co-use of alcohol and opioid mediations. COAPS aim 2 involves testing the adapted intervention within a small-scale pilot randomized controlled trial (N = 40) to examine feasibility, acceptability and preliminary efficacy of the intervention versus standard care. COAPS aim 3 involves conducting key informant interviews related to future implementation of larger scale studies or service delivery in community pharmacy settings.

Background: Therapeutic use of cannabis is common in the United States (up to 18.7% of Americans aged ≥12), and dispensaries in the US are proliferating rapidly. However, the efficacy profile of medical cannabis is unclear, and customers often rely on dispensary staff for purchasing decisions. The objective was to describe cannabis dispensary staff perceptions of medical cannabis benefits and risks, as well as its safety in high-risk populations.

Methods: Online Survey study conducted using Qualtrics from February 13, 2020 to October 2, 2020 with a national sample of dispensary staff who reportedinteracting with customers in a cannabis dispensary selling tetrahydrocannabinol-containing products. Participants were queried about benefits ("helpfulness") and risks ("worry") about cannabis for a variety of medical conditions, and safety in older adults and pregnant women on a five-point Likert scale. These results were then collapsed into three categories including "neutral" (3/5). "I don't know" (uncertainty) was a response option for helpfulness and safety.

Results: Participants (n = 434) were from 29 states and included patient-facing dispensary staff (40%); managers (32%); pharmacists (13%); and physicians, nurse practitioners, or physician assistants (5%). Over 80% of participants perceived cannabis as helpful for post-traumatic stress disorder (88.7%), epilepsy (85.3%) and cancer (83.4%). Generally, participants were not concerned about potential cannabis risks, including increased use of illicit drugs (76.3%), decreases in intelligence (74.4%), disrupted sleep (71.7%), and new/worsening health problems from medical cannabis use (70.7%). Cannabis was considered safe in older adults by 81.3% of participants, though there was much less consensus on safety in pregnancy.

Conclusions: Cannabis dispensary staff generally view medical cannabis as beneficial and low-risk. However, improvements in dispensary staff training, an increased role for certifying clinicians, and interventions to reduce dispensary staff concerns (e.g., cost, judgment) may improve evidence-based staff recommendations to patients seeking medical cannabis.

Stimulant use disorder (StUD) significantly contributes to substance-related morbidity and mortality in the United States. Overshadowed by the country's focus on opioid-related overdose deaths, stimulant and stimulant/opioid overdose deaths have increased dramatically over the last decade. Many individuals who use stimulants illicitly or have StUD have multiple, intersecting stigmatized characteristics which exacerbate existing barriers and create new obstacles to attaining addiction treatment. Illicit stimulant use, StUD, and stimulant-related overdose disproportionately impact minoritized racial and gender, and sexuality diverse groups. Historically, people who use illicit stimulants and those with StUD have been highly stigmatized, criminalized, and overly ignored by health care providers, policymakers, and the public compared to people who use other drugs and alcohol. As a result, most people needing treatment for StUD do not receive it. This is partly due to the lack of evidence-based treatment for StUD, which has resulted in few programs specializing in the care of people with StUD. The lack of available treatment is compounded by high rates of StUD in marginalized groups already reluctant to engage with the health care system. As health care professionals, we can improve outcomes for people with StUD by changing how we talk about, document, and respond to illicit stimulant use, related characteristics, behaviors, and social and structural determinants of health. To do this, we must seek to understand the lived realities of people with StUD and illicit stimulant use and use this knowledge to amend existing models of care.

Background: Increasing buprenorphine access is critical to facilitating effective opioid use disorder treatment. Buprenorphine prescriber numbers have increased substantially, but most clinicians who start prescribing buprenorphine stop within a year, and most active prescribers treat very few individuals. Little research has examined state policies' association with the evolution of buprenorphine prescribing clinicians' patient caseloads.

Methods: Our retrospective cohort study design derived from 2006 to 2018 national pharmacy claims identifying buprenorphine prescribers and the number of patients treated monthly. We defined persistent prescribers based on results from a k-clustering approach and were characterized by clinicians who did not quickly stop prescribing and had average monthly caseloads greater than 5 patients for much of the first 6 years after their first dispensed prescription. We examined the association between persistent prescribers (dependent variable) and Medicaid coverage of buprenorphine, prior authorization requirements, and mandated counseling policies (key predictors) that were active within the first 2 years after a prescriber's first observed dispensed buprenorphine prescription. We used multivariable logistic regression analyses and entropy balancing weights to ensure better comparability of prescribers in states that did and did not implement policies.

Results: Medicaid coverage of buprenorphine was associated with a smaller percentage of new prescribers becoming persistent prescribers (OR = 0.72; 95% CI = 0.53, 0.97). There was no evidence that either mandatory counseling or prior authorization was associated with the odds of a clinician being a persistent prescriber with estimated ORs equal to 0.85 (95% CI = 0.63, 1.16) and 1.13 (95% CI = 0.83, 1.55), respectively.

Conclusions: Compared to states without coverage, states with Medicaid coverage for buprenorphine had a smaller percentage of new prescribers become persistent prescribers; there was no evidence that the other state policies were associated with changes in the rate of clinicians becoming persistent prescribers. Because buprenorphine treatment is highly concentrated among a small group of clinicians, it is imperative to increase the pool of clinicians providing care to larger numbers of patients for longer periods. Greater efforts are needed to identify and support factors associated with successful persistent prescribing.

In 2022, the CDC revised its and encourage clinicians to weight the risks versus harms of continued therapy and empathetically engage patients in patient-centered discussions around continued therapy while avoiding patient abandonment. This commentary discusses how the emphasis on "benefit" will almost always lead to discordance between the patient and provider since many clinicians find little benefit in opioid therapy for chronic pain with evidence questioning its efficacy for chronic pain. This disagreement between patients and providers has the potential to lead to unilateral tapers or patient abandonment and further increase patient harm. Considering this dilemma, we propose a revised framework that emphasizes weighing the harms of continuation of therapy against the harms of discontinuation of therapy when caring for patients on long-term opioid therapy. This revised harm-reductive decisional framework has the potential to retain patient-provider trust and increase opportunities for engagement in evidence-based multi-modal pain treatment, including non-opioid based treatment options.

Background: Since 2019, the United States (US) has witnessed an unprecedented increase in drug overdose and alcohol-related deaths. Despite this rise in morbidity and mortality, treatment rates for substance use disorder remain inadequate. Insufficient training in addiction along with a dearth of addiction providers are key barriers to addressing the current addiction epidemic. Addiction-related clinical experiences can improve trainee knowledge, yet they remain dependent on practice sites and residency training environments. Asynchronous learning, in the form of video-based modules, may serve as a complement to formal, scheduled lectures and clinical experiences.

Objectives: To evaluate the educational impact of a video-based addiction curriculum in 2 residency programs at a large safety net academic medical center with a high volume of patients with substance use disorders.

Methods: Family Medicine (FM) and Internal Medicine (IM) residency interns (PGY1s) (n = 60) had access to 28 minutes of video content related to opioid use disorder (OUD) and alcohol use disorder (AUD) during the first 2 months of their residency training. Interns were asked to complete voluntary and anonymized pre- and post-surveys in Qualtrics that included knowledge and confidence-based questions about the management of OUD and AUD, in addition to questions about prior exposure to and future interests in addiction training and practice. Data were analyzed with non-parametric sign tests.

Results: Twenty-eight interns completed both OUD pre- and post-surveys, and 24 interns completed all AUD survey questions. There was a statistically significant increase in the number of interns who reported increased knowledge of and confidence around diagnosis, management, and ability to provide evidence-based treatment recommendations for both OUD and AUD.

Conclusions: Brief addiction focused video-modules can improve confidence and knowledge in managing OUD and AUD among medical trainees.

Background: Care transitions represent vulnerable events for patients newly initiating medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD). Multidisciplinary primary care-based transition clinics may improve care linkage and retention in MOUD treatment. Additionally, these interventions may help primary care clinicians (PCPs) overcome barriers to adopting MOUD into practice. In this evaluation, we assessed the impact of a primary care-based transition clinic for patients newly initiating buprenorphine for opioid use disorder (OUD) in the emergency department.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective program evaluation within a single academic health system involving adults who newly initiated buprenorphine for OUD through an emergency department-based program and were referred to follow up in either a dedicated multidisciplinary primary care-based transition clinic (SPARC) vs referral to usual primary care (UPC). We performed descriptive analyses comparing patient demographics, referral volume, linkage to care, treatment retention, and markers of high-quality care between the 2 groups. A log-rank test was used to determine the difference in probabilities of retention between SPARC and UPC over 6 months.

Results: Over 12 months, the number of referrals to SPARC was greater than to UPC (N = 64 vs N = 26). About 58% of patients referred to SPARC attended an initial visit vs 38% referred to UPC. Treatment retention was consistently greater in SPARC than UPC (1 m: 90% vs 60%; 3 m: 76% vs 40%; 6 m: 60% vs 30%). Markers of care quality including naloxone provision (100% vs 80%) and infectious screening (81% vs 40%) were greater in SPARC clinic. SPARC was associated with a statistically significant increased probability of retention in treatment as compared to UPC (P < .01).

Conclusions: In this observational evaluation, a primary care-based multidisciplinary transition clinic for patients initiating buprenorphine MOUD was associated with expanded access to longitudinal OUD treatment and superior linkage to care, retention in care, and quality of care compared to referral to usual primary care. Further research using a more rigorous research design is required to further evaluate these findings.

The opioid misuse epidemic is a serious public health crisis. Opioid-involved deaths continue to rise and the potency of illicitly manufactured synthetic opioids has increased, creating challenges for the healthcare system to provide multifaceted specialized care. Elements of the regulation around buprenorphine, 1 of 3 drugs approved to treat opioid use disorder (OUD), constrain treatment options for patients and providers alike. Updates to this regulatory framework, particularly around dosing and access to care, would enable providers to better treat the changing landscape of opioid misuse. Specific actions to this end are to: (1) Increase buprenorphine dosing flexibility based on FDA labeling which drives payor policies; (2) Restrict local government and institutional impositions of arbitrary access and dosing limits for buprenorphine; and (3) Liberalize buprenorphine initiation and maintenance via telemedicine for OUD.

Introduction: In the US, rising numbers of patients who misuse illicit or prescribed opioids provides opportunities for physical therapists (PTs) to be engaged in their care. Prior to this engagement, it is necessary to understand the perceptions of patients who access physical therapy services about their PTs playing such a role. This project examined patients' perceptions of PTs addressing opioid misuse.

Methods: We surveyed patients, newly encountering outpatient physical therapy services in a large University-based healthcare setting, via anonymous, web-based survey. Within the survey, questions were rated on a Likert scale (1 = completely disagree to 7 = completely agree) and we evaluated responses of patients who were prescribed opioids versus those who were not.

Results: Among 839 respondents, the highest mean score was 6.2 (SD = 1.5) for "It is OK for physical therapists to refer their patients with prescription opioid misuse to a specialist to address the opioid misuse." The lowest mean score was 5.6 (SD = 1.9) for "It is OK for physical therapists to ask their patient why they are misusing prescription opioids." Compared to those with no prescription opioid exposure while attending physical therapy, patients with prescription opioid exposure had lower agreement that it was OK for the physical therapist to refer their patients with opioid misuse to a specialist (β = -.33, 95% CI = -0.63 to -0.03).

Conclusions: Patients attending outpatient physical therapy seem to support PTs addressing opioid misuse and there are differences in support based on whether the patients had exposure to opioids.