Substance Abuse: Research and Treatment最新文献

Background: Recreational drug use is common at large-scale dance events such as the Amsterdam Dance Event (ADE) and severe drug-related complications and deaths occur. Increasing concentrations of cocaine, amphetamine and MDMA have been observed in samples from dance events. Therefore, large dance events are expected to cause an increasing amount of recreational drug related complaints (RDRC) and an increased demand on emergency medical services.

Aim: To evaluate the impact of recreational drug related complaints (RDRC) during ADE 2016, compared to regular weeks, and to evaluate the requirement for additional medical personnel.

Methods: For this prospective, observational cohort study, patients >12 years old presenting with RDRC at first aid stations (FAS), ambulance service (AA) and ED during ADE, between October 19th and October 24th 2016 were included. From 2 EDs and AA, the RDRC 2 weeks before and after ADE were also collected.

Results: An estimated 375.000 people attended ADE. The number of patients with RDRC was 459 at the FAS, 113 at AA and 81 at the ED, and increased significantly during ADE with 225% at AA and with 236% at OLVG ED. Eight patients were admitted. A higher percentage of poly-drug use among ED patients (58%) was found, compared to FAS patients (25%). Also, the proportion of tourists in ED's (51%) was higher compared to FAS (30%).

Conclusions: During ADE 2016, the number of intoxicated patients increased significantly. Eight patients were admitted to the hospital, without any deaths. The absolute number of patients stayed within normal range of emergency medical services capacity.

Aims: To describe naloxone dispensing in Medicaid fee-for-service (FFS) and examine relationships between copays and coverage limits for naloxone and its dispensing rates.

Methods: Cross-sectional study using Medicaid FFS State Drug Utilization Data to quantify the use of naloxone in 2018. The primary outcomes of this study were the proportion of naloxone prescriptions relative to all prescriptions and all opioid prescriptions dispensed in each state. We obtained drug benefit design information from the Medicaid Behavioral Health Services Database. The primary analysis examined the influence of copays (yes/no), copay amounts, and coverage limits on medication dispensing using simple linear regression, excluding states with no measurable use or less than 5% Medicaid FFS.

Results: We found substantial variability across 50 states and DC in the proportion of prescriptions dispensed for Narcan and generic naloxone. We found a positive relationship between copay and copay amount and dispensing of generic naloxone. However, a sensitivity analysis including the broadest possible cohort of states failed to confirm this relationship. We found no other relationships between copays or coverage limits and dispensing of any naloxone formulation.

Conclusions: Substantial variation exists between the rates of naloxone dispensing across the US for Medicaid patients, but we did not find a meaningful relationship between plan design and dispensing. Whether drug benefit designs in Medicaid influence naloxone use requires further evaluation to avoid limiting access to this life-saving medication.

Substance use is a persisting health care crisis that has led to residents' addiction to diverse substances in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan. This public health issue affects not only those with a substance use disorder but also those within their circle of family and friends. This paper aims to outline the community engagement processes that we undertook to identify community priorities for addressing the substance use and addiction issues facing them. We began the community engagement using a patient-oriented research process, which led to the development of a grant application. Following the awarding of this grant application by the Saskatchewan Health Research Foundation and Saskatchewan Centre for Patient-Oriented Research, we conducted interviews with family members affected by addiction in the city. The study provided us with significant insight into the impacts of substance use disorders on family members. The importance of collaboration among people with lived experience, health care providers, and community partners helped us to identify our research questions. Community members also actively participated in the data collection, analysis, and presentation of the findings where priorities for the interventions were identified. The conversations we had because of the community's engagement and participation in the research process enhanced our understanding of the realities of caring for people with substance use disorders and the importance of family involvement throughout the process. We also learned lessons regarding community engagement and participation in research on a stigmatizing and complex topic.

Background: Kratom is taken to self-treat pain and symptoms of psychiatric disorders, including substance-use disorders (SUDs) and opioid withdrawal. Before COVID-19, kratom use was increasing in the US, however, there are few published data on whether that trend continued during the COVID-19 pandemic, which could have affected kratom use in multiple ways.

Aim: To examine COVID-19-related changes in kratom use and how these changes were experienced, relative to changes in other commonly used substances.

Methods: Using Amazon Mechanical Turk, 2615 evaluable surveys were completed between September 2020 and March 2021. Responses from past-month and past-year kratom-using adults (N = 174) indicating changes for the better or worse were examined using generalized linear mixed effects models, and relevant open-text responses (n = 85) were thematically coded.

Results: For kratom 33% (n = 58) reported a Covid-related increase and 24% (n = 42) reported a Covid-related decrease. Controlling for changes in amount used, alcohol (OR = 5.02), tobacco (OR = 4.72), and nonmedical opioid use (OR = 3.42) were all more likely to have changed for the worse, compared with kratom use. Relative to decreases in kratom use, decreases in alcohol (OR = 3.21) and tobacco (OR = 6.18) use were more likely to be changes for the better. Cannabis use was the only substance to display a probability lower than 50% of being a decrease for the better, and of the increases, cannabis use displayed the highest probability of being for the better.

Conclusions: Increases in kratom and cannabis use were less likely than alcohol and tobacco to be reported as changes for the worse, and decreases in kratom and cannabis use were more likely than alcohol and tobacco to be reported as changes for the better. These findings indicate that people differently conceptualize their relationships with kratom and cannabis, compared to their relationships with alcohol and tobacco.

Background: Despite the extensive benefits of implementing Medications for Opioid Use Disorder (MOUD) in jail/prison, criminal justice-involved populations face significant challenges when transitioning back to the community following a period of incarceration. These risk factors are associated with increased drug use and discontinuation of evidence-based care. Novel intervention strategies are needed to support this high-risk period of transition. The primary objective of this protocol was to gather perspectives from the target population to optimize feasibility and acceptability of a combined in-person and text message-delivered intervention designed to support community reentry and continuation of MOUD.

Methods: Participants (n = 8), who had prior experience engaging in MOUD while in jail/prison, were recruited from an outpatient primary care clinic in Rhode Island. A semi-structured interview was conducted to assess barriers/facilitators to technology following release, experiences of community reentry and OUD treatment, perceptions of continuum of care, and feasibility/acceptability of the intervention. All interviews were coded independently by 2 research assistants.

Results: Participants reacted positively toward an intervention designed to support the transition to community-based care. Most participants denied any apprehension about using this type of platform. Obtaining a cell phone following release was endorsed as generally viable; however, special consideration must be paid to the consistency of cell phone service as well as digital literacy. Participants readily agreed on the utility of structured, daily text messages that provide motivational reminders and distress tolerance skill suggestions as well as the opportunity to access "on-demand" support.

Conclusion: Overall, individuals engaged in MOUD while in jail/prison were receptive to a motivational- and distress tolerance-based digital health intervention to support recovery. Incorporating thematic results on suggested structural changes may increase the usability of this intervention to promote continuation of MOUD following release from jail/prison.

Objective: This investigation explored the barriers and facilitators to substance use disorder (SUD) treatment in the integrated paradigm.

Methods: A search technique for barriers and facilitators of SUD treatment was applied to the PubMed and Web of Science databases to identify relevant systematic reviews. The eligibility criteria included systematic review (SR) or SR plus meta-analysis (MA) articles published before the end of 2021, human research, and the English language. Each of the 12 relevant review articles met the inclusion criteria. AMSTAR was utilised to evaluate the methodological quality of the systematic reviews.

Results: Two authors analysed 12 SR/SR-MA articles to identify barriers or facilitators of SUD treatment. The cumulative summary results of these 12 evaluations revealed that barriers and facilitators may be classified into 3 levels: individual, social and structural. By analysing these review papers, 37 structural barriers, 21 individual barriers and 19 social barriers were uncovered, along with 15 structural facilitators, 9 social facilitators and 3 individual facilitators.

Conclusions: The majority of barriers indicated in the review articles included in this analysis are structural, as are the majority of facilitators. Consequently, the design of macro models for the treatment of substance use disorders may yield various outcomes and potentially affect society and individual levels.

Objective: Few studies have examined cannabis motives in adults and, although associations between cannabis use and psychiatric conditions are well documented, there has been limited investigation of the intersection of cannabis use, cannabis motives, and psychopathology. In a sample of community adults, the present study examined cannabis motives in relation to cannabis misuse, and investigated whether motives linked cannabis misuse with concurrent psychiatric symptoms.

Method: Participants (N = 395; M _age = 34.8; %F = 47.6; % White = 81.3%) completed assessments related to cannabis misuse, cannabis use motives, and symptoms of depression, anxiety, PTSD, and somatic experiences. Bivariate correlations, hierarchical regressions, and indirect effect analyses were performed to examine associations between motives and cannabis misuse and to investigate mechanistic relationships between psychiatric symptoms and cannabis misuse.

Results: Regressions revealed significant associations between cannabis misuse and social (β = .13, P < .02), enhancement (β = .12, P < .02), and coping motives (β = .48, P < .001). Indirect effects were present such that coping motives consistently linked psychiatric and somatic symptoms with cannabis misuse (anxiety: unstandardized effect = 0.26,and 95% CI = 0.17-0.37; depression: unstandardized effect = 0.12, CI = 0.11-0.25; PTSD: unstandardized effect = 0.07, CI = 0.04-0.10; somatic symptoms: unstandardized effect = 0.20, CI = 0.11-0.30). In addition, enhancement motives exhibited an indirect effect (unstandardized effect = 0.02, CI = 0.002-0.04) between depressive symptoms and cannabis misuse.

Conclusion: These results support a negative reinforcement motivational profile as the predominant pattern in adult cannabis users, albeit with links to enhancement and social motives. This motivational profile is especially pronounced with regard to comorbid psychopathology and cannabis misuse. These results support the importance of treatment strategies targeting maladaptive coping to address cannabis misuse and co-occurring psychopathology.

Background: Comorbidities between Substance Use Disorder (SUD) and mental health disorders are highly prevalent, yet there remains a lack of information regarding how mental health conditions may affect addiction severity. Consequently, this study sought to investigate the relationship between internalizing disorders (anxiety and mood disorders) and addiction severity in patients hospitalized for SUD-related medical complications. Individual difference predictors and history of prior treatment for SUD were also examined.

Methods: Participants (N = 200) were hospitalized patients who consented to receive peer-based recovery support services for their SUD. To be eligible for the study, participants needed to have a SUD diagnosis due to alcohol, opioids, methamphetamine, cocaine, or a combination of these substances (polysubstance use). Participants completed self-report questionnaires regarding demographics, mental health history, prior SUD treatment, and addiction severity (Drug and Alcohol Screening Test; DAST-10) during their hospitalization.

Results: Results showed that patients with Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD) (M = 6.68, SD = 2.97) had greater addiction severity compared to those without GAD (M = 5.41, SD = 3.34), P = .016. Addiction severity results stratified by SUD type showed that the relationship was significant among patients with Alcohol Use Disorder (P = .014), but not among those with other SUD types (Ps > .27). Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) were not linked to addiction severity. Among those with GAD, 81.4% had previously been to treatment compared to only 53.1% of those without GAD, P = .010. The only participant characteristic linked with addiction severity was insurance status.

Conclusions: GAD may represent a risk factor for advanced alcohol addiction trajectories, including greater addiction severity and severe health complications requiring inpatient hospitalization.

Background: Historically, hepatitis C virus (HCV) pretreatment evaluation has required multiple visits, frequently resulting in loss to follow-up and a delayed initiation of treatment. New technologies can accelerate this process. We investigated the feasibility of a single-day evaluation program and its impact on evaluation completion, treatment eligibility awareness, and treatment initiation among people who inject drugs (PWIDs).

Methods: HCV-infected PWID who were unaware if they were eligible for treatment were recruited in a prospective evaluation of an accelerated model of care between 2017 and 2019 and compared to a historical cohort. The patients underwent a medical evaluation, rapid HCV viral load testing, and transient elastography during a single visit, at the end of which they were informed whether they were eligible for treatment. A historical cohort of patients fulfilling the same inclusion criteria and evaluated with the usual standard of care spanning several visits who were examined at the addiction medicine clinic from 2014 to 2016 served as the comparison group.

Results: The accelerated and historical cohorts included 99 and 76 patients, respectively. The cohorts did not differ significantly by age and gender, but more patients in the historical cohort were undergoing opioid agonist therapy, while more patients in the accelerated cohort injected drugs in the last month. An accelerated evaluation resulted in a higher rate of evaluation completion (100% vs 67.1%; P < .001). Among those eligible for treatment, the proportion of those initiating treatment was similar between the groups (51/64 (79.7%) vs. 26/37 (70.3%); P = .28). The delay in the initiation of treatment was shorter in the accelerated cohort than in the historical cohort (69 (IQR: 49-106) days vs. 219 (IQR: 141-416) days; P < .001).

Conclusions: Accelerated evaluation enhanced the awareness of eligibility and reduced the time to initiation among eligible patients.

Trial registration: This study is registered on www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02755402).