Tara Haelle

SAN ANTONIO – A perceived low risk of using methamphetamine and a belief that methamphetamine helps with opioid addiction are both driving increasing levels of concurrent methamphetamine and opioid use in rural Oregon, according to recent qualitative research.

Use of methamphetamine by those who use opioids increased from 19% to 34% between 2011 and 2017, Gillian Leichtling, research manager at HealthInsight Oregon, said at the annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence.

The highest prevalence of simultaneous use is in the western states, where 63% of opioid users also use methamphetamine, she said. Hospitalizations and overdoses related to methamphetamine have likewise increased, particularly in rural communities.

To better understand the motivations and implications of this trend, Ms. Leichtling and her colleagues conducted a survey from March 2018 to April 2019 of adults who had nonmedically used/injected opioids or methamphetamine in the past month. All participants lived in Lane or Douglas counties in southwestern Oregon, where half the land is controlled by the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, and opioid overdose rates surpass that of the state average. Additional 60-minute semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted in summer 2018.

Among the 144 surveyed, 78% had used an opioid in the past month, nearly all of whom (96%) had also used methamphetamine in the past month. The interviewees included adults fairly evenly spread across ages, but most (94%) were white.

The main themes that emerged from the interviews involved the perceived benefits and consequences of those who used both opioids and methamphetamine, and the environmental circumstances that supported methamphetamine use, Ms. Leichtling explained.

Most people interviewed had their first experience with methamphetamine early in life, typically in early or mid-adolescence, she said. Two respondents, for example, first began using at 8 and 12 years old, the former learning from a preteen neighbor.

Methamphetamine’s wide availability and low cost also increased its use. In addition, methamphetamine use carries less stigma than heroin use, participants told the researchers. One person who noted the popularity of methamphetamine added: “You get treated really badly if you’re a heroin addict.”

In addition to less stigma, many of the perceived benefits of methamphetamine use related to opioids: Participants said methamphetamine “relieves opioid withdrawal, helps reduce opioid use, enhances functioning, and combines well with opioids” for a pleasurable effect, Ms. Leichtling said. Some also perceived methamphetamine as a way to reverse opioid overdose.

“I’m getting out of [the buprenorphine] program; they’re titrating me down rapidly, and so I’ve been sick for a week,” one respondent told researchers. “I’ve been doing so much more meth just to try to deflect the pain ... they’re too hard to come down from. It’s just you can’t do it without another drug ... especially if you have a job or responsibilities or kids,” they told researchers.

Another woman said she and her mother were able to come off heroin by using methamphetamine instead, and a yet another said she and her ex-boyfriend used methamphetamine to stop using opioids.

Several respondents also mentioned using methamphetamine to help them go to work, effectively put in long days, and then care for their families when they get home.

The two main drawbacks participants mentioned about methamphetamine were the risk of fentanyl adulteration and being discharged from medication treatment for opioid use disorder.

Ms. Leichtling described three main implications of the findings for interventions in rural areas. One was the need at the community level for greater access to medication-assisted treatment (MAT) of opioid use disorder to reduce the use of methamphetamine to taper opioid use or withdrawal.

Next, clinicians need to provide tailored treatment for the co-use of opioids and methamphetamine, and educate patients on alternatives to being dropped from medication-assisted opioid use disorder treatment. Finally, individual users need education on overdose that addresses the misconceptions and risks related to methamphetamine risk, Ms. Leichtling said.

Since the survey and interviews came only from two rural Oregon counties, the findings might not be generalizable, Ms. Leichtling said, and their study did not explore social determinants of health that might be at work.

The National Institute on Drug Abuse funded the research. The authors had no conflicts of interest.

SAN ANTONIO – A perceived low risk of using methamphetamine and a belief that methamphetamine helps with opioid addiction are both driving increasing levels of concurrent methamphetamine and opioid use in rural Oregon, according to recent qualitative research.

Use of methamphetamine by those who use opioids increased from 19% to 34% between 2011 and 2017, Gillian Leichtling, research manager at HealthInsight Oregon, said at the annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence.

The highest prevalence of simultaneous use is in the western states, where 63% of opioid users also use methamphetamine, she said. Hospitalizations and overdoses related to methamphetamine have likewise increased, particularly in rural communities.

To better understand the motivations and implications of this trend, Ms. Leichtling and her colleagues conducted a survey from March 2018 to April 2019 of adults who had nonmedically used/injected opioids or methamphetamine in the past month. All participants lived in Lane or Douglas counties in southwestern Oregon, where half the land is controlled by the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, and opioid overdose rates surpass that of the state average. Additional 60-minute semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted in summer 2018.

Among the 144 surveyed, 78% had used an opioid in the past month, nearly all of whom (96%) had also used methamphetamine in the past month. The interviewees included adults fairly evenly spread across ages, but most (94%) were white.

The main themes that emerged from the interviews involved the perceived benefits and consequences of those who used both opioids and methamphetamine, and the environmental circumstances that supported methamphetamine use, Ms. Leichtling explained.

Most people interviewed had their first experience with methamphetamine early in life, typically in early or mid-adolescence, she said. Two respondents, for example, first began using at 8 and 12 years old, the former learning from a preteen neighbor.

Methamphetamine’s wide availability and low cost also increased its use. In addition, methamphetamine use carries less stigma than heroin use, participants told the researchers. One person who noted the popularity of methamphetamine added: “You get treated really badly if you’re a heroin addict.”

In addition to less stigma, many of the perceived benefits of methamphetamine use related to opioids: Participants said methamphetamine “relieves opioid withdrawal, helps reduce opioid use, enhances functioning, and combines well with opioids” for a pleasurable effect, Ms. Leichtling said. Some also perceived methamphetamine as a way to reverse opioid overdose.

“I’m getting out of [the buprenorphine] program; they’re titrating me down rapidly, and so I’ve been sick for a week,” one respondent told researchers. “I’ve been doing so much more meth just to try to deflect the pain ... they’re too hard to come down from. It’s just you can’t do it without another drug ... especially if you have a job or responsibilities or kids,” they told researchers.

Another woman said she and her mother were able to come off heroin by using methamphetamine instead, and a yet another said she and her ex-boyfriend used methamphetamine to stop using opioids.

Several respondents also mentioned using methamphetamine to help them go to work, effectively put in long days, and then care for their families when they get home.

The two main drawbacks participants mentioned about methamphetamine were the risk of fentanyl adulteration and being discharged from medication treatment for opioid use disorder.

Ms. Leichtling described three main implications of the findings for interventions in rural areas. One was the need at the community level for greater access to medication-assisted treatment (MAT) of opioid use disorder to reduce the use of methamphetamine to taper opioid use or withdrawal.

Next, clinicians need to provide tailored treatment for the co-use of opioids and methamphetamine, and educate patients on alternatives to being dropped from medication-assisted opioid use disorder treatment. Finally, individual users need education on overdose that addresses the misconceptions and risks related to methamphetamine risk, Ms. Leichtling said.

Since the survey and interviews came only from two rural Oregon counties, the findings might not be generalizable, Ms. Leichtling said, and their study did not explore social determinants of health that might be at work.

The National Institute on Drug Abuse funded the research. The authors had no conflicts of interest.

SAN ANTONIO – A perceived low risk of using methamphetamine and a belief that methamphetamine helps with opioid addiction are both driving increasing levels of concurrent methamphetamine and opioid use in rural Oregon, according to recent qualitative research.

Use of methamphetamine by those who use opioids increased from 19% to 34% between 2011 and 2017, Gillian Leichtling, research manager at HealthInsight Oregon, said at the annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence.

The highest prevalence of simultaneous use is in the western states, where 63% of opioid users also use methamphetamine, she said. Hospitalizations and overdoses related to methamphetamine have likewise increased, particularly in rural communities.

To better understand the motivations and implications of this trend, Ms. Leichtling and her colleagues conducted a survey from March 2018 to April 2019 of adults who had nonmedically used/injected opioids or methamphetamine in the past month. All participants lived in Lane or Douglas counties in southwestern Oregon, where half the land is controlled by the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, and opioid overdose rates surpass that of the state average. Additional 60-minute semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted in summer 2018.

Among the 144 surveyed, 78% had used an opioid in the past month, nearly all of whom (96%) had also used methamphetamine in the past month. The interviewees included adults fairly evenly spread across ages, but most (94%) were white.

The main themes that emerged from the interviews involved the perceived benefits and consequences of those who used both opioids and methamphetamine, and the environmental circumstances that supported methamphetamine use, Ms. Leichtling explained.

Most people interviewed had their first experience with methamphetamine early in life, typically in early or mid-adolescence, she said. Two respondents, for example, first began using at 8 and 12 years old, the former learning from a preteen neighbor.

Methamphetamine’s wide availability and low cost also increased its use. In addition, methamphetamine use carries less stigma than heroin use, participants told the researchers. One person who noted the popularity of methamphetamine added: “You get treated really badly if you’re a heroin addict.”

In addition to less stigma, many of the perceived benefits of methamphetamine use related to opioids: Participants said methamphetamine “relieves opioid withdrawal, helps reduce opioid use, enhances functioning, and combines well with opioids” for a pleasurable effect, Ms. Leichtling said. Some also perceived methamphetamine as a way to reverse opioid overdose.

“I’m getting out of [the buprenorphine] program; they’re titrating me down rapidly, and so I’ve been sick for a week,” one respondent told researchers. “I’ve been doing so much more meth just to try to deflect the pain ... they’re too hard to come down from. It’s just you can’t do it without another drug ... especially if you have a job or responsibilities or kids,” they told researchers.

Another woman said she and her mother were able to come off heroin by using methamphetamine instead, and a yet another said she and her ex-boyfriend used methamphetamine to stop using opioids.

Several respondents also mentioned using methamphetamine to help them go to work, effectively put in long days, and then care for their families when they get home.

The two main drawbacks participants mentioned about methamphetamine were the risk of fentanyl adulteration and being discharged from medication treatment for opioid use disorder.

Ms. Leichtling described three main implications of the findings for interventions in rural areas. One was the need at the community level for greater access to medication-assisted treatment (MAT) of opioid use disorder to reduce the use of methamphetamine to taper opioid use or withdrawal.

Next, clinicians need to provide tailored treatment for the co-use of opioids and methamphetamine, and educate patients on alternatives to being dropped from medication-assisted opioid use disorder treatment. Finally, individual users need education on overdose that addresses the misconceptions and risks related to methamphetamine risk, Ms. Leichtling said.

Since the survey and interviews came only from two rural Oregon counties, the findings might not be generalizable, Ms. Leichtling said, and their study did not explore social determinants of health that might be at work.

The National Institute on Drug Abuse funded the research. The authors had no conflicts of interest.

SAN ANTONIO – Interventions aimed at educating parents about proper disposal methods for leftover prescription opioids and on explaining the risks of retaining opioids can increase the likelihood that parents will dispose of opioids when their children no longer need them, according to new research.

“Cost-effective disposal methods can nudge parents to dispose of their child’s leftover opioids promptly after use, but risk messaging is needed to best affect both early disposal and planned retention,” concluded Terri Voepel-Lewis, PhD, RN, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues.

“Such strategies can effectively reduce the presence of risky leftover medications in the home and decrease the risks posed to children and adolescents,” they wrote in a research poster at the annual meeting of College on Problems of Drug Dependence.

The researchers recruited 517 parents of children prescribed a short course of opioids, excluding children with chronic pain or the inability to report their pain.

The 255 parents randomly assigned to the nudge group received visual instructions on how to properly dispose of drugs while the 262 parents in the control group did not receive information on a disposal method. The groups were otherwise similar in terms of parent education, race/ethnicity, the child’s age and past opioid use, the parents’ past opioid use or misuse, whether opioids were kept in the home and whether the child’s procedure had been orthopedic/sports medicine–related.

Parents also were randomly assigned to routine care or to a Scenario-Tailored Opioid Messaging Program (STOMP). The STOMP group received tailored opioid risk information.

After a baseline survey on the child’s past pain, opioid use, misuse of opioids and risk perceptions, parents completed follow-up surveys at 7 and 14 days on opioid use, child pain, and behaviors related to retaining or disposing of opioids.

Just over a third of parents in the nudge group (34.7%) disposed of leftover opioids immediately after use, compared with 24% in the control group (odds ratio, 1.68; P = .01). Parents with the highest rate of disposal were those in the nudge group who participated in STOMP; they were more than twice as likely to dispose of opioids immediately after they were no longer needed (OR, 2.55; compared with control/non-STOMP).

A higher likelihood of disposal for parents in the nudge group alone, however, barely missed significance (OR, 1.77; P = .06) before adjustment. Parents’ intention to dispose of opioids was significantly different only among those who received STOMP education.

After the researchers controlled for child and parent factors, actual early disposal was significantly more likely in both the nudge and STOMP groups.

“Parental past opioid behaviors (kept an opioid in the home and past misuse) as well as orthopedic/sports medicine procedure were strongly associated with parents’ intention to retain [opioids],” the authors reported.

The study results revealed a divergence in parents’ intentions versus their behavior for one of the intervention groups.

“The nudge intervention improved parents’ prompt disposal of leftover prescription opioids but had no effect on planned retention rates,” the researchers reported. “In contrast, STOMP education had significant effects on early disposal behavior and planned retention. These findings suggest that clear and blunt messaging about the risks that opioids pose to household members is needed to reduce the presence of leftover opioids in the home.”

Additional findings regarding parents’ past behaviors suggested that those who have kept leftover opioids or previously misused them may see the risks of doing so as low, the authors noted.

“Importantly, parents’ past prescription opioid retention behavior doubled the risk for planned retention, and their past opioid misuse more than tripled the risk,” the researchers wrote. “Assessing parents’ past behaviors and enhancing their perceptions of the real risks posed to children are important targets for risk reduction.”

The National Institute on Drug Addiction funded the research. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.

SAN ANTONIO – Interventions aimed at educating parents about proper disposal methods for leftover prescription opioids and on explaining the risks of retaining opioids can increase the likelihood that parents will dispose of opioids when their children no longer need them, according to new research.

“Cost-effective disposal methods can nudge parents to dispose of their child’s leftover opioids promptly after use, but risk messaging is needed to best affect both early disposal and planned retention,” concluded Terri Voepel-Lewis, PhD, RN, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues.

“Such strategies can effectively reduce the presence of risky leftover medications in the home and decrease the risks posed to children and adolescents,” they wrote in a research poster at the annual meeting of College on Problems of Drug Dependence.

The researchers recruited 517 parents of children prescribed a short course of opioids, excluding children with chronic pain or the inability to report their pain.

The 255 parents randomly assigned to the nudge group received visual instructions on how to properly dispose of drugs while the 262 parents in the control group did not receive information on a disposal method. The groups were otherwise similar in terms of parent education, race/ethnicity, the child’s age and past opioid use, the parents’ past opioid use or misuse, whether opioids were kept in the home and whether the child’s procedure had been orthopedic/sports medicine–related.

Parents also were randomly assigned to routine care or to a Scenario-Tailored Opioid Messaging Program (STOMP). The STOMP group received tailored opioid risk information.

After a baseline survey on the child’s past pain, opioid use, misuse of opioids and risk perceptions, parents completed follow-up surveys at 7 and 14 days on opioid use, child pain, and behaviors related to retaining or disposing of opioids.

Just over a third of parents in the nudge group (34.7%) disposed of leftover opioids immediately after use, compared with 24% in the control group (odds ratio, 1.68; P = .01). Parents with the highest rate of disposal were those in the nudge group who participated in STOMP; they were more than twice as likely to dispose of opioids immediately after they were no longer needed (OR, 2.55; compared with control/non-STOMP).

A higher likelihood of disposal for parents in the nudge group alone, however, barely missed significance (OR, 1.77; P = .06) before adjustment. Parents’ intention to dispose of opioids was significantly different only among those who received STOMP education.

After the researchers controlled for child and parent factors, actual early disposal was significantly more likely in both the nudge and STOMP groups.

“Parental past opioid behaviors (kept an opioid in the home and past misuse) as well as orthopedic/sports medicine procedure were strongly associated with parents’ intention to retain [opioids],” the authors reported.

The study results revealed a divergence in parents’ intentions versus their behavior for one of the intervention groups.

“The nudge intervention improved parents’ prompt disposal of leftover prescription opioids but had no effect on planned retention rates,” the researchers reported. “In contrast, STOMP education had significant effects on early disposal behavior and planned retention. These findings suggest that clear and blunt messaging about the risks that opioids pose to household members is needed to reduce the presence of leftover opioids in the home.”

Additional findings regarding parents’ past behaviors suggested that those who have kept leftover opioids or previously misused them may see the risks of doing so as low, the authors noted.

“Importantly, parents’ past prescription opioid retention behavior doubled the risk for planned retention, and their past opioid misuse more than tripled the risk,” the researchers wrote. “Assessing parents’ past behaviors and enhancing their perceptions of the real risks posed to children are important targets for risk reduction.”

The National Institute on Drug Addiction funded the research. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.

SAN ANTONIO – Interventions aimed at educating parents about proper disposal methods for leftover prescription opioids and on explaining the risks of retaining opioids can increase the likelihood that parents will dispose of opioids when their children no longer need them, according to new research.

“Cost-effective disposal methods can nudge parents to dispose of their child’s leftover opioids promptly after use, but risk messaging is needed to best affect both early disposal and planned retention,” concluded Terri Voepel-Lewis, PhD, RN, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues.

“Such strategies can effectively reduce the presence of risky leftover medications in the home and decrease the risks posed to children and adolescents,” they wrote in a research poster at the annual meeting of College on Problems of Drug Dependence.

The researchers recruited 517 parents of children prescribed a short course of opioids, excluding children with chronic pain or the inability to report their pain.

The 255 parents randomly assigned to the nudge group received visual instructions on how to properly dispose of drugs while the 262 parents in the control group did not receive information on a disposal method. The groups were otherwise similar in terms of parent education, race/ethnicity, the child’s age and past opioid use, the parents’ past opioid use or misuse, whether opioids were kept in the home and whether the child’s procedure had been orthopedic/sports medicine–related.

Parents also were randomly assigned to routine care or to a Scenario-Tailored Opioid Messaging Program (STOMP). The STOMP group received tailored opioid risk information.

After a baseline survey on the child’s past pain, opioid use, misuse of opioids and risk perceptions, parents completed follow-up surveys at 7 and 14 days on opioid use, child pain, and behaviors related to retaining or disposing of opioids.

Just over a third of parents in the nudge group (34.7%) disposed of leftover opioids immediately after use, compared with 24% in the control group (odds ratio, 1.68; P = .01). Parents with the highest rate of disposal were those in the nudge group who participated in STOMP; they were more than twice as likely to dispose of opioids immediately after they were no longer needed (OR, 2.55; compared with control/non-STOMP).

A higher likelihood of disposal for parents in the nudge group alone, however, barely missed significance (OR, 1.77; P = .06) before adjustment. Parents’ intention to dispose of opioids was significantly different only among those who received STOMP education.

After the researchers controlled for child and parent factors, actual early disposal was significantly more likely in both the nudge and STOMP groups.

“Parental past opioid behaviors (kept an opioid in the home and past misuse) as well as orthopedic/sports medicine procedure were strongly associated with parents’ intention to retain [opioids],” the authors reported.

The study results revealed a divergence in parents’ intentions versus their behavior for one of the intervention groups.

“The nudge intervention improved parents’ prompt disposal of leftover prescription opioids but had no effect on planned retention rates,” the researchers reported. “In contrast, STOMP education had significant effects on early disposal behavior and planned retention. These findings suggest that clear and blunt messaging about the risks that opioids pose to household members is needed to reduce the presence of leftover opioids in the home.”

Additional findings regarding parents’ past behaviors suggested that those who have kept leftover opioids or previously misused them may see the risks of doing so as low, the authors noted.

“Importantly, parents’ past prescription opioid retention behavior doubled the risk for planned retention, and their past opioid misuse more than tripled the risk,” the researchers wrote. “Assessing parents’ past behaviors and enhancing their perceptions of the real risks posed to children are important targets for risk reduction.”

The National Institute on Drug Addiction funded the research. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.

SAN ANTONIO – Of 196 U.S. youth who reported use of at least one prescribed stimulant in their lifetimes, 25% also said they used the drugs nonmedically, based on a survey of children and adolescents aged 10-17 years.

Another 5% of the youth surveyed reported exclusively nonmedical use of stimulants. The survey participants lived in six U.S. cities and their outlying areas.

“Parents of both users and nonusers should warn their children of the dangers of using others’ stimulants and giving their own stimulants to others,” concluded Linda B. Cottler, PhD, MPH of the University of Florida, and colleagues.

“Physicians and pharmacists should make users and their families aware of the need to take medications as prescribed and not to share medications with others,” they wrote in their research poster at the annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence. “Continuous monitoring of these medications in the community should be a priority.”

Though prevalence research has shown increasing stimulant misuse among youth, little data exist for younger children, the researchers noted. They therefore conducted a survey of 1,777 youth aged 10-17 years from September to October 2018 in six cities in California, Texas, and Florida, the most populous U.S. states.

The participants included youth from urban, rural, and suburban areas of Los Angeles, Dallas, Houston, Tampa, Orlando, and Miami. Trained graduate students and professional raters approached the respondents in entertainment venues and obtained assent but did not require parental consent. The respondents received $30 for completing the survey.

A total of 11.1% of respondents reporting having used prescription stimulants in their lifetime, and 7.6% had done so in the past 30 days. Just under a third of those who used stimulants (30.1%) did so for nonmedical purposes, defined as taking the stimulant nonorally (except for the patch Daytrana), getting the stimulant from someone else, or taking more of the drug than prescribed.

A quarter of the respondents who used stimulants reported both medical use and nonmedical use. And 5.1% of these youths reported only using stimulants nonmedically.

Among those with any lifetime stimulant use, 13.8% reported nonoral administration, including 9.7% who snorted or sniffed the drugs, 4.1% who smoked them, and 1.0% who injected them. Just over half (51.8%) of those reporting nonoral use had also used prescription stimulants orally.

The likelihood of using stimulants nonmedically increased with age (P less than .0001). The researchers found no significant associations between nonmedical use and geography or race/ethnicity. Among 10- to 12-year-olds, 3.1% reported only medical use of stimulants, and 0.7% (2 of 286 respondents in this age group) reported any nonmedical use of stimulants.

Of those aged 13-15 years, 2.1% reported any nonmedical stimulant use.

Nonmedical stimulant use was reported by twice as many boys (67.8%) as girls (32.2%), though this finding may not be surprising as the majority of nonmedical users were also medical users and stimulants are prescribed more frequently to boys than to girls (P less than .0006).

The research was funded by Arbor Pharmaceuticals. The authors noted no conflicts of interest.

SAN ANTONIO – Of 196 U.S. youth who reported use of at least one prescribed stimulant in their lifetimes, 25% also said they used the drugs nonmedically, based on a survey of children and adolescents aged 10-17 years.

Another 5% of the youth surveyed reported exclusively nonmedical use of stimulants. The survey participants lived in six U.S. cities and their outlying areas.

“Parents of both users and nonusers should warn their children of the dangers of using others’ stimulants and giving their own stimulants to others,” concluded Linda B. Cottler, PhD, MPH of the University of Florida, and colleagues.

“Physicians and pharmacists should make users and their families aware of the need to take medications as prescribed and not to share medications with others,” they wrote in their research poster at the annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence. “Continuous monitoring of these medications in the community should be a priority.”

Though prevalence research has shown increasing stimulant misuse among youth, little data exist for younger children, the researchers noted. They therefore conducted a survey of 1,777 youth aged 10-17 years from September to October 2018 in six cities in California, Texas, and Florida, the most populous U.S. states.

The participants included youth from urban, rural, and suburban areas of Los Angeles, Dallas, Houston, Tampa, Orlando, and Miami. Trained graduate students and professional raters approached the respondents in entertainment venues and obtained assent but did not require parental consent. The respondents received $30 for completing the survey.

A total of 11.1% of respondents reporting having used prescription stimulants in their lifetime, and 7.6% had done so in the past 30 days. Just under a third of those who used stimulants (30.1%) did so for nonmedical purposes, defined as taking the stimulant nonorally (except for the patch Daytrana), getting the stimulant from someone else, or taking more of the drug than prescribed.

A quarter of the respondents who used stimulants reported both medical use and nonmedical use. And 5.1% of these youths reported only using stimulants nonmedically.

Among those with any lifetime stimulant use, 13.8% reported nonoral administration, including 9.7% who snorted or sniffed the drugs, 4.1% who smoked them, and 1.0% who injected them. Just over half (51.8%) of those reporting nonoral use had also used prescription stimulants orally.

The likelihood of using stimulants nonmedically increased with age (P less than .0001). The researchers found no significant associations between nonmedical use and geography or race/ethnicity. Among 10- to 12-year-olds, 3.1% reported only medical use of stimulants, and 0.7% (2 of 286 respondents in this age group) reported any nonmedical use of stimulants.

Of those aged 13-15 years, 2.1% reported any nonmedical stimulant use.

Nonmedical stimulant use was reported by twice as many boys (67.8%) as girls (32.2%), though this finding may not be surprising as the majority of nonmedical users were also medical users and stimulants are prescribed more frequently to boys than to girls (P less than .0006).

The research was funded by Arbor Pharmaceuticals. The authors noted no conflicts of interest.

SAN ANTONIO – Of 196 U.S. youth who reported use of at least one prescribed stimulant in their lifetimes, 25% also said they used the drugs nonmedically, based on a survey of children and adolescents aged 10-17 years.

Another 5% of the youth surveyed reported exclusively nonmedical use of stimulants. The survey participants lived in six U.S. cities and their outlying areas.

“Parents of both users and nonusers should warn their children of the dangers of using others’ stimulants and giving their own stimulants to others,” concluded Linda B. Cottler, PhD, MPH of the University of Florida, and colleagues.

“Physicians and pharmacists should make users and their families aware of the need to take medications as prescribed and not to share medications with others,” they wrote in their research poster at the annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence. “Continuous monitoring of these medications in the community should be a priority.”

Though prevalence research has shown increasing stimulant misuse among youth, little data exist for younger children, the researchers noted. They therefore conducted a survey of 1,777 youth aged 10-17 years from September to October 2018 in six cities in California, Texas, and Florida, the most populous U.S. states.

The participants included youth from urban, rural, and suburban areas of Los Angeles, Dallas, Houston, Tampa, Orlando, and Miami. Trained graduate students and professional raters approached the respondents in entertainment venues and obtained assent but did not require parental consent. The respondents received $30 for completing the survey.

A total of 11.1% of respondents reporting having used prescription stimulants in their lifetime, and 7.6% had done so in the past 30 days. Just under a third of those who used stimulants (30.1%) did so for nonmedical purposes, defined as taking the stimulant nonorally (except for the patch Daytrana), getting the stimulant from someone else, or taking more of the drug than prescribed.

A quarter of the respondents who used stimulants reported both medical use and nonmedical use. And 5.1% of these youths reported only using stimulants nonmedically.

Among those with any lifetime stimulant use, 13.8% reported nonoral administration, including 9.7% who snorted or sniffed the drugs, 4.1% who smoked them, and 1.0% who injected them. Just over half (51.8%) of those reporting nonoral use had also used prescription stimulants orally.

The likelihood of using stimulants nonmedically increased with age (P less than .0001). The researchers found no significant associations between nonmedical use and geography or race/ethnicity. Among 10- to 12-year-olds, 3.1% reported only medical use of stimulants, and 0.7% (2 of 286 respondents in this age group) reported any nonmedical use of stimulants.

Of those aged 13-15 years, 2.1% reported any nonmedical stimulant use.

Nonmedical stimulant use was reported by twice as many boys (67.8%) as girls (32.2%), though this finding may not be surprising as the majority of nonmedical users were also medical users and stimulants are prescribed more frequently to boys than to girls (P less than .0006).

The research was funded by Arbor Pharmaceuticals. The authors noted no conflicts of interest.

SAN ANTONIO – Episodic migraine patients benefit from mindfulness-based stress reduction training, according to new research. The intervention reduced headache frequency, slightly increased whole-brain gray matter volume, and reduced symptoms of anxiety, depression, and stress.

stockdevil/Thinkstock

The gray matter findings may indicate opportunities for therapeutic targets, while the psychosocial findings are important in understanding migraine burden, treatment response, and personalized medicine opportunities, Shana Burrowes, PhD, a postdoctoral associate at Boston University, said at the annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence.

In a session focused on exploring alternatives to opioids for pain treatment, Dr. Burrowes described interim results of a randomized, controlled trial testing the effectiveness of mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) training for managing migraine.

In discussing the rationale for study endpoints, she explained a three-pronged model for understanding migraine. Those elements include the symptoms themselves – unilateral throbbing pain, nausea, and photophobia – and the psychosocial symptoms and comorbidities, including anxiety, depression, stress, and catastrophizing. Up to 30%* of migraine patients have comorbid depression.

Those two prongs have a bidirectional relationship, since each increases the risk of the other. For example, frequent migraine can leave people feeling anxious about when their next migraine will occur, and that anxiety can increase the risk of it occurring.

Both elements lead to the third prong, which is change in gray matter volume. “If you’re a patient with migraine, an MRI on your brain is going to look different from somebody who does not have migraine,” Dr. Burrowes said. “With all these things going on in a patient, a migraine patient is actually pretty difficult to treat.”

Therefore, the researchers focused on outcomes from each of these three domains: gray matter volume in MRI; headache frequency as a clinical outcome; and the psychosocial comorbidities of anxiety, stress, and depression.

Study participants included 98 patients with episodic migraine, defined as fewer than 15 headache days a month, and 27 controls* matched by demographics to the patients and without any chronic pain conditions. The groups were 92% female and had similar ratios of whites (75% and 77%) and college graduates (95% and 96%).

Only the patients were randomized to the two interventions, one a training on MBSR and the other focusing on stress management for headache (SMH).

The MBSR training involved group sessions, eight 2.5-hour meditation sessions, at-home practice, a half-day retreat, and then an additional four biweekly sessions. The mindfulness training specifically focused on intentionally paying attention in the moment without judgment. The SMH arm focused on education for managing headache symptoms, stress, sleep hygiene, and diet, but it did not involve any specific skills training, such as relaxation training.

All participants, including healthy controls, underwent clinical assessment and baseline MRI and psychosocial questionnaires, followed by MRI and psychosocial questionnaire follow-ups at 3 and 6 months. MRI imaging focused on the whole brain and on the bilateral insula, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, and superior frontal gyrus. Patients also kept headache diaries throughout the trial.

Both intervention groups showed an increase in gray matter volume over 6 months, compared with healthy controls: 1.3% in the whole brain for SMH participants and 1.01% in the MBSR patients, compared with –1.37% in healthy participants. In the right superior frontal gyrus, gray matter volume also increased 2.62% in SMH participants and 1.25% in MBSR patients but decreased 0.19% in healthy participants.

Dr. Burrowes said she could not share specific findings on headache frequency and psychosocial outcomes because her team’s research is currently under review. Overall, however, headache frequency declined more than 50% post intervention, and 39% of migraine patients responded to the therapy.

In addition, anxiety, stress, and depression symptoms all saw improvements from MBSR and slightly but significantly mediated the effect of MBSR on migraine reduction.

Dr. Burrowes reported having no disclosures.

*The story was updated 6/20/2019.

SAN ANTONIO – Episodic migraine patients benefit from mindfulness-based stress reduction training, according to new research. The intervention reduced headache frequency, slightly increased whole-brain gray matter volume, and reduced symptoms of anxiety, depression, and stress.

stockdevil/Thinkstock

The gray matter findings may indicate opportunities for therapeutic targets, while the psychosocial findings are important in understanding migraine burden, treatment response, and personalized medicine opportunities, Shana Burrowes, PhD, a postdoctoral associate at Boston University, said at the annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence.

In a session focused on exploring alternatives to opioids for pain treatment, Dr. Burrowes described interim results of a randomized, controlled trial testing the effectiveness of mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) training for managing migraine.

In discussing the rationale for study endpoints, she explained a three-pronged model for understanding migraine. Those elements include the symptoms themselves – unilateral throbbing pain, nausea, and photophobia – and the psychosocial symptoms and comorbidities, including anxiety, depression, stress, and catastrophizing. Up to 30%* of migraine patients have comorbid depression.

Those two prongs have a bidirectional relationship, since each increases the risk of the other. For example, frequent migraine can leave people feeling anxious about when their next migraine will occur, and that anxiety can increase the risk of it occurring.

Both elements lead to the third prong, which is change in gray matter volume. “If you’re a patient with migraine, an MRI on your brain is going to look different from somebody who does not have migraine,” Dr. Burrowes said. “With all these things going on in a patient, a migraine patient is actually pretty difficult to treat.”

Therefore, the researchers focused on outcomes from each of these three domains: gray matter volume in MRI; headache frequency as a clinical outcome; and the psychosocial comorbidities of anxiety, stress, and depression.

Study participants included 98 patients with episodic migraine, defined as fewer than 15 headache days a month, and 27 controls* matched by demographics to the patients and without any chronic pain conditions. The groups were 92% female and had similar ratios of whites (75% and 77%) and college graduates (95% and 96%).

Only the patients were randomized to the two interventions, one a training on MBSR and the other focusing on stress management for headache (SMH).

The MBSR training involved group sessions, eight 2.5-hour meditation sessions, at-home practice, a half-day retreat, and then an additional four biweekly sessions. The mindfulness training specifically focused on intentionally paying attention in the moment without judgment. The SMH arm focused on education for managing headache symptoms, stress, sleep hygiene, and diet, but it did not involve any specific skills training, such as relaxation training.

All participants, including healthy controls, underwent clinical assessment and baseline MRI and psychosocial questionnaires, followed by MRI and psychosocial questionnaire follow-ups at 3 and 6 months. MRI imaging focused on the whole brain and on the bilateral insula, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, and superior frontal gyrus. Patients also kept headache diaries throughout the trial.

Both intervention groups showed an increase in gray matter volume over 6 months, compared with healthy controls: 1.3% in the whole brain for SMH participants and 1.01% in the MBSR patients, compared with –1.37% in healthy participants. In the right superior frontal gyrus, gray matter volume also increased 2.62% in SMH participants and 1.25% in MBSR patients but decreased 0.19% in healthy participants.

Dr. Burrowes said she could not share specific findings on headache frequency and psychosocial outcomes because her team’s research is currently under review. Overall, however, headache frequency declined more than 50% post intervention, and 39% of migraine patients responded to the therapy.

In addition, anxiety, stress, and depression symptoms all saw improvements from MBSR and slightly but significantly mediated the effect of MBSR on migraine reduction.

Dr. Burrowes reported having no disclosures.

*The story was updated 6/20/2019.

SAN ANTONIO – Episodic migraine patients benefit from mindfulness-based stress reduction training, according to new research. The intervention reduced headache frequency, slightly increased whole-brain gray matter volume, and reduced symptoms of anxiety, depression, and stress.

stockdevil/Thinkstock

The gray matter findings may indicate opportunities for therapeutic targets, while the psychosocial findings are important in understanding migraine burden, treatment response, and personalized medicine opportunities, Shana Burrowes, PhD, a postdoctoral associate at Boston University, said at the annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence.

In a session focused on exploring alternatives to opioids for pain treatment, Dr. Burrowes described interim results of a randomized, controlled trial testing the effectiveness of mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) training for managing migraine.

In discussing the rationale for study endpoints, she explained a three-pronged model for understanding migraine. Those elements include the symptoms themselves – unilateral throbbing pain, nausea, and photophobia – and the psychosocial symptoms and comorbidities, including anxiety, depression, stress, and catastrophizing. Up to 30%* of migraine patients have comorbid depression.

Those two prongs have a bidirectional relationship, since each increases the risk of the other. For example, frequent migraine can leave people feeling anxious about when their next migraine will occur, and that anxiety can increase the risk of it occurring.

Both elements lead to the third prong, which is change in gray matter volume. “If you’re a patient with migraine, an MRI on your brain is going to look different from somebody who does not have migraine,” Dr. Burrowes said. “With all these things going on in a patient, a migraine patient is actually pretty difficult to treat.”

Therefore, the researchers focused on outcomes from each of these three domains: gray matter volume in MRI; headache frequency as a clinical outcome; and the psychosocial comorbidities of anxiety, stress, and depression.

Study participants included 98 patients with episodic migraine, defined as fewer than 15 headache days a month, and 27 controls* matched by demographics to the patients and without any chronic pain conditions. The groups were 92% female and had similar ratios of whites (75% and 77%) and college graduates (95% and 96%).

Only the patients were randomized to the two interventions, one a training on MBSR and the other focusing on stress management for headache (SMH).

The MBSR training involved group sessions, eight 2.5-hour meditation sessions, at-home practice, a half-day retreat, and then an additional four biweekly sessions. The mindfulness training specifically focused on intentionally paying attention in the moment without judgment. The SMH arm focused on education for managing headache symptoms, stress, sleep hygiene, and diet, but it did not involve any specific skills training, such as relaxation training.

All participants, including healthy controls, underwent clinical assessment and baseline MRI and psychosocial questionnaires, followed by MRI and psychosocial questionnaire follow-ups at 3 and 6 months. MRI imaging focused on the whole brain and on the bilateral insula, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, and superior frontal gyrus. Patients also kept headache diaries throughout the trial.

Both intervention groups showed an increase in gray matter volume over 6 months, compared with healthy controls: 1.3% in the whole brain for SMH participants and 1.01% in the MBSR patients, compared with –1.37% in healthy participants. In the right superior frontal gyrus, gray matter volume also increased 2.62% in SMH participants and 1.25% in MBSR patients but decreased 0.19% in healthy participants.

Dr. Burrowes said she could not share specific findings on headache frequency and psychosocial outcomes because her team’s research is currently under review. Overall, however, headache frequency declined more than 50% post intervention, and 39% of migraine patients responded to the therapy.

In addition, anxiety, stress, and depression symptoms all saw improvements from MBSR and slightly but significantly mediated the effect of MBSR on migraine reduction.

Dr. Burrowes reported having no disclosures.

*The story was updated 6/20/2019.

SAN ANTONIO – People who smoke and have opioid use disorder have a lower likelihood of drug use several months after initiating smoking cessation treatment if they are treated with nicotine replacement therapy rather than varenicline, new research suggests.

“Differences were not due to the pretreatment differences in drug use, which were covaried,” wrote Damaris J. Rohsenow, PhD, and colleagues at Brown University’s Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies, Providence, R.I. “Results suggest it may be preferable to offer smokers with opioid use disorder [nicotine replacement therapy] rather than varenicline, given their lower adherence and more illicit drug use days during follow-up when given varenicline compared to [nicotine replacement therapy].”

They shared their research poster at the annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence.

About 80%-90% of patients with OUD smoke, and those patients have a particularly difficult time with smoking cessation partly because of nonadherence to cessation medications, the authors noted. Smoking increases the risk of relapse from any substance use disorder, and pain – frequently comorbid with smoking – contributes to opioid use, they added.

Though smoking treatment has been shown not to increase drug or alcohol use, varenicline and nicotine replacement therapy have different effects on a4b2 nicotinic acetylcholinergic receptors (nAChRs). The authors noted that nicotine offers greater pain inhibition via full agonist effects across multiple nAChRs, whereas varenicline has only a partial agonist effect on a single nAChR.

“Smokers may receive more rewarding dopamine effects from the full nicotine agonist,” they wrote. The researchers therefore aimed to compare responses to nicotine replacement therapy and varenicline among smokers with and without OUD.

Ninety patients without OUD and 47 patients with it were randomly assigned to receive transdermal nicotine replacement therapy with placebo capsules or varenicline capsules with a placebo patch for 12 weeks with 3- and 6-month follow-ups. At baseline, those with OUD were significantly more likely to be white and slightly younger and have twice as many drug use days than those without the disorder.

Differences also existed between those with and without OUD for comorbid alcohol use disorder (55% vs. 81%), marijuana use disorder (32% vs. 19%) and cocaine use disorder (70% vs. 55%).

Those without OUD had slightly greater medication adherence, but with only borderline significance just among those taking varenicline. Loss to follow-up, meanwhile, was significantly greater for those with OUD in both treatment groups.

Most striking was the significantly higher number of drug use days among those with OUD who took varenicline vs. all other groups. Those patients had 16.5 drug use days at 4-6 months’ follow-up, compared with 0.13 days among those with OUD using nicotine replacement therapy (P less than .026). Among those without OUD, nicotine replacement therapy patients had 5 drug use days, and varenicline patients had 2.5 drug use days.

“Given interactions between nicotine and the opioid system and given that [nicotine replacement therapy] binds to more types of nAChRs than varenicline does, it is possible that [nicotine replacement therapy] dampens desire to use opiates compared to varenicline by stimulating more nAChRs,” the authors wrote. “Increasing nicotine dose may be better for smokers with opioid use disorder,” they added, though they noted the small size of the study and the need for replication with larger populations.

The research was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the Department of Veterans Affairs. The authors reported no disclosures.

SAN ANTONIO – People who smoke and have opioid use disorder have a lower likelihood of drug use several months after initiating smoking cessation treatment if they are treated with nicotine replacement therapy rather than varenicline, new research suggests.

“Differences were not due to the pretreatment differences in drug use, which were covaried,” wrote Damaris J. Rohsenow, PhD, and colleagues at Brown University’s Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies, Providence, R.I. “Results suggest it may be preferable to offer smokers with opioid use disorder [nicotine replacement therapy] rather than varenicline, given their lower adherence and more illicit drug use days during follow-up when given varenicline compared to [nicotine replacement therapy].”

They shared their research poster at the annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence.

About 80%-90% of patients with OUD smoke, and those patients have a particularly difficult time with smoking cessation partly because of nonadherence to cessation medications, the authors noted. Smoking increases the risk of relapse from any substance use disorder, and pain – frequently comorbid with smoking – contributes to opioid use, they added.

Though smoking treatment has been shown not to increase drug or alcohol use, varenicline and nicotine replacement therapy have different effects on a4b2 nicotinic acetylcholinergic receptors (nAChRs). The authors noted that nicotine offers greater pain inhibition via full agonist effects across multiple nAChRs, whereas varenicline has only a partial agonist effect on a single nAChR.

“Smokers may receive more rewarding dopamine effects from the full nicotine agonist,” they wrote. The researchers therefore aimed to compare responses to nicotine replacement therapy and varenicline among smokers with and without OUD.

Ninety patients without OUD and 47 patients with it were randomly assigned to receive transdermal nicotine replacement therapy with placebo capsules or varenicline capsules with a placebo patch for 12 weeks with 3- and 6-month follow-ups. At baseline, those with OUD were significantly more likely to be white and slightly younger and have twice as many drug use days than those without the disorder.

Differences also existed between those with and without OUD for comorbid alcohol use disorder (55% vs. 81%), marijuana use disorder (32% vs. 19%) and cocaine use disorder (70% vs. 55%).

Those without OUD had slightly greater medication adherence, but with only borderline significance just among those taking varenicline. Loss to follow-up, meanwhile, was significantly greater for those with OUD in both treatment groups.

Most striking was the significantly higher number of drug use days among those with OUD who took varenicline vs. all other groups. Those patients had 16.5 drug use days at 4-6 months’ follow-up, compared with 0.13 days among those with OUD using nicotine replacement therapy (P less than .026). Among those without OUD, nicotine replacement therapy patients had 5 drug use days, and varenicline patients had 2.5 drug use days.

“Given interactions between nicotine and the opioid system and given that [nicotine replacement therapy] binds to more types of nAChRs than varenicline does, it is possible that [nicotine replacement therapy] dampens desire to use opiates compared to varenicline by stimulating more nAChRs,” the authors wrote. “Increasing nicotine dose may be better for smokers with opioid use disorder,” they added, though they noted the small size of the study and the need for replication with larger populations.

The research was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the Department of Veterans Affairs. The authors reported no disclosures.

SAN ANTONIO – People who smoke and have opioid use disorder have a lower likelihood of drug use several months after initiating smoking cessation treatment if they are treated with nicotine replacement therapy rather than varenicline, new research suggests.

“Differences were not due to the pretreatment differences in drug use, which were covaried,” wrote Damaris J. Rohsenow, PhD, and colleagues at Brown University’s Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies, Providence, R.I. “Results suggest it may be preferable to offer smokers with opioid use disorder [nicotine replacement therapy] rather than varenicline, given their lower adherence and more illicit drug use days during follow-up when given varenicline compared to [nicotine replacement therapy].”

They shared their research poster at the annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence.

About 80%-90% of patients with OUD smoke, and those patients have a particularly difficult time with smoking cessation partly because of nonadherence to cessation medications, the authors noted. Smoking increases the risk of relapse from any substance use disorder, and pain – frequently comorbid with smoking – contributes to opioid use, they added.

Though smoking treatment has been shown not to increase drug or alcohol use, varenicline and nicotine replacement therapy have different effects on a4b2 nicotinic acetylcholinergic receptors (nAChRs). The authors noted that nicotine offers greater pain inhibition via full agonist effects across multiple nAChRs, whereas varenicline has only a partial agonist effect on a single nAChR.

“Smokers may receive more rewarding dopamine effects from the full nicotine agonist,” they wrote. The researchers therefore aimed to compare responses to nicotine replacement therapy and varenicline among smokers with and without OUD.

Ninety patients without OUD and 47 patients with it were randomly assigned to receive transdermal nicotine replacement therapy with placebo capsules or varenicline capsules with a placebo patch for 12 weeks with 3- and 6-month follow-ups. At baseline, those with OUD were significantly more likely to be white and slightly younger and have twice as many drug use days than those without the disorder.

Differences also existed between those with and without OUD for comorbid alcohol use disorder (55% vs. 81%), marijuana use disorder (32% vs. 19%) and cocaine use disorder (70% vs. 55%).

Those without OUD had slightly greater medication adherence, but with only borderline significance just among those taking varenicline. Loss to follow-up, meanwhile, was significantly greater for those with OUD in both treatment groups.

Most striking was the significantly higher number of drug use days among those with OUD who took varenicline vs. all other groups. Those patients had 16.5 drug use days at 4-6 months’ follow-up, compared with 0.13 days among those with OUD using nicotine replacement therapy (P less than .026). Among those without OUD, nicotine replacement therapy patients had 5 drug use days, and varenicline patients had 2.5 drug use days.

“Given interactions between nicotine and the opioid system and given that [nicotine replacement therapy] binds to more types of nAChRs than varenicline does, it is possible that [nicotine replacement therapy] dampens desire to use opiates compared to varenicline by stimulating more nAChRs,” the authors wrote. “Increasing nicotine dose may be better for smokers with opioid use disorder,” they added, though they noted the small size of the study and the need for replication with larger populations.

The research was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the Department of Veterans Affairs. The authors reported no disclosures.

SAN ANTONIO – Prescription opioid abuse has continued declining since 2011, but opioids remain far more commonly abused than other prescription drugs, including gabapentin and pregabalin, new research shows.

“Both gabapentin and pregabalin are abused but at rates that are 6-56 times less frequent than for opioid analgesics,” wrote Kofi Asomaning, DSci, of Pfizer, and associates at Pfizer and Denver Health’s Rocky Mountain Poison and Drug Center.

“Gabapentin is generally more frequently abused than pregabalin,” they reported in a research poster at the annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence.

The researchers analyzed data from the RADARS System Survey of Non-Medical Use of Prescription Drugs Program (NMURx), the RADARS System Treatment Center Programs Combined, and the American Association of Poison Control Centers National Poison Data System (NPDS).

All those use self-reported data. The first is a confidential, anonymous web-based survey used to estimate population-level prevalence, and the second surveys patients with opioid use disorder entering treatment. The NPDS tracks all cases reported to poison control centers nationally.


Analysis of the NMURx data revealed similar lifetime abuse prevalence rates for gabapentin and pregabalin at 0.4%, several magnitudes lower than the 5.3% rate identified with opioids.

Gabapentin, however, had higher rates of abuse in the past month in the Treatment Center Programs Combined. For the third to fourth quarter of 2017, 0.12 per 100,000 population reportedly abused gabapentin, compared with 0.01 per 100,000 for pregabalin. The rate for past-month abuse of opioids was 0.79 per 100,000.

A similar pattern for the same quarter emerged from the NPDS data: Rate of gabapentin abuse was 0.06 per 100,000, rate for pregabalin was 0.01 per 100,000, and rate for opioids was 0.40 per 100,000.

Both pregabalin and opioids were predominantly ingested, though a very small amount of each was inhaled and a similarly small amount of opioids was injected. Data on exposure route for gabapentin were not provided, though it was used more frequently than pregabalin.

The research was funded by Pfizer. The RADARS system is owned by Denver Health and Hospital Authority under the Colorado state government. RADARS receives some funding from pharmaceutical industry subscriptions. Dr. Asomaning and Diane L. Martire, MD, MPH, are Pfizer employees who have financial interests with Pfizer.

SAN ANTONIO – Prescription opioid abuse has continued declining since 2011, but opioids remain far more commonly abused than other prescription drugs, including gabapentin and pregabalin, new research shows.

“Both gabapentin and pregabalin are abused but at rates that are 6-56 times less frequent than for opioid analgesics,” wrote Kofi Asomaning, DSci, of Pfizer, and associates at Pfizer and Denver Health’s Rocky Mountain Poison and Drug Center.

“Gabapentin is generally more frequently abused than pregabalin,” they reported in a research poster at the annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence.

The researchers analyzed data from the RADARS System Survey of Non-Medical Use of Prescription Drugs Program (NMURx), the RADARS System Treatment Center Programs Combined, and the American Association of Poison Control Centers National Poison Data System (NPDS).

All those use self-reported data. The first is a confidential, anonymous web-based survey used to estimate population-level prevalence, and the second surveys patients with opioid use disorder entering treatment. The NPDS tracks all cases reported to poison control centers nationally.


Analysis of the NMURx data revealed similar lifetime abuse prevalence rates for gabapentin and pregabalin at 0.4%, several magnitudes lower than the 5.3% rate identified with opioids.

Gabapentin, however, had higher rates of abuse in the past month in the Treatment Center Programs Combined. For the third to fourth quarter of 2017, 0.12 per 100,000 population reportedly abused gabapentin, compared with 0.01 per 100,000 for pregabalin. The rate for past-month abuse of opioids was 0.79 per 100,000.

A similar pattern for the same quarter emerged from the NPDS data: Rate of gabapentin abuse was 0.06 per 100,000, rate for pregabalin was 0.01 per 100,000, and rate for opioids was 0.40 per 100,000.

Both pregabalin and opioids were predominantly ingested, though a very small amount of each was inhaled and a similarly small amount of opioids was injected. Data on exposure route for gabapentin were not provided, though it was used more frequently than pregabalin.

The research was funded by Pfizer. The RADARS system is owned by Denver Health and Hospital Authority under the Colorado state government. RADARS receives some funding from pharmaceutical industry subscriptions. Dr. Asomaning and Diane L. Martire, MD, MPH, are Pfizer employees who have financial interests with Pfizer.

SAN ANTONIO – Prescription opioid abuse has continued declining since 2011, but opioids remain far more commonly abused than other prescription drugs, including gabapentin and pregabalin, new research shows.

“Both gabapentin and pregabalin are abused but at rates that are 6-56 times less frequent than for opioid analgesics,” wrote Kofi Asomaning, DSci, of Pfizer, and associates at Pfizer and Denver Health’s Rocky Mountain Poison and Drug Center.

“Gabapentin is generally more frequently abused than pregabalin,” they reported in a research poster at the annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence.

The researchers analyzed data from the RADARS System Survey of Non-Medical Use of Prescription Drugs Program (NMURx), the RADARS System Treatment Center Programs Combined, and the American Association of Poison Control Centers National Poison Data System (NPDS).

All those use self-reported data. The first is a confidential, anonymous web-based survey used to estimate population-level prevalence, and the second surveys patients with opioid use disorder entering treatment. The NPDS tracks all cases reported to poison control centers nationally.


Analysis of the NMURx data revealed similar lifetime abuse prevalence rates for gabapentin and pregabalin at 0.4%, several magnitudes lower than the 5.3% rate identified with opioids.

Gabapentin, however, had higher rates of abuse in the past month in the Treatment Center Programs Combined. For the third to fourth quarter of 2017, 0.12 per 100,000 population reportedly abused gabapentin, compared with 0.01 per 100,000 for pregabalin. The rate for past-month abuse of opioids was 0.79 per 100,000.

A similar pattern for the same quarter emerged from the NPDS data: Rate of gabapentin abuse was 0.06 per 100,000, rate for pregabalin was 0.01 per 100,000, and rate for opioids was 0.40 per 100,000.

Both pregabalin and opioids were predominantly ingested, though a very small amount of each was inhaled and a similarly small amount of opioids was injected. Data on exposure route for gabapentin were not provided, though it was used more frequently than pregabalin.

The research was funded by Pfizer. The RADARS system is owned by Denver Health and Hospital Authority under the Colorado state government. RADARS receives some funding from pharmaceutical industry subscriptions. Dr. Asomaning and Diane L. Martire, MD, MPH, are Pfizer employees who have financial interests with Pfizer.

With record-high cases of measles throughout Europe, U.S. travelers to the region should be up to date on measles immunization and other recommended vaccines, researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend in a Pediatrics special report.

CDC/Molly Kurnit, M.P.H.

More than 41,000 measles cases and 37 deaths – primarily due to low immunization coverage – were reported in the World Health Organization European Region in the first 6 months of 2018, the highest incidence since the 1990s. Typical case counts since 2010 have ranged from 5,000 to 24,000 in this region, wrote Kristina M. Angelo, DO, MPH, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Travelers’ Health Branch in Atlanta, and associates.

France, Italy and Greece – all particularly popular countries for U.S. vacationers to visit – have particularly high numbers of cases, as do Georgia, Russia, Serbia and, comprising the majority of cases, Ukraine. Italy, for example, is the 10th most popular destination worldwide for Americans, with an estimated 2.5 million American visitors in 2015.

“The large number of measles infections in the WHO European Region ... is a global concern because the European continent is the most common travel destination worldwide,” but is not perceived as a place with infectious disease risk. So travelers may not consider the need of a pretravel health consultation, including vaccination, they said.

But they need to, Dr. Angelo and associates state, and health care providers should be vigilant about checking for symptoms of measles among those who have recently returned from overseas. Given how highly contagious measles is, unvaccinated and under vaccinated travelers to Europe are susceptible to infection, as are any people they encounter back in the United States if the travelers come home sick.

Measles was eliminated in the United States in 2000, but that status is in jeopardy, CDC officials recently warned. The number of domestic measles cases has exceeded 1,000 just halfway through 2019, the highest count since 1992, nearly a decade before elimination.

“Avoiding international travel with nonimmune infants and performing early vaccination at 6 to 12 months of age per the ACIP [Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] recommendations if travel is unavoidable are of utmost importance,” Dr. Angelo and colleagues advised. “Other at-risk populations (e.g., immunocompromised individuals and pregnant women), for whom vaccination against the measles virus is contraindicated, may consider alternative destinations or delay travel to measles-endemic destinations or areas with known, ongoing measles outbreaks.”

“Presumptive immunity to measles is defined as 1 or more of the following: birth before 1957, laboratory evidence of immunity or infection, 1 or more doses of a measles containing vaccine administered for preschool-aged children and low-risk adults, or 2 doses of measles vaccine among school-aged children and high-risk adults, including international travelers,” they explained.

In Europe, measles remains endemic in Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, France, Georgia, Germany, Italy, Romania, the Russian Federation, Serbia and the Ukraine, the authors wrote.

“As long as measles remains endemic in other countries, the United States will be challenged by measles importations,” the authors wrote. Yet at least one past study in 2017 revealed a third of U.S. travelers to Europe left the country without being fully vaccinated against measles, most often due to vaccine refusal.

“The reason one-third of travelers to Europe missed an opportunity for measles vaccination remains unclear,” the authors wrote. “It may represent a lack of concern or awareness on the part of travelers and the health care providers about acquiring measles in Europe.”

Dr. Angelo and colleagues also emphasized the importance of returning U.S. travelers seeking health care if they have symptoms of measles, including fever and a rash.

Health care providers should ask all patients about recent international travel, they stated. “If measles is suspected, health care providers should isolate travelers immediately, placing them on airborne precautions until day 4 of the rash.” Providers may consider administering immunoglobulin for unvaccinated and undervaccinated travelers and monitor them for 21 days for development of measles symptoms.

The statement was funded by the CDC. The authors reported no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Angelo KM et al. Pediatrics. 2019 Jun 17. doi: /10.1542/peds.2019-0414.

With record-high cases of measles throughout Europe, U.S. travelers to the region should be up to date on measles immunization and other recommended vaccines, researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend in a Pediatrics special report.

CDC/Molly Kurnit, M.P.H.

More than 41,000 measles cases and 37 deaths – primarily due to low immunization coverage – were reported in the World Health Organization European Region in the first 6 months of 2018, the highest incidence since the 1990s. Typical case counts since 2010 have ranged from 5,000 to 24,000 in this region, wrote Kristina M. Angelo, DO, MPH, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Travelers’ Health Branch in Atlanta, and associates.

France, Italy and Greece – all particularly popular countries for U.S. vacationers to visit – have particularly high numbers of cases, as do Georgia, Russia, Serbia and, comprising the majority of cases, Ukraine. Italy, for example, is the 10th most popular destination worldwide for Americans, with an estimated 2.5 million American visitors in 2015.

“The large number of measles infections in the WHO European Region ... is a global concern because the European continent is the most common travel destination worldwide,” but is not perceived as a place with infectious disease risk. So travelers may not consider the need of a pretravel health consultation, including vaccination, they said.

But they need to, Dr. Angelo and associates state, and health care providers should be vigilant about checking for symptoms of measles among those who have recently returned from overseas. Given how highly contagious measles is, unvaccinated and under vaccinated travelers to Europe are susceptible to infection, as are any people they encounter back in the United States if the travelers come home sick.

Measles was eliminated in the United States in 2000, but that status is in jeopardy, CDC officials recently warned. The number of domestic measles cases has exceeded 1,000 just halfway through 2019, the highest count since 1992, nearly a decade before elimination.

“Avoiding international travel with nonimmune infants and performing early vaccination at 6 to 12 months of age per the ACIP [Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] recommendations if travel is unavoidable are of utmost importance,” Dr. Angelo and colleagues advised. “Other at-risk populations (e.g., immunocompromised individuals and pregnant women), for whom vaccination against the measles virus is contraindicated, may consider alternative destinations or delay travel to measles-endemic destinations or areas with known, ongoing measles outbreaks.”

“Presumptive immunity to measles is defined as 1 or more of the following: birth before 1957, laboratory evidence of immunity or infection, 1 or more doses of a measles containing vaccine administered for preschool-aged children and low-risk adults, or 2 doses of measles vaccine among school-aged children and high-risk adults, including international travelers,” they explained.

In Europe, measles remains endemic in Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, France, Georgia, Germany, Italy, Romania, the Russian Federation, Serbia and the Ukraine, the authors wrote.

“As long as measles remains endemic in other countries, the United States will be challenged by measles importations,” the authors wrote. Yet at least one past study in 2017 revealed a third of U.S. travelers to Europe left the country without being fully vaccinated against measles, most often due to vaccine refusal.

“The reason one-third of travelers to Europe missed an opportunity for measles vaccination remains unclear,” the authors wrote. “It may represent a lack of concern or awareness on the part of travelers and the health care providers about acquiring measles in Europe.”

Dr. Angelo and colleagues also emphasized the importance of returning U.S. travelers seeking health care if they have symptoms of measles, including fever and a rash.

Health care providers should ask all patients about recent international travel, they stated. “If measles is suspected, health care providers should isolate travelers immediately, placing them on airborne precautions until day 4 of the rash.” Providers may consider administering immunoglobulin for unvaccinated and undervaccinated travelers and monitor them for 21 days for development of measles symptoms.

The statement was funded by the CDC. The authors reported no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Angelo KM et al. Pediatrics. 2019 Jun 17. doi: /10.1542/peds.2019-0414.

With record-high cases of measles throughout Europe, U.S. travelers to the region should be up to date on measles immunization and other recommended vaccines, researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend in a Pediatrics special report.

CDC/Molly Kurnit, M.P.H.

More than 41,000 measles cases and 37 deaths – primarily due to low immunization coverage – were reported in the World Health Organization European Region in the first 6 months of 2018, the highest incidence since the 1990s. Typical case counts since 2010 have ranged from 5,000 to 24,000 in this region, wrote Kristina M. Angelo, DO, MPH, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Travelers’ Health Branch in Atlanta, and associates.

France, Italy and Greece – all particularly popular countries for U.S. vacationers to visit – have particularly high numbers of cases, as do Georgia, Russia, Serbia and, comprising the majority of cases, Ukraine. Italy, for example, is the 10th most popular destination worldwide for Americans, with an estimated 2.5 million American visitors in 2015.

“The large number of measles infections in the WHO European Region ... is a global concern because the European continent is the most common travel destination worldwide,” but is not perceived as a place with infectious disease risk. So travelers may not consider the need of a pretravel health consultation, including vaccination, they said.

But they need to, Dr. Angelo and associates state, and health care providers should be vigilant about checking for symptoms of measles among those who have recently returned from overseas. Given how highly contagious measles is, unvaccinated and under vaccinated travelers to Europe are susceptible to infection, as are any people they encounter back in the United States if the travelers come home sick.

Measles was eliminated in the United States in 2000, but that status is in jeopardy, CDC officials recently warned. The number of domestic measles cases has exceeded 1,000 just halfway through 2019, the highest count since 1992, nearly a decade before elimination.

“Avoiding international travel with nonimmune infants and performing early vaccination at 6 to 12 months of age per the ACIP [Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] recommendations if travel is unavoidable are of utmost importance,” Dr. Angelo and colleagues advised. “Other at-risk populations (e.g., immunocompromised individuals and pregnant women), for whom vaccination against the measles virus is contraindicated, may consider alternative destinations or delay travel to measles-endemic destinations or areas with known, ongoing measles outbreaks.”

“Presumptive immunity to measles is defined as 1 or more of the following: birth before 1957, laboratory evidence of immunity or infection, 1 or more doses of a measles containing vaccine administered for preschool-aged children and low-risk adults, or 2 doses of measles vaccine among school-aged children and high-risk adults, including international travelers,” they explained.

In Europe, measles remains endemic in Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, France, Georgia, Germany, Italy, Romania, the Russian Federation, Serbia and the Ukraine, the authors wrote.

“As long as measles remains endemic in other countries, the United States will be challenged by measles importations,” the authors wrote. Yet at least one past study in 2017 revealed a third of U.S. travelers to Europe left the country without being fully vaccinated against measles, most often due to vaccine refusal.

“The reason one-third of travelers to Europe missed an opportunity for measles vaccination remains unclear,” the authors wrote. “It may represent a lack of concern or awareness on the part of travelers and the health care providers about acquiring measles in Europe.”

Dr. Angelo and colleagues also emphasized the importance of returning U.S. travelers seeking health care if they have symptoms of measles, including fever and a rash.

Health care providers should ask all patients about recent international travel, they stated. “If measles is suspected, health care providers should isolate travelers immediately, placing them on airborne precautions until day 4 of the rash.” Providers may consider administering immunoglobulin for unvaccinated and undervaccinated travelers and monitor them for 21 days for development of measles symptoms.

The statement was funded by the CDC. The authors reported no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Angelo KM et al. Pediatrics. 2019 Jun 17. doi: /10.1542/peds.2019-0414.

BALTIMORE – Pediatricians appear less comfortable discussing e-cigarettes and their harms with adolescents and parents than they do discussing dangers of tobacco products, according to a recent study.

LiudmylaSupynska/Thinkstock

“Providers are aware of the increased prevalence, harms [of e-cigs] and [the] positive impact of counseling teens about e-cigs,” said Allison Heinly, MD, of Hasbro Children’s Hospital in Providence, R.I., and her colleagues. But, “providers are less likely to ask, advise, or assist parents [and teens] regarding e-cig use, compared to tobacco, and are less comfortable doing so.” The researchers presented their findings at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.

A variety of concerns exist regarding ingredients in e-cigarettes, Dr. Heinly noted, including nicotine, volatile organic compounds, carcinogenic chemicals, flavorings, and ultra-fine particles.

Dr. Heinly and her associates aimed to assess pediatricians’ knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors toward both teens’ and parents’ use of e-cigarettes, as well as the barrier pediatricians perceived when it came to screening and counseling those who use e-cigarettes.

Among 69 providers at a large Northeastern urban academic primary care clinic who received surveys, 62 responded, primarily residents (84%). The respondents included 44 pediatric residents, eight triple-board residents, and 10 attending physicians.

The researchers collapsed “most of the time”/“always” and “some of the time”/“never” responses into two categories.

Most of the respondents (82%) knew e-cigarettes are the most common tobacco product that youth use, and nearly all (97%) believed e-cigarettes were addictive and harmful to users’ health. In addition, most (79%) believed using e-cigarettes could be a pathway toward students beginning to use other drugs.

Even though respondents believed counseling teens about use of tobacco or e-cigarettes can reduce the likelihood that they will start using them, providers were much less likely to discuss e-cigarettes than tobacco with teens.

Nearly all the doctors (97%) reported asking teens about their use of tobacco, but only about half (52%) asked about e-cigarette use (P less than .001). And only about one in five doctors (21%) reported counseling teens about using e-cigarettes, compared with 47% of those who advised teens regarding tobacco use (P = .002).

Over a third of responding physicians (37%) reported helping adolescent patients quit using tobacco, but just 7% reported doing so with e-cigarettes (P less than .001).

Doctors overwhelmingly reported feeling comfortable talking about tobacco with teens (98%), but fewer felt comfortable discussing e-cigarettes (77%; P less than .001). Respondents similarly were less comfortable discussing e-cigarettes (55%) than tobacco (87%) with parents (P less than .001).

Very few pediatricians asked parents about their use of e-cigarettes (5%) or advised them about e-cigarettes’ harms (7%), and even fewer reported helping parents quit using them (2%). By contrast, more than half of pediatricians (60%) asked parents about smoking or advised them about tobacco use harms (52%), and nearly one-third (31%) reported helping parents quit smoking (P less than .001 for all comparisons).

The biggest barrier to discussing e-cigarettes with families was, as with discussing tobacco, not having enough time. But about twice as many respondents cited insufficient knowledge as a barrier for e-cigarettes as for tobacco (P = .003). A small percentage of respondents (less than 20%) also reported feeling unsure about the harm of e-cigarettes (P = .001).

Lack of training was a significant barrier to physicians’ discussion of e-cigarettes as well. Many more physicians reported receiving training in medical school on tobacco and traditional cigarettes (78%) than on e-cigarettes (13%), possibly because of how recently e-cigarettes have become widely available (P less than .001).

More physicians reported receiving training related to e-cigarettes during residency (36%), but it still fell well short of how many reported other tobacco and smoking training during residency (61%; P = .001).

The findings “emphasize the importance of increasing training about e-cig counseling,” Dr. Heinly and her associates concluded.

The researchers noted no external funding or disclosures.

BALTIMORE – Pediatricians appear less comfortable discussing e-cigarettes and their harms with adolescents and parents than they do discussing dangers of tobacco products, according to a recent study.

LiudmylaSupynska/Thinkstock

“Providers are aware of the increased prevalence, harms [of e-cigs] and [the] positive impact of counseling teens about e-cigs,” said Allison Heinly, MD, of Hasbro Children’s Hospital in Providence, R.I., and her colleagues. But, “providers are less likely to ask, advise, or assist parents [and teens] regarding e-cig use, compared to tobacco, and are less comfortable doing so.” The researchers presented their findings at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.

A variety of concerns exist regarding ingredients in e-cigarettes, Dr. Heinly noted, including nicotine, volatile organic compounds, carcinogenic chemicals, flavorings, and ultra-fine particles.

Dr. Heinly and her associates aimed to assess pediatricians’ knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors toward both teens’ and parents’ use of e-cigarettes, as well as the barrier pediatricians perceived when it came to screening and counseling those who use e-cigarettes.

Among 69 providers at a large Northeastern urban academic primary care clinic who received surveys, 62 responded, primarily residents (84%). The respondents included 44 pediatric residents, eight triple-board residents, and 10 attending physicians.

The researchers collapsed “most of the time”/“always” and “some of the time”/“never” responses into two categories.

Most of the respondents (82%) knew e-cigarettes are the most common tobacco product that youth use, and nearly all (97%) believed e-cigarettes were addictive and harmful to users’ health. In addition, most (79%) believed using e-cigarettes could be a pathway toward students beginning to use other drugs.

Even though respondents believed counseling teens about use of tobacco or e-cigarettes can reduce the likelihood that they will start using them, providers were much less likely to discuss e-cigarettes than tobacco with teens.

Nearly all the doctors (97%) reported asking teens about their use of tobacco, but only about half (52%) asked about e-cigarette use (P less than .001). And only about one in five doctors (21%) reported counseling teens about using e-cigarettes, compared with 47% of those who advised teens regarding tobacco use (P = .002).

Over a third of responding physicians (37%) reported helping adolescent patients quit using tobacco, but just 7% reported doing so with e-cigarettes (P less than .001).

Doctors overwhelmingly reported feeling comfortable talking about tobacco with teens (98%), but fewer felt comfortable discussing e-cigarettes (77%; P less than .001). Respondents similarly were less comfortable discussing e-cigarettes (55%) than tobacco (87%) with parents (P less than .001).

Very few pediatricians asked parents about their use of e-cigarettes (5%) or advised them about e-cigarettes’ harms (7%), and even fewer reported helping parents quit using them (2%). By contrast, more than half of pediatricians (60%) asked parents about smoking or advised them about tobacco use harms (52%), and nearly one-third (31%) reported helping parents quit smoking (P less than .001 for all comparisons).

The biggest barrier to discussing e-cigarettes with families was, as with discussing tobacco, not having enough time. But about twice as many respondents cited insufficient knowledge as a barrier for e-cigarettes as for tobacco (P = .003). A small percentage of respondents (less than 20%) also reported feeling unsure about the harm of e-cigarettes (P = .001).

Lack of training was a significant barrier to physicians’ discussion of e-cigarettes as well. Many more physicians reported receiving training in medical school on tobacco and traditional cigarettes (78%) than on e-cigarettes (13%), possibly because of how recently e-cigarettes have become widely available (P less than .001).

More physicians reported receiving training related to e-cigarettes during residency (36%), but it still fell well short of how many reported other tobacco and smoking training during residency (61%; P = .001).

The findings “emphasize the importance of increasing training about e-cig counseling,” Dr. Heinly and her associates concluded.

The researchers noted no external funding or disclosures.

BALTIMORE – Pediatricians appear less comfortable discussing e-cigarettes and their harms with adolescents and parents than they do discussing dangers of tobacco products, according to a recent study.

LiudmylaSupynska/Thinkstock

“Providers are aware of the increased prevalence, harms [of e-cigs] and [the] positive impact of counseling teens about e-cigs,” said Allison Heinly, MD, of Hasbro Children’s Hospital in Providence, R.I., and her colleagues. But, “providers are less likely to ask, advise, or assist parents [and teens] regarding e-cig use, compared to tobacco, and are less comfortable doing so.” The researchers presented their findings at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.

A variety of concerns exist regarding ingredients in e-cigarettes, Dr. Heinly noted, including nicotine, volatile organic compounds, carcinogenic chemicals, flavorings, and ultra-fine particles.

Dr. Heinly and her associates aimed to assess pediatricians’ knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors toward both teens’ and parents’ use of e-cigarettes, as well as the barrier pediatricians perceived when it came to screening and counseling those who use e-cigarettes.

Among 69 providers at a large Northeastern urban academic primary care clinic who received surveys, 62 responded, primarily residents (84%). The respondents included 44 pediatric residents, eight triple-board residents, and 10 attending physicians.

The researchers collapsed “most of the time”/“always” and “some of the time”/“never” responses into two categories.

Most of the respondents (82%) knew e-cigarettes are the most common tobacco product that youth use, and nearly all (97%) believed e-cigarettes were addictive and harmful to users’ health. In addition, most (79%) believed using e-cigarettes could be a pathway toward students beginning to use other drugs.

Even though respondents believed counseling teens about use of tobacco or e-cigarettes can reduce the likelihood that they will start using them, providers were much less likely to discuss e-cigarettes than tobacco with teens.

Nearly all the doctors (97%) reported asking teens about their use of tobacco, but only about half (52%) asked about e-cigarette use (P less than .001). And only about one in five doctors (21%) reported counseling teens about using e-cigarettes, compared with 47% of those who advised teens regarding tobacco use (P = .002).

Over a third of responding physicians (37%) reported helping adolescent patients quit using tobacco, but just 7% reported doing so with e-cigarettes (P less than .001).

Doctors overwhelmingly reported feeling comfortable talking about tobacco with teens (98%), but fewer felt comfortable discussing e-cigarettes (77%; P less than .001). Respondents similarly were less comfortable discussing e-cigarettes (55%) than tobacco (87%) with parents (P less than .001).

Very few pediatricians asked parents about their use of e-cigarettes (5%) or advised them about e-cigarettes’ harms (7%), and even fewer reported helping parents quit using them (2%). By contrast, more than half of pediatricians (60%) asked parents about smoking or advised them about tobacco use harms (52%), and nearly one-third (31%) reported helping parents quit smoking (P less than .001 for all comparisons).

The biggest barrier to discussing e-cigarettes with families was, as with discussing tobacco, not having enough time. But about twice as many respondents cited insufficient knowledge as a barrier for e-cigarettes as for tobacco (P = .003). A small percentage of respondents (less than 20%) also reported feeling unsure about the harm of e-cigarettes (P = .001).

Lack of training was a significant barrier to physicians’ discussion of e-cigarettes as well. Many more physicians reported receiving training in medical school on tobacco and traditional cigarettes (78%) than on e-cigarettes (13%), possibly because of how recently e-cigarettes have become widely available (P less than .001).

More physicians reported receiving training related to e-cigarettes during residency (36%), but it still fell well short of how many reported other tobacco and smoking training during residency (61%; P = .001).

The findings “emphasize the importance of increasing training about e-cig counseling,” Dr. Heinly and her associates concluded.

The researchers noted no external funding or disclosures.

BALTIMORE – The biggest barrier to asthma care in public schools is students not having an albuterol inhaler with them, frequently because the parent did not provide an inhaler or did not provide a written order for one, according to new research. Only seven U.S. states have laws allowing schools to stock albuterol for students.

pelvidge/thinkstockphotos.com

“Most students only have access to this lifesaving medication when they bring a personal inhaler,” Alexandra M. Sims, MD, of Children’s National Hospital in Washington and colleagues wrote in their abstract at the annual meeting of Pediatric Academic Societies. “Interventions that address medication availability may be an important step in removing obstacles to asthma care in school.”

One such option is a stock inhaler available for any students to use. National guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend that students with asthma have access to inhaled albuterol at school, yet most states do not have legislation related to albuterol stocking in schools, according to the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America.

Not having access to rescue inhaler medication at school contributes to lost class time and referrals to the emergency department, the authors note in their background information. Yet, “in most U.S. jurisdictions, including the school district we examined, students need both a personal albuterol inhaler and a physician order to receive medication at school.”

To determine what barriers exist regarding students’ asthma care in schools, the authors sent 166 school nurses in an urban school district an anonymous survey during the 2015-2016 school year. The survey asked about 21 factors that could delay or prevent students from returning to class and asked nurses’ agreement or disagreement with 25 additional statements.

The 130 respondents made up a 78% response rate. The institutions represented by the nurses included 44% elementary schools, 9% middle schools, 16% high schools, and 32% other (such as those who may serve multiple schools).

The majority of respondents (72%) agreed that asthma is one of the biggest health problems students face, particularly among middle and high school students (P less than .05). Most (74%) also said an albuterol inhaler at school could reduce the likelihood of students with asthma needing to leave school early.

The largest barrier to students returning to class was parents not providing an albuterol inhaler and/or a written order for an inhaler despite a request from the nurse, according to 69% of the respondents (P less than .05). In high schools in particular, another barrier was students simply not bringing their inhaler to school even though they usually carry one (P less than .01).

Only 15% of nurses saw disease severity as a significant barrier, and 17% cited the staff not adequately recognizing a student’s symptoms.

The researchers did not note use of external funding or author disclosures.

BALTIMORE – The biggest barrier to asthma care in public schools is students not having an albuterol inhaler with them, frequently because the parent did not provide an inhaler or did not provide a written order for one, according to new research. Only seven U.S. states have laws allowing schools to stock albuterol for students.

pelvidge/thinkstockphotos.com

“Most students only have access to this lifesaving medication when they bring a personal inhaler,” Alexandra M. Sims, MD, of Children’s National Hospital in Washington and colleagues wrote in their abstract at the annual meeting of Pediatric Academic Societies. “Interventions that address medication availability may be an important step in removing obstacles to asthma care in school.”

One such option is a stock inhaler available for any students to use. National guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend that students with asthma have access to inhaled albuterol at school, yet most states do not have legislation related to albuterol stocking in schools, according to the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America.

Not having access to rescue inhaler medication at school contributes to lost class time and referrals to the emergency department, the authors note in their background information. Yet, “in most U.S. jurisdictions, including the school district we examined, students need both a personal albuterol inhaler and a physician order to receive medication at school.”

To determine what barriers exist regarding students’ asthma care in schools, the authors sent 166 school nurses in an urban school district an anonymous survey during the 2015-2016 school year. The survey asked about 21 factors that could delay or prevent students from returning to class and asked nurses’ agreement or disagreement with 25 additional statements.

The 130 respondents made up a 78% response rate. The institutions represented by the nurses included 44% elementary schools, 9% middle schools, 16% high schools, and 32% other (such as those who may serve multiple schools).

The majority of respondents (72%) agreed that asthma is one of the biggest health problems students face, particularly among middle and high school students (P less than .05). Most (74%) also said an albuterol inhaler at school could reduce the likelihood of students with asthma needing to leave school early.

The largest barrier to students returning to class was parents not providing an albuterol inhaler and/or a written order for an inhaler despite a request from the nurse, according to 69% of the respondents (P less than .05). In high schools in particular, another barrier was students simply not bringing their inhaler to school even though they usually carry one (P less than .01).

Only 15% of nurses saw disease severity as a significant barrier, and 17% cited the staff not adequately recognizing a student’s symptoms.

The researchers did not note use of external funding or author disclosures.

BALTIMORE – The biggest barrier to asthma care in public schools is students not having an albuterol inhaler with them, frequently because the parent did not provide an inhaler or did not provide a written order for one, according to new research. Only seven U.S. states have laws allowing schools to stock albuterol for students.

pelvidge/thinkstockphotos.com

“Most students only have access to this lifesaving medication when they bring a personal inhaler,” Alexandra M. Sims, MD, of Children’s National Hospital in Washington and colleagues wrote in their abstract at the annual meeting of Pediatric Academic Societies. “Interventions that address medication availability may be an important step in removing obstacles to asthma care in school.”

One such option is a stock inhaler available for any students to use. National guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend that students with asthma have access to inhaled albuterol at school, yet most states do not have legislation related to albuterol stocking in schools, according to the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America.

Not having access to rescue inhaler medication at school contributes to lost class time and referrals to the emergency department, the authors note in their background information. Yet, “in most U.S. jurisdictions, including the school district we examined, students need both a personal albuterol inhaler and a physician order to receive medication at school.”

To determine what barriers exist regarding students’ asthma care in schools, the authors sent 166 school nurses in an urban school district an anonymous survey during the 2015-2016 school year. The survey asked about 21 factors that could delay or prevent students from returning to class and asked nurses’ agreement or disagreement with 25 additional statements.

The 130 respondents made up a 78% response rate. The institutions represented by the nurses included 44% elementary schools, 9% middle schools, 16% high schools, and 32% other (such as those who may serve multiple schools).

The majority of respondents (72%) agreed that asthma is one of the biggest health problems students face, particularly among middle and high school students (P less than .05). Most (74%) also said an albuterol inhaler at school could reduce the likelihood of students with asthma needing to leave school early.

The largest barrier to students returning to class was parents not providing an albuterol inhaler and/or a written order for an inhaler despite a request from the nurse, according to 69% of the respondents (P less than .05). In high schools in particular, another barrier was students simply not bringing their inhaler to school even though they usually carry one (P less than .01).

Only 15% of nurses saw disease severity as a significant barrier, and 17% cited the staff not adequately recognizing a student’s symptoms.

The researchers did not note use of external funding or author disclosures.

BALTIMORE – Experiencing panic-fear during asthma exacerbations predicted several beneficial outcomes in Mexican and Puerto Rican children with asthma, according to new research.

Tara Haelle/MDedge News

“When kids are anxious specifically during their asthma attacks, that can be a good thing because it means that they’re more vigilant,” lead author Jonathan M. Feldman, PhD, of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine’s Children’s Hospital at Montefiore and of Yeshiva University in the New York said in an interview. “They may be more likely to react during the early stages of an attack, and they may be more likely to be using self-management strategies at home and using their controller medications on a daily basis.”

He said pediatric providers can ask their patients with asthma how they feel during asthma attacks, such as whether they ever feel scared or worried.

“If a kid says no, not at all, then I would be concerned as a provider because they may not be paying attention to their asthma symptoms and they may not be taking it seriously,” Dr. Feldman said.

Past research has suggested that “illness-specific panic-fear” – the amount of anxiety someone experiences during asthma exacerbations – helps adults develop adaptive asthma management strategies, so Dr. Feldman and his colleagues examined the phenomenon as a potential protective factor in children. They shared their findings at the annual meeting of the Pediatric Academic Societies.

The research focused on Puerto Rican (n = 79) and Mexican (n = 188) children because of the substantial disparity in asthma prevalence and control between these two different Latino populations. Puerto Rican children have the highest asthma prevalence and morbidity among American children, whereas Mexican children have the lowest rates.

The 267 participants, aged 5-12 years, included 110 children from two inner-city hospitals in the New York and 157 children from two school-based health clinics and a Breathmobile in Phoenix. Nearly all the Arizona children were Mexican, and most (71%) of the Bronx children were Puerto Rican.

The authors collected the following measures at baseline and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months follow-up: spirometry (forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV₁]), Childhood Asthma Control Test (CACT) for children 5-11 years old, the Asthma Control Test (ACT) for 12-year-olds, adherence to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), and acute health care utilizations (clinic sick visits, ED visits, and hospitalizations).

The authors also queried patients on four illness-specific panic-fear measures from the Childhood Asthma Symptoms Checklist: how often they felt frightened, panicky, afraid of being alone, and afraid of dying during an asthma attack (Likert 1-5 scale).

Mexican children reported higher levels of illness-specific panic-fear at the start of the study. They also tended to have lower severity of asthma, better asthma control, and better adherence to ICS, compared with Puerto Rican children.

Also at baseline, the Mexican children’s caregivers tended to be younger, poorer, and more likely to be married and to speak Spanish. The Puerto Rican caregivers, on the other hand, had a higher educational level, including 61% high school graduates, and had more depressive symptoms on the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D).

One-year data revealed several links between baseline reports of panic-fear and better outcomes. Mexican children who reported experiencing panic-fear at baseline were more likely to have higher FEV₁ measures at 1 year of follow-up than were those who didn’t experience panic-fear (P = .02). Similarly, Puerto Rican children initially reporting panic-fear had better asthma control at 1 year, compared with those who didn’t report panic-fear (P = .007).

The researchers reported their effect sizes in terms of predicted variance in a model that accounted for the child’s age, sex, asthma duration, asthma severity, social support, acculturation, health care provider relationship, and number of family members with asthma. The model also factored in the caregiver’s age, sex, marital status, poverty level, education, and depressive symptoms.

For example, in their model, experiencing panic-fear accounted for 67% of the variance in FEV₁ levels in Mexican children and 53% of the variance in asthma control in Puerto Rican children.

Less acute health care utilization also was associated with children’s baseline levels of illness-specific panic-fear. In the model, 12% of the variance in acute health care utilization among Mexican children (P = .03) and 41% of the variance among Puerto Rican children (P = .02) was explained by child-reported panic-fear. No association was seen with medication adherence.

Although caregivers’ reports of children feeling panic-fear were linked to better FEV₁ outcomes in Mexican children (P = .02), the association was only slightly significant in Puerto Rican children (P = .05). Caregiver reports of children’s panic-fear were not associated with asthma control, acute health care utilization, or medication adherence.

“Providers should be aware that anxiety focused on asthma may be beneficial and facilitate adaptive asthma management strategies,” the authors concluded.

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health. The authors reported no relevant financial disclosures.

BALTIMORE – Experiencing panic-fear during asthma exacerbations predicted several beneficial outcomes in Mexican and Puerto Rican children with asthma, according to new research.

Tara Haelle/MDedge News

“When kids are anxious specifically during their asthma attacks, that can be a good thing because it means that they’re more vigilant,” lead author Jonathan M. Feldman, PhD, of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine’s Children’s Hospital at Montefiore and of Yeshiva University in the New York said in an interview. “They may be more likely to react during the early stages of an attack, and they may be more likely to be using self-management strategies at home and using their controller medications on a daily basis.”

He said pediatric providers can ask their patients with asthma how they feel during asthma attacks, such as whether they ever feel scared or worried.

“If a kid says no, not at all, then I would be concerned as a provider because they may not be paying attention to their asthma symptoms and they may not be taking it seriously,” Dr. Feldman said.

Past research has suggested that “illness-specific panic-fear” – the amount of anxiety someone experiences during asthma exacerbations – helps adults develop adaptive asthma management strategies, so Dr. Feldman and his colleagues examined the phenomenon as a potential protective factor in children. They shared their findings at the annual meeting of the Pediatric Academic Societies.

The research focused on Puerto Rican (n = 79) and Mexican (n = 188) children because of the substantial disparity in asthma prevalence and control between these two different Latino populations. Puerto Rican children have the highest asthma prevalence and morbidity among American children, whereas Mexican children have the lowest rates.

The 267 participants, aged 5-12 years, included 110 children from two inner-city hospitals in the New York and 157 children from two school-based health clinics and a Breathmobile in Phoenix. Nearly all the Arizona children were Mexican, and most (71%) of the Bronx children were Puerto Rican.

The authors collected the following measures at baseline and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months follow-up: spirometry (forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV₁]), Childhood Asthma Control Test (CACT) for children 5-11 years old, the Asthma Control Test (ACT) for 12-year-olds, adherence to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), and acute health care utilizations (clinic sick visits, ED visits, and hospitalizations).

The authors also queried patients on four illness-specific panic-fear measures from the Childhood Asthma Symptoms Checklist: how often they felt frightened, panicky, afraid of being alone, and afraid of dying during an asthma attack (Likert 1-5 scale).

Mexican children reported higher levels of illness-specific panic-fear at the start of the study. They also tended to have lower severity of asthma, better asthma control, and better adherence to ICS, compared with Puerto Rican children.

Also at baseline, the Mexican children’s caregivers tended to be younger, poorer, and more likely to be married and to speak Spanish. The Puerto Rican caregivers, on the other hand, had a higher educational level, including 61% high school graduates, and had more depressive symptoms on the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D).

One-year data revealed several links between baseline reports of panic-fear and better outcomes. Mexican children who reported experiencing panic-fear at baseline were more likely to have higher FEV₁ measures at 1 year of follow-up than were those who didn’t experience panic-fear (P = .02). Similarly, Puerto Rican children initially reporting panic-fear had better asthma control at 1 year, compared with those who didn’t report panic-fear (P = .007).

The researchers reported their effect sizes in terms of predicted variance in a model that accounted for the child’s age, sex, asthma duration, asthma severity, social support, acculturation, health care provider relationship, and number of family members with asthma. The model also factored in the caregiver’s age, sex, marital status, poverty level, education, and depressive symptoms.

For example, in their model, experiencing panic-fear accounted for 67% of the variance in FEV₁ levels in Mexican children and 53% of the variance in asthma control in Puerto Rican children.

Less acute health care utilization also was associated with children’s baseline levels of illness-specific panic-fear. In the model, 12% of the variance in acute health care utilization among Mexican children (P = .03) and 41% of the variance among Puerto Rican children (P = .02) was explained by child-reported panic-fear. No association was seen with medication adherence.

Although caregivers’ reports of children feeling panic-fear were linked to better FEV₁ outcomes in Mexican children (P = .02), the association was only slightly significant in Puerto Rican children (P = .05). Caregiver reports of children’s panic-fear were not associated with asthma control, acute health care utilization, or medication adherence.

“Providers should be aware that anxiety focused on asthma may be beneficial and facilitate adaptive asthma management strategies,” the authors concluded.

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health. The authors reported no relevant financial disclosures.

BALTIMORE – Experiencing panic-fear during asthma exacerbations predicted several beneficial outcomes in Mexican and Puerto Rican children with asthma, according to new research.

Tara Haelle/MDedge News

“When kids are anxious specifically during their asthma attacks, that can be a good thing because it means that they’re more vigilant,” lead author Jonathan M. Feldman, PhD, of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine’s Children’s Hospital at Montefiore and of Yeshiva University in the New York said in an interview. “They may be more likely to react during the early stages of an attack, and they may be more likely to be using self-management strategies at home and using their controller medications on a daily basis.”

He said pediatric providers can ask their patients with asthma how they feel during asthma attacks, such as whether they ever feel scared or worried.

“If a kid says no, not at all, then I would be concerned as a provider because they may not be paying attention to their asthma symptoms and they may not be taking it seriously,” Dr. Feldman said.

Past research has suggested that “illness-specific panic-fear” – the amount of anxiety someone experiences during asthma exacerbations – helps adults develop adaptive asthma management strategies, so Dr. Feldman and his colleagues examined the phenomenon as a potential protective factor in children. They shared their findings at the annual meeting of the Pediatric Academic Societies.

The research focused on Puerto Rican (n = 79) and Mexican (n = 188) children because of the substantial disparity in asthma prevalence and control between these two different Latino populations. Puerto Rican children have the highest asthma prevalence and morbidity among American children, whereas Mexican children have the lowest rates.

The 267 participants, aged 5-12 years, included 110 children from two inner-city hospitals in the New York and 157 children from two school-based health clinics and a Breathmobile in Phoenix. Nearly all the Arizona children were Mexican, and most (71%) of the Bronx children were Puerto Rican.

The authors collected the following measures at baseline and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months follow-up: spirometry (forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV₁]), Childhood Asthma Control Test (CACT) for children 5-11 years old, the Asthma Control Test (ACT) for 12-year-olds, adherence to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), and acute health care utilizations (clinic sick visits, ED visits, and hospitalizations).

The authors also queried patients on four illness-specific panic-fear measures from the Childhood Asthma Symptoms Checklist: how often they felt frightened, panicky, afraid of being alone, and afraid of dying during an asthma attack (Likert 1-5 scale).

Mexican children reported higher levels of illness-specific panic-fear at the start of the study. They also tended to have lower severity of asthma, better asthma control, and better adherence to ICS, compared with Puerto Rican children.

Also at baseline, the Mexican children’s caregivers tended to be younger, poorer, and more likely to be married and to speak Spanish. The Puerto Rican caregivers, on the other hand, had a higher educational level, including 61% high school graduates, and had more depressive symptoms on the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D).

One-year data revealed several links between baseline reports of panic-fear and better outcomes. Mexican children who reported experiencing panic-fear at baseline were more likely to have higher FEV₁ measures at 1 year of follow-up than were those who didn’t experience panic-fear (P = .02). Similarly, Puerto Rican children initially reporting panic-fear had better asthma control at 1 year, compared with those who didn’t report panic-fear (P = .007).

The researchers reported their effect sizes in terms of predicted variance in a model that accounted for the child’s age, sex, asthma duration, asthma severity, social support, acculturation, health care provider relationship, and number of family members with asthma. The model also factored in the caregiver’s age, sex, marital status, poverty level, education, and depressive symptoms.

For example, in their model, experiencing panic-fear accounted for 67% of the variance in FEV₁ levels in Mexican children and 53% of the variance in asthma control in Puerto Rican children.

Less acute health care utilization also was associated with children’s baseline levels of illness-specific panic-fear. In the model, 12% of the variance in acute health care utilization among Mexican children (P = .03) and 41% of the variance among Puerto Rican children (P = .02) was explained by child-reported panic-fear. No association was seen with medication adherence.

Although caregivers’ reports of children feeling panic-fear were linked to better FEV₁ outcomes in Mexican children (P = .02), the association was only slightly significant in Puerto Rican children (P = .05). Caregiver reports of children’s panic-fear were not associated with asthma control, acute health care utilization, or medication adherence.

“Providers should be aware that anxiety focused on asthma may be beneficial and facilitate adaptive asthma management strategies,” the authors concluded.

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health. The authors reported no relevant financial disclosures.